Assuming tripod given 5 stops overexposed on slow film,
try taking the same overall exposure time as your film shot, and shooting a sequence of repeated images at the longest exposure that does not clip the highlights (stay safely below). Combine the series with a median filter. Push the curves slider in ways you never thought possible.
That's in essence how hdr+ on Google's phone app works. I've used the technique and similar for high dynamic range microscopy. Depending on workflow, a little time intensive, so a technique reserved for the demanding stuff. Then again, developing film with such a pull process isn't fun either.
But Sony's sensors are freaking awesome and Canon not far behind, so keep that in mind. Only technical niche I see for film is large large format. For expression, whatever fits ones vision is fine.
Whoof that's a monitor. Of course your paying for the traceability not the monitor itself.
I've only played with some of the AdobeRGB gamut with 1:1000 contrast when dialed in, along with my old wide gamut from '08 that's still chugging along. Plenty of shots that look ruined from blown out on the monitor look just fine or favorable to film when both are printed. Obviously not a matched comparison.
I think I have mentioned before I am a huge fan of Ansel Adams' work. But only his original prints cut it.
Daniel,
Yep, you’re bang on the money with everything you are saying here. I started working in HDR (good heavens - with film!) over 25 years ago, long before HDR even had a name, and you are right, each generation of digital light capture sensors get better and better. The goal being to get the feel of film but without the hassle - somewhat analogous with current ultra high definition downloadable music audio, and wax cylinders. 🙂
One day digital HDR will become obsolete..........
ToS
Tos--Mind you, that's a different form than "traditional" HDR. At this point, the overall contrast a lens delivers, even at the otus level, is getting on par with the DR of the better sensors. So the stacked exposure HDR is obsolete, in all honesty. Binning and median filtering for noise does a lot to clean up the shadows without all the halos and garbage of HDR processing.
Or you can get into Bayer drizzle, even with decimation and downsampling, but I'm far enough along into scientific imaging techniques...
Or you can get into Bayer drizzle, even with decimation and downsampling, but I'm far enough along into scientific imaging techniques...
Mr Wurcer,
Wow, that is a really nice thing to say, I am a huge fan of the European style of Romantic painting, and have been told this before. You are now my new best friend. 😛
ToS
Daniel,
You are a better man than I........actually, I am working with a high dynamic range multi frame panoramic PINHOLE rig, that weighs about 30lbs, and it is the accumulation of artefacts in the image that fascinate me. I did the whole ‘sharp shiny objects in sharp shiny light’ thing when I was a pro shooter, and have now gone completely the other way. Every single picture I work on is different, and what with seven different software packages in my workflow, I can and do chuck everything at a picture including the kitchen sink. What I am working on right now is a real pig, so I’m taking frequent breaks writing these posts so as to encourage my lateral thinking, and thanks to you guys, I’m getting there.
ToS
Pavel, what do-you think ? That a sound engineer is not in concern with sound reproduction ? It is the basis of his work.
You can try what you want, there is never tow things identical in the whole universe.
A musician will never play the same way two times. An amp will never sound on a given speaker exactly like an other one. Two different speakers will not reproduce what's out of an amp the same.
About recording and transparency of the reproduction, I think it is a pure phantasm.
Our eye is constantly exploring the different parts of a landscape, adapting at each moment its focus, sensitivity and color balance to the point he is focused on, and our brain re-create an image of all those feelings, (including distances) that never exists as it in the reality and, so will never being reproduced on a screen or a paper. Not to forget that our captors are linear and our senses logarithmic.
It is the same when you listen to a concert. We constantly filtrate what we listen to focus on something, filtering what is out. We constantly explore other parts of the sources, moving our heads, including the depth and feeling of distance. Not to forget the modification of the other senses adds to this experience.
And our brain reconstruct a feeling of something that a mike will never be able to capture because it has never existed as it.
When two people in the same concert will not hear the same things the same way. How could -you expect a mike can do-it ?
Our reproducing systems do not reproduce the space as it is in real life. Once it is put on a flat media, it is too late. Flattened like a photography. Even if we could build a perfect speaker, it will never reproduce the music as a real instrument, because a piano has not at all the same directivity than a guitar. because a room will never reproduce the space as it was in an other.
The work of a sound engineer is, like the photographer, to use all this poor electro-acoustic technology to make the public recognize as much as possible the instruments, trying their best for the emotions that pass directly between the musician and the listener, witch is something different from sounds, will not be too much lost in all this mud and make believe cooking recipes. Like synthetic perfumes.
Understanding this, your quest of designing amps that will deteriorate as less as possible this 'transmission' is highly valuable. But don't talk me of transparency. And don't believe you will never succeed: The only place and equipments where a listener will have the same experience than the original creators is the studio in witch the record has been mixed, at the same listening level, whatever bad is the amplifier in the monitoring system. If your amp is less distorted or differently, you will miss this goal of transparency.
Do your best with what you believe, like all of us, but do not think you are the keeper of any truth that do not exists.
BTW: the mastering is not supposed to modify what the musicians, producers and sound engineers had *created* together. Just ensure that there will be as less deterioration of quality as possible during the change of the media format. A pure technical process. Unless there is big mistakes done, because the monitoring of the studio were too far away from an average system, a notion and experience that he is supposed to master. Changing slightly the tonal balance, ok, adding or removing anything, altering the sounds ? Criminal.
You can try what you want, there is never tow things identical in the whole universe.
A musician will never play the same way two times. An amp will never sound on a given speaker exactly like an other one. Two different speakers will not reproduce what's out of an amp the same.
About recording and transparency of the reproduction, I think it is a pure phantasm.
Our eye is constantly exploring the different parts of a landscape, adapting at each moment its focus, sensitivity and color balance to the point he is focused on, and our brain re-create an image of all those feelings, (including distances) that never exists as it in the reality and, so will never being reproduced on a screen or a paper. Not to forget that our captors are linear and our senses logarithmic.
It is the same when you listen to a concert. We constantly filtrate what we listen to focus on something, filtering what is out. We constantly explore other parts of the sources, moving our heads, including the depth and feeling of distance. Not to forget the modification of the other senses adds to this experience.
And our brain reconstruct a feeling of something that a mike will never be able to capture because it has never existed as it.
When two people in the same concert will not hear the same things the same way. How could -you expect a mike can do-it ?
Our reproducing systems do not reproduce the space as it is in real life. Once it is put on a flat media, it is too late. Flattened like a photography. Even if we could build a perfect speaker, it will never reproduce the music as a real instrument, because a piano has not at all the same directivity than a guitar. because a room will never reproduce the space as it was in an other.
The work of a sound engineer is, like the photographer, to use all this poor electro-acoustic technology to make the public recognize as much as possible the instruments, trying their best for the emotions that pass directly between the musician and the listener, witch is something different from sounds, will not be too much lost in all this mud and make believe cooking recipes. Like synthetic perfumes.
Understanding this, your quest of designing amps that will deteriorate as less as possible this 'transmission' is highly valuable. But don't talk me of transparency. And don't believe you will never succeed: The only place and equipments where a listener will have the same experience than the original creators is the studio in witch the record has been mixed, at the same listening level, whatever bad is the amplifier in the monitoring system. If your amp is less distorted or differently, you will miss this goal of transparency.
Do your best with what you believe, like all of us, but do not think you are the keeper of any truth that do not exists.
BTW: the mastering is not supposed to modify what the musicians, producers and sound engineers had *created* together. Just ensure that there will be as less deterioration of quality as possible during the change of the media format. A pure technical process. Unless there is big mistakes done, because the monitoring of the studio were too far away from an average system, a notion and experience that he is supposed to master. Changing slightly the tonal balance, ok, adding or removing anything, altering the sounds ? Criminal.
Yeah, my "scientific/medical imaging" brain is focused elsewhere, or at least in terms of best practices for technical quality. That's a tool/technique to have in one's arsenal, however. Whether someone wants to use a Coke bottle as a lens or whatever to achieve their vision is a different thing.
Anyways, my point was that modern cameras can do the whole shoot into the sun thing, and, provided a competent user and photo processor, can do so in a way film can only wish to achieve.
Anyways, my point was that modern cameras can do the whole shoot into the sun thing, and, provided a competent user and photo processor, can do so in a way film can only wish to achieve.
I think what Pavel was referring to was Hi-Fi reproduction in the home, not the kind of reproduction the sound engineer is concerned with, that is more like the making a baby kind of reproduction.
You are allowed to keep your opinion that knowledge in both discipline has no usable overlap, why hinder further investigation by others with strong word like "nonsense"? No risk for you when further work finds any relevance and make progress. Seems that the same brain interprets both image and sound. 🙂
Hence the need to spread the words of hi-end audio "superiority" and the "inferiority" of DBT online like some members do using "similar methods". 😉
Or, you know, you guys are talking past each other...
In most cases, we do not have control over the process by which our music is prepared (save by our money, buying what we hope to enjoy), whereas the discussion about photography covers the whole creative process. Apples and dishwashers, no?
As much as I enjoy photography and imaging, we don't need to make analogies to it for audio.
In most cases, we do not have control over the process by which our music is prepared (save by our money, buying what we hope to enjoy), whereas the discussion about photography covers the whole creative process. Apples and dishwashers, no?
As much as I enjoy photography and imaging, we don't need to make analogies to it for audio.
At the time the Halcro lauded as a huge breakthrough in audio engineering and rightly so. Bruce Candy was ahead of the curve in identifying and addressing all of the distortion mechanisms. No doubt hooked into Cherry, Hawksford and a lot of other smart cookies in the academic world.
10 or 15 years later ‘DIYers’ are regularly besting those performance figures and it’s come about through a different learning process that has relied heavily on the exchange of information on forums like this. There is still some way to go before as DIYers we can build ppm distortion performance amplifiers most of the time. But, as a community I think we will get there - just look at the progress over the last 10 years.
All hail to Self and Cordell also BTW cutting through the bs and bringing valuable knowledge to the masses.
I guess the originals have a special magic in the flesh. I have a large format coffee table book of his most famous stuff. Very evocative especially when you think about when the pictures were taken - 1930’s through 1950’s.
+1
Thanks to all of you here, even with all the mud throwing in this thread, regular hobbyists like me still manage to find lots of invaluable gems. 😀
I had a book, but wasn't impressed, so when there was an exhibition on I dragged my (not quite) wife to see it. THEN you understand what he was trying to do. Astounding standing in front of them.
Are you calling him something else?
How about that...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.