HDR and morons ( not 3d related )

[bloodbob]

HDR=High dynamic range.

I.E. The image has a large range of colours/brightness it can reproduce.

Because it is so high it can't be displayed on screen on an average monitor ( lets ignore super bright LED monitors ect ). So to more visual detail out of it we have to some how "scale" it so that their is a decent amount of visible detail. This often is trying to duplicate taking a photo with film and a sensible exposure for the image. We call this tone mapping and there a various technique SOME of these techniques reduce the colour saturation. Because of this various tools allow for some saturation compensation and this leads to morons over saturating the image. This leads to secondry morons who go OMG look at that HDR image there is so much colour it looks better then real life ala http://www.digg.com/design/Amazing_HDR_Image_of_Bangkok_Nightscape

Can people please stop being morons.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I made a HDR renderer that shows a picture of the Sun.
Please don't mind the exposure level, it's the key to good IQ.

 

[AlNom]

let's bury the article

 

[bloodbob]

Here is the moron version of Kilers you can tell as it is clearly oversaturated.

 

[Rys]

I made a HDR renderer that shows a picture of the Sun.
Please don't mind the exposure level, it's the key to good IQ.

I viewef your image on mu HDR monirot and now my eyes don;t work and i XANT see what I am typing/ bloodbob#s second image was nicely tonemapped though @D

 

[Gubbi]

Here is the moron version of Kilers you can tell as it is clearly oversaturated.

As a matter of fact, the black body radiation of the sun is green if your eye could adapt enough to not saturate.

It green, ok?

Green!

Cheers

 

[davepermen]

HDR currently is (wrongly) used for 2 different things, depending on context. Computer graphics and nerds, and games, etc use it for the right things, when the color data is bigger than the display, and there is some tone mapping or hdr-display needed to show the image. It is used there as well to describe tons of effects, that result trough HDR data, or change it's behavior (reflections on black metal, for example).

in the photo-business, it's used for actual tone mapping, which is the wrong term.. they should call it nice tone mapped photos, but they call it hdr-photos. but that term is currently there used everywhere, to describe pictures that look pretty, with nice colorization etc, due to nice tone mapping..

 

[bloodbob]

but that term is currently there used everywhere, to describe pictures that look pretty, with nice colorization etc, due to nice tone mapping..

Except the fact that recently this nice colorization is oversaturation and its not because of the tonemapping it is because of OVER compensation desaturation caused by some tonemapping algorithims. Really HDR in pure photography should be primarly used to get "perfect" exposure and allow for the exposure to be change later to correctly expose portions of the image.

 

[Rolf N]

I love it the most when somebody takes a photograph of a HDR display running a demo, the internet gets to see it, and some moron says (or maybe even just thinks to himself): "Wow, I wish I had a monitor that could display something that looks like what I'm seeing right now, on my monitor!"

My current theory is that some part of the brain somehow blacks out when people look at images that contain a monitor frame. The mind overdoes the removal of the frame. Say what? I mean just like the mind removes window frames and some of the effects of window glass from images seen through, of course, a window, it removes the monitor frame. Maybe.

I haven't identified which part of the brain it is, but unfortunately I'm running out of subjects (and after breaking yet another, I have only one spoon left).

 

[Humus]

This leads to secondry morons who go OMG look at that HDR image there is so much colour it looks better then real life ala http://www.digg.com/design/Amazing_HDR_Image_of_Bangkok_Nightscape

Can people please stop being morons.

Well, the problem is that the human brain "likes" certain things. The default reaction to visual input is that more contrasty and saturated images look more attractive. It's the same reason that toys are typically very colorful. It's connected with good feelings in the human mind, so we give kids toy cars in yellow, green, red and blue, rather than something that looks more like a real car. Only by experience and thinking about these issues can you learn to appreciate something that looks more natural.

It's often said that "the customer is always right", which unfortunately also means the customer is right even when he's wrong by all objective standards, but manufacturers have to go with the customers' subjective standards. You produce what people demand, whether they demand something sane or not. This is why your average consumer digital camera produces photos where the sky is white on a sunny day, because with the right exposure the average guy will think the picture "looks dark". Similarly they nowadays include various color postprocessing options, and the standard typically includes some saturation boost, and only by going into the menus can you select "natural". And for the same reason do Best Buy and others typically run things like the golf channel on the TVs on display, because the high saturation with green grass and blue sky makes people think this TV has good quality. And your average sound system will mostly play loud, since that equals good in the average consumer's mind. And rarely if ever is an equalizer actually used to equalize an audio signal, but typically to give a massive boost the bass and treble while killing the mid-ranges.

etc. etc. etc.

 

[soylent]

Well, the problem is that the human brain "likes" certain things.

<snip>

Have you seen the "reality achieved" thread or whatever it's called on the rage3d forum? It consists almost completely of desaturated screenshots with added blur and "film grain" type noise.

Also, whenever there's a blurry video preview of a game everyone goes ZOMG!!!1, until they get better videos and screenshots.

It's seems people are really good at insinuating detail that really isn't there. When the high detail videos come out, everything looks sort of fake because the minor details that weren't there before are all wrong. The aliasing, the plastic fantastic specular highlights, the lack of subsurface scattering on faces and so forth.

Why hasn't anyone one done a game where the 3d viewport is a 320x240 render texture with maxed out MSAA + software jittered SSAA through accumulation, that is then rendered to a full screen quad at the monitors primary resolution with a black and white + film grain shader, and then has the GUI rendered ontop at the primary res?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Why hasn't anyone one done a game where the 3d viewport is a 320x240 render texture with maxed out MSAA + software jittered SSAA through accumulation, that is then rendered to a full screen quad at the monitors primary resolution with a black and white + film grain shader, and then has the GUI rendered ontop at the primary res?

There was a thread somewhere here on B3D a couple months back about stylistic rendering and alternative creative directions for game art/assets/rendering. Some good ideas in there, and I like yours as well. I guess those are just riskier directions to go, so we don't see mainstream developers spending much time on it. Or, maybe if the filter is too "over the top" people would get tired of it quickly... the "gimmick" effect. Something more like what you are describing might not suffer that problem.

Maybe (hopefully?) the user-created games from XBLive/Market and PS3/Linux will explore some of these ideas.