| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2008 08:29:34 PM · #151 |
| I dunno, from what I've seen in this post, photomatix is a lot more natural looking. Wuking also has a funny reddish tint. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 08:30:00 PM · #152 |
Alfredo,
I didn't quite understand how to do the adjustment layer to make it more blue, so I used a color balance adjustment layer and reduced the cyan by 30 points and this was the result. It took a lot of the pink out of the file and I think this is a better result.
Originally posted by nutzito:
Originally posted by BHuseman:
Bo, Thank you for the quick reply. I can understand the difference in colors. I like what the Wukong software did to the sky, but I am seeing more of a purple tone in these files that I am playing with as opposed to the blue tone in the skies of the Photomatix software. Also I see a lot more color gradients from pink to purple in your files, where the photomatix gave a pleasing blue, followed by an unpleasing grey. While I prefer the gradients that the Wukong software created, am I see the different color because of what you explained here?
Thanks again.
Here is another file to compare the Wukong software with the Photomatix software:
 
In this case the Wukong software provided a better foreground and the mountains have better detail, but I am not so sure about the sky. On the photomatix file I added some Sunset Filter using Digital Film Toolls 55mm plugin. I didn't feel I needed to add the same filter on the Wukong version because the mountain already had the gold tones that I witnessed while photographing these shots. My only thing I would change on the Wukong would be the sky hues to bring them more in line with the blue sky that was there.
Originally posted by BoYuan:
It is probably too early to compare colors because we really did not pay much attention to raw files yet. (maybe a grand total of 8 hour programming time). WB can be off. If I am not mistaken, the current wukong raw only uses "as shot" WB. I think they are easily fixed in the next version in 10 days.
The file size is directly from the CCD resolution. When you use manufacture's raw converter it hides some pixels. Wukong today does not have this logic. Not sure if it is desirable.
I think we will also change the default "detail" level next time.
Bo |
|
Imo, for this particular case and due to the settings you used, the photomatix version has a more subtle, therefore natural, effect. Not saying I do not like the Wukong output but it has more of what others call "cartoonish". Maybe you would get a more natural look by decreasing the detail level. In regards to color and hues, according to Bo's answer to your previous question, for the moment you will probably have to adjust your blues with a masked PS adjustment layer. It would be nice if you try those changes and show us the result
Edited: I agree 100% with Yanko's suggestion about the post hdr processing |
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 08:31:12 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
One of the things I don't like about HDR is that it tends to "flatten" the scene... lightening the dark parts and darkening the bright parts. |
Last few days, this is been my topic of thinking. During post processing some photos, I noticed that the many photos had better look when I did not adjust shadow/highlight, and keeping the darker ones dark. I was left thinking this tool is not always needed. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 08:32:21 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
I dunno, from what I've seen in this post, photomatix is a lot more natural looking. Wuking also has a funny reddish tint. |
Bingo!
Oh...did someone win? |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 08:36:08 PM · #155 |
I see elements in both versions that I like. It would add to the workflow, but I wonder if combining the results of both outputs and then masking the ares I don't like could create a good image. I like the Wukong program, and I am anxious to see what they can do with it. I like the Photomatix program but it seems to cater to a certain type of file. I have tried some files that it just gives up on by giving me pink clouds when there wasn't a bit of pink anywhere.
I agree that some HDr looks flat. I try to bump my contrast back up after processing anything in HDR.
Lately I haven't even been playing with HDR's though. I have done it manually with SCREEN and MULTIPLY blending modes on my levels adjustment layers and I have been happy with the results that I have been getting from that. My Dock photos that I processed were done with that technique and I think it did everybit as well as Photomatix could have done. It just requires a bit more work with having to pain the masks, but I like that. Sometimes it is good to get rid of the automation and do things like how they would have been done in the old days.
Originally posted by dwterry:
One of the things I don't like about HDR is that it tends to "flatten" the scene... lightening the dark parts and darkening the bright parts. That's what I see in the images that  BHuseman posted. In those images, I actually much prefer the Photomatix version because the scenes feel more 3D'ish.
I haven't played with the program yet, but I wonder if there is some control over that effect? Maybe turn down the HDR controls a bit to bring it back to the more natural highlights and shadows in the original? |
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 08:40:35 PM · #156 |
Just wanted to add, I have only posted these images in here because they were shots that I created with Photomatix a couple of months ago and wanted to see how this software compares to the files that Photomatix created.
As far as the redish tint goes, I am seeing that in these files, but as Bo said, theyhaven't finalized colors yet, so that may be fixed in the next release. We also need to remember that this is a Beta version that all of the bugs haven't been worked out on. Photomatix on the other hand is at version 2.XX, they have gone through their beta testing, and then used paying customers as their "beta testers" as they continued to refine their product. I am sure that Bo and his crew will have a very nice product when they are done and will be able to continue to enhance it as they go. They may even be able to fix the cartoonish look that so many hate about HDR. Personally I think there are some photos that enjoy the look and others that don't. And then there is just a matter of personal preference for which there is no cure!
|
|
|
|
01/17/2008 10:15:34 PM · #157 |
BHuseman and everyone,
It is premature to compare color/tint of the raw conversion results for the reason I stated before. Although everything will change in a few days, at this moment, if you want to compare the tone mapping results using 178, I suggest you create three jpegs (make sure the color temp is what you want) from the single raw file and merge and tonemap it in wukong, especially if you are special white balance settings. I will use the next version to answer any color/tint questions.
When you want to publish your result, it would help you can also mention the parameters used.
We should state the "Shadow Brighten-up" slider in DR is for EXPERT use only. It helps in about 5% of the images we tested. For the other 95% of the photos, this slider should stay at 0. Only when you feel the shadow is TOO DARK, you can give it a try as the LAST ADJUSTMENT. But use with caution! Maybe we should remove this one to avoid the confusion.
Wukong does not add dark clouds or murkiness to the sky, unlike many other tone mapping programs based on Fattal 2002 operator. In the PM result, the sky is gray or dark. The top region is darker and murky; while severe halo is visible along where the mountain meets the sky.
PM result is also more saturated. Wukong does appear to produce less saturated images using default parameters. It is easily fixed by simply setting saturation to 55 or 60. We are advised from an experience photographer that most digital images today are too saturated to be natural. However, if you love a bit more saturation it is fine with me!
In terms of DR detail level, our suggested value is 42 for most photos. This will be the default value in the next build. Detail greater than 60 tends to create "strange" photos, but that is just my personal opinion.
Creating "flat" image is what local TMOs do! If you do not like it in certain images, make the detail level low, or use Fast Tone Balancer. FTB will not reveal as much detail as DR, but the result is not flat. I do not know why DR gets all the attention; FTB is based on the latest tone mapping theory and it is also pretty good.
I am totally open to any comments. We are seasoned professionals and will not feel hurt by negative comments. So you do not have to worry about that. Any feedback is good feedback, and we thank you for that.
I am setting up a public ftp account so that everyone can also upload samples. Anyone who wants to have your own ftp space you can email me at: contact@imagingluminary.com
We will make a lot of improvements on every front. Originally we thought we will open beta test in Feb. 2008, but I like it the current way that we can hear from the users early on.
Maybe in April or May we can have a true comparison between Wukong and Photomatix 3.0 or others.
Message edited by author 2008-01-17 22:40:23. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 10:25:40 PM · #158 |
The site is where the developers (us) of the wukong project give out beta download links in the next a few months.
//imagingluminary.org/support/index.php?board=2.0
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I've never heard of that site before. What is it all about? |
Message edited by author 2008-01-17 22:37:22. |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 10:32:46 PM · #159 |
I did notice that the last merge I did with 7 images seem to have thrown away a lot of blue and green richness but it sure does work fast especially for getting detail out of the darker areas ... I will post further after more experimentation.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2008 02:45:15 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by BoYuan:
Creating "flat" image is what local TMOs do! If you do not like it in certain images, make the detail level low, or use Fast Tone Balancer. FTB will not reveal as much detail as DR, but the result is not flat. I do not know why DR gets all the attention; FTB is based on the latest tone mapping theory and it is also pretty good.
|
could you throw me some pointers where I could read about the numerics of this new theory.
(I do not have background of image manipulation numerics as such, but since deal with lots of numerical and applied maths, might be able to understand little bit of it). |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 05:18:21 AM · #161 |
I'm enjoying using this, thanks Bo. I've tried single image HDR tone mapping and multi image. Discovering along the way not to use files at 16 bit - unless you want wild and wacky colours ;)
Here's a quick example from a multi image, I've done nothing with the final output and I think it's produced some images that would be worth working on further in Photoshop.
The original - straight from RAW, I made 3 differently exposed tiffs from the RAW image.
The output with fast tone balancer at default settings
And with detail revealer at level 42 (as suggested by Bo)
 |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 05:29:17 AM · #162 |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 06:36:43 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
We also need to remember that this is a Beta version that all of the bugs haven't been worked out on. |
Yeah, I was going to say... some of the posts sound more like customer complaints rather than beta test feedback. |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 08:28:28 AM · #164 |
Hello everyone,
I just noticed if you search "wukong hdr" in google, the first result is BHuseman's Reflections-Wukong-Test.jpg! That was some piece indeed. Congratulations. Nice pictures from Chinarosepetal, too.
Although we are the software developer, we are new to HDR photography. How does wukong fare in the field is pretty much an open question. Wukong produces mathematically balanced images most of the time. In our opinion, wukong's result usually contains less artifacts introduced by detail enhancement process. However, trained photographers may not feel comfortable with the local TMO result because it is sometimes against your perception of lighting conditions. We have some doubts if HDR tonemapping is a fad or it can go mainstream eventually. You can tell me what each image should look like and we will try to build the math behind it.
We consider wukong as a simple viewer-like application, not as the ultimate HDR tonemapping software (the next software project from us will aim at that goal). So, it won't be as good as your favorite raw conversion tool in terms of raw conversion.
I have to disclose that the current beta version has a time-bomb in it that supposedly it will expire in Feb. of 2008. You can simply sign up on our support forum to get the improved beta before the old one expires. However, if a certain beta version is of special interest to you, let me know and we can arrange something for you.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2008 10:18:21 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by BoYuan:
I have to disclose that the current beta version has a time-bomb in it that supposedly it will expire in Feb. of 2008. You can simply sign up on our support forum to get the improved beta before the old one expires. However, if a certain beta version is of special interest to you, let me know and we can arrange something for you. |
Any discounts for beta testers when the product goes live? Or have you thought that far ahead yet? |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 10:41:47 AM · #166 |
Of course. We will reward everyone that helped us. Three people already received free copy when it is released. And many more will in the near future. I urge you to post on our support forum. We will track all messages there.
Our testers have more say in a lot of things. We will poll the users on if we reach "general availability release status"; and we will poll the users on the price. According to the current plan, we will offer a watermark-free community version totally free which includes both FTB and DR. The paid version should also be very affordable.
Also, for the engineers out there, we plan to release part of wukong as open source project.
Originally posted by jhonan:
Any discounts for beta testers when the product goes live? Or have you thought that far ahead yet? |
Message edited by author 2008-01-18 10:50:43. |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 11:25:49 AM · #167 |
I registered and left my impressions on the official forum. I thin it is funny that many of us have the same impressions. My only word of caution is to make sure you get impressions from other forums. People here at DPC seem to be conditioned to wanting every photo to look like a "DPC friendly image", and not necessarily one that they enjoy for themselves!
|
|
|
|
01/18/2008 11:32:03 AM · #168 |
| Well said Ben. I know many times I show someone a photo and they LOVE it but yet it only scored a low 5 here on DPC. |
|
|
|
01/18/2008 05:44:24 PM · #169 |
Oh man, I found a new feature that I absolutley love that this program has.
I was in Windows Explorer looking for files that I had shot with the intention of doing an HDR. I then came across three photos that I wanted to merge. Instead of going back to Wukong and opening the files with the dialogue boxes, I clicked on all three fiels and drug them into Wukong. It began the process. I find this to be sensational as I use DPP to view photos all of the time to decide whether I want to edit them or not. Being able to drag and drop into this program is sweet! Check it out if you haven't and if it fits your workflow/file management as well.
Turns out I can drag and drop files into Photoshop as well, but I never knew that.
Ok, here is another file. The one on the left was a Photoshop HDR and the one on the right was done using the Project Wukong Software. the Wukong software produced a better image in my opinion.
 
Photoshop<------------------------------->Wukong
Message edited by author 2008-01-18 17:58:08.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2008 07:27:25 PM · #170 |
HAHAHHAHAA BEN... Welcome to 2008 buddy.
Actually as far as I know you could drag and drop way back when photoshop 6 was out.
If you didn't already know, you can also click a picture on the internet to view it and you can click the picture and drag it into photoshop too.
I just have to say that if you are going to be on my team this year for the DPL you better get to reading on your shortcuts. :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 05:42:11 AM · #171 |
*BANGS HEAD AGAINST WALL*
(sarcasm mode on) lol, nice find dude.. (sarcasm mode off)
Originally posted by BHuseman:
Oh man, I found a new feature that I absolutley love that this program has.
I was in Windows Explorer looking for files that I had shot with the intention of doing an HDR. I then came across three photos that I wanted to merge. Instead of going back to Wukong and opening the files with the dialogue boxes, I clicked on all three fiels and drug them into Wukong. It began the process. I find this to be sensational as I use DPP to view photos all of the time to decide whether I want to edit them or not. Being able to drag and drop into this program is sweet! Check it out if you haven't and if it fits your workflow/file management as well.
Turns out I can drag and drop files into Photoshop as well, but I never knew that.
Ok, here is another file. The one on the left was a Photoshop HDR and the one on the right was done using the Project Wukong Software. the Wukong software produced a better image in my opinion.
Photoshop<------------------------------->Wukong |
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:12:36 AM · #172 |
<---------- Laughs with Mark laughing at Ben...
Originally posted by Simms:
*BANGS HEAD AGAINST WALL*
(sarcasm mode on) lol, nice find dude.. (sarcasm mode off)
|
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:44:19 AM · #173 |
OK, i tried the wukong on a single file I had already converted from raw to tiff, and post processed, and sent to the clients in question. I ran it through the wukong and it came out alright- the colour cast was totally different, it went from a dark brown to a steel blue (which i corrected with an adjustment layer), and also needed a lot of the black put back in (levels, curves and a selective colour on neutrals and blacks) because it was very grey.
I converted the file using the default settings on the detail thingy.
I checked the histogram of the image and it was a large peak just over halfway to the right. Some editing with this helped matters.
I didn't use the original raw file because for some reason you cannot preview the RAW thumbnail like you can in say, CS2, so you know which picture you are actually loading into the program. You have to make do with 6418_CR2 which isn't much help.
Here is the wukong edit after PP to get it back to how it should look (the vignette is better/smoother on the original PP tiff)
[thumb]634999[/thumb]
and this was the tiff file that I began with:
[thumb]635001[/thumb]
As you can see, it does bring in a lot of detail into the shadows, but it leaves things almost 2d. The clients loved the dark aspect of the original image which was of course removed in the wukong version.
Overall, i'm quite impressed. It does what it should do I suppose. The colour cast thing is annoying but I like the detail enhancement. It still reminds me of a bad use of the shadow/highlight thing but from a single tiff file, that had already been processed, i think it did rather nicely.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2008 08:55:40 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by Tez:
I didn't use the original raw file because for some reason you cannot preview the RAW thumbnail like you can in say, CS2, so you know which picture you are actually loading into the program. You have to make do with 6418_CR2 which isn't much help.
|
My solution to that is to use Lightroom to determine which image to use then from Lightroom show in windows explorer and drag onto the Wukong window. You can drag multiple files at the same time. |
|
|
|
01/19/2008 12:53:36 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Tez:
I didn't use the original raw file because for some reason you cannot preview the RAW thumbnail like you can in say, CS2, so you know which picture you are actually loading into the program. You have to make do with 6418_CR2 which isn't much help. |
Sure you can! You just need the Windows Camera Raw software installed. In the open file dialog I see all my RAW thumbs when I set the dialog to thumbnails. They're tiny, but it works. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:58:19 AM EDT.
