New HDR Software - Photomatix Killer - Open Beta!!

01/17/2008 04:51:24 PM · #126

Thanks for the comments, Greetmir,

FYI. We have a support forum that just started yesterday. We will announce future updates and download urls on the support forum.

//imagingluminary.org/support/index.php?board=2.0

Originally posted by Greetmir:

I gave it a quick try and found it awesome ... like HDR for Dummies ... fast and good. I will continue to experiment and get back to this thread but MAN ... from what I have seen so far ... it RAWKS!

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/17/2008 04:52:49 PM · #127

Sorry about that. Supposedly the email address is private data.

You can try to turn "email notification" off and see if it helps.

Originally posted by CEJ:

No - I didn't say they were from you. I said the titles all RHYMED with Wukong Beta. I deleted them all already, but if I recall correctly, one was titled Goodong Theta and another Mydong Layla. The implication would be that the registration page is scanned for emails when you register or however they do it to get your emails from websites.

Citadel

Nikon D7500

01/17/2008 05:02:41 PM · #128

So just for the record - I used this for my Best of 2007 Entry. If that's not a shameless plug I don't know what is. (Oh yeah...my endorsement isn't quite as compelling as say that of someone who has actually obtained a ribbon).

Anyways...

01/17/2008 05:02:56 PM · #129

haruumph!

Message edited by author 2008-01-20 22:32:45.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/17/2008 05:13:36 PM · #130

CEJ,

You seem to be the only one that has such a bad experience with the image quality (both here and on the support forum). The image results do not seem like they are produced by our program.

If you do not mind, can you upload your originals (or a small crop) so that we can run it in a different environment than your computers?

If you want to compare image quality, let's have a level play ground that a 3rd party can independently reproduce these results. Thank you.

Regarding the jpeg file size, are you saying large is good or small is good? Wukong allows you to save jpeg files as normal quality (small file) and high quality (large file). Usually most people save as tiff or bmp instead.

Could not find a way to change it??? use the file type drop down box when you save files. This is just like every other windows program out there.

Regards,
Bo

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 17:24:57.

Bebe

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/17/2008 05:20:46 PM · #131

Originally posted by BoYuan:

CEJ,

You seem to be the only one that has such a bad experience with the image quality (both here and on the support forum). The image results do not seem like they are produced by our program.

If you do not mind, can you upload your originals (or a small crop) so that we can run it in a different environment than your computers?

If you want to compare image quality, let's have a level play ground that a 3rd party can run these tests. Thank you.

Regarding the jpeg file size, are you saying large is good or small is good? Wukong allows you to save jpeg files as normal quality and high quality. Usually most people save as tiff or bmp instead.

Regards,
Bo

Hi! Sorry I'm posting here rather than google, but as I said earlier in this thread my google name seems to have stopped working at your site.

I just wanted to ditto what CEJ said. I've found that the jpgs I was getting were very small data & not great quality, same for the HDRs. However, I found that if I did the procedures in Wukong & then copied the result (rather than saving it) into Photoshop I got full image quality & resolution, with really great results.

The only images that didn't work at all for me were nighttime photos; those got all messed around. I don't have Photomatix so I don't know if that program handles nighttime better.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/17/2008 05:23:44 PM · #132

Originally posted by Bebe:

I just wanted to ditto what CEJ said. I've found that the jpgs I was getting were very small data & not great quality, same for the HDRs. However, I found that if I did the procedures in Wukong & then copied the result (rather than saving it) into Photoshop I got full image quality & resolution, with really great results.

The only images that didn't work at all for me were nighttime photos; those got all messed around. I don't have Photomatix so I don't know if that program handles nighttime better.

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 17:39:22.

Bebe

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/17/2008 05:36:46 PM · #133

Originally posted by BoYuan:

When you save the results, you can save as jpeg, high quality jpeg, bmp, and 8-bit tiff. If artifacts introduced by jpeg compression is your concern, use either hq jpeg or tiff output.

Originally posted by Bebe:

I just wanted to ditto what CEJ said. I've found that the jpgs I was getting were very small data & not great quality, same for the HDRs. However, I found that if I did the procedures in Wukong & then copied the result (rather than saving it) into Photoshop I got full image quality & resolution, with really great results.

The only images that didn't work at all for me were nighttime photos; those got all messed around. I don't have Photomatix so I don't know if that program handles nighttime better.

I'll try again. I remember being surprised at not having a "high quality jpg" option, so probably I was doing it incorrectly.

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/17/2008 05:41:18 PM · #134

Originally posted by BoYuan:

As a personal preference I would NEVER want to ever save a low (i.e. normal) quality JPG. I always want my saves at the absolute highest JPG quality (100%). I noticed the same thing with the file size and no I have to go back and figure out how to save it higher quality.

The normal setting introduces MANY JPG artifacts into the result.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/17/2008 05:43:11 PM · #135

I hear you. The default jpeg is for people who wants to upload a small file to the web. We may just remove that option to be less confusing. Thanks.

Originally posted by _eug:

_eug

Nikon D50

01/17/2008 05:55:43 PM · #136

Originally posted by BoYuan:

I hear you. The default jpeg is for people who wants to upload a small file to the web. We may just remove that option to be less confusing. Thanks.

Please and thank you. A vast majority of us do our resizing for web in other software after making any adjustments we need to make (such as cloning out sensor dust).

BHuseman

Nikon D750

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C

01/17/2008 07:04:08 PM · #137

Here are two versions of a photo. One version many of you have seen already. I like the photo so I wanted to try it with the new software.

I used as much of the same workflow on the Wukong version as I could remember from the first one.

One thing I like about the photomatix version more is the green in the tree on the lower left. The Wukong gave me more of a yellow color and I don't like it as much. The reason why I wanted to try the other software is because I never really liked the sky that the photomatix software put together for me. I like the Wukong version better, but I think the bright spot in the sky over the horizon is a distraction. I am going to play with another file and will post it here when finished as well.

One thing I have found that is perplexing is file size. My files were 3888X2592. After combining the files in Wukong I have a files that is 3908X2602. Can I get an explanation on that one???

Thanks!

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/17/2008 07:12:40 PM · #138

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

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 19:13:42.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

01/17/2008 07:14:44 PM · #139

Originally posted by Simms:

No more requests PLEASE!! Thanks.

Oops, I've been off-line all day and just saw this thread now. I sent a request before I got to this message. Sorry.

Edit: Just noticed the date of the message was 2 days ago. I don't know how I missed this thread until now.

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 19:17:36.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/17/2008 07:17:35 PM · #140

In case you are not aware of it, the wukong test version download link is available to all registered users of the official support forum

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by Simms:
No more requests PLEASE!! Thanks.

Oops, I've been off-line all day and just saw this thread now. I sent a request before I got to this message. Sorry.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

01/17/2008 07:20:33 PM · #141

Originally posted by BoYuan:

In case you are not aware of it, the wukong test version download link is available to all registered users of the official support forum

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by Simms:
No more requests PLEASE!! Thanks.

Oops, I've been off-line all day and just saw this thread now. I sent a request before I got to this message. Sorry.

I've never heard of that site before. What is it all about?

BHuseman

Nikon D750

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C

01/17/2008 07:21:32 PM · #142

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:

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 20:15:40.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/17/2008 08:02:57 PM · #143

Originally posted by BHuseman:

Here are two versions of a photo. One version many of you have seen already. I like the photo so I wanted to try it with the new software.

I used as much of the same workflow on the Wukong version as I could remember from the first one.

One thing I like about the photomatix version more is the green in the tree on the lower left. The Wukong gave me more of a yellow color and I don't like it as much. The reason why I wanted to try the other software is because I never really liked the sky that the photomatix software put together for me. I like the Wukong version better, but I think the bright spot in the sky over the horizon is a distraction. I am going to play with another file and will post it here when finished as well.

I know you are just testing out the software as a standalone but when I use photomatix I almost never just settle on what that software spits out rather I bring it into photoshop and do some further blending with the original. For example the sky in your photomatix version could have easily been improved by just knocking it out in photoshop or blending it in with the original. You could do a similar thing with the Wukong version to correct the color. Put it on a layer with either the original or the photomatrix version underneath and then set the Wukong layer to luminosity blending mode so it picks up the color from the layer below. It probably would still need to be tweaked but that's an option.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/17/2008 08:05:16 PM · #144

I don't see any difference between these photos at all... (Daedunsan Mountain Horizontal Bridge)

nutzito

Nikon D3s

01/17/2008 08:06:50 PM · #145

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

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 20:15:37.

BHuseman

Nikon D750

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C

01/17/2008 08:16:21 PM · #146

You didn't see a difference because I mistakingly posted the same file twice. That is fixed now.

A new file here. I had high hopes for this file when I stood on the mountain to shoot it. Part of the reason is because I had to do some rock climbing to get into a postion to shoot this, and the other because this one actually shows some of the height of this bridge. The other two while they show it is elevated don't really give a sense of the fact that you are on top of a mountain (in my opinion at least). So I shot these three shots to putogether this HDR, and photomatix just fumbled the ball from the get go. I was bummed because I really wanted this shot. So here is the Wukong version of the shot. I like this version. I think if I wasn't so tired I could probable get a stiriking image out of this. Nah, scratch that, if I had some of the skills that all of you have I could probably get a striking image out of it. But I still like this.

Originally posted by CEJ:

I don't see any difference between these photos at all... (Daedunsan Mountain Horizontal Bridge)

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 20:19:39.

01/17/2008 08:17:36 PM · #147

Originally posted by BoYuan:

CEJ,
The image results do not seem like they are produced by our program.
What program do they appear to be produced by? I ran the same set of images through Photomatix, PhotoImpact and yours. I posted the Photomatix and your versions.

If you do not mind, can you upload your originals (or a small crop) so that we can run it in a different environment than your computers?
I can upload the original files anywhere you want. But they are RAW files so they are large. I can upload a .zip file of the three where ever you want. Give me an address. I have 5 computers (6 if you count my wife's) and the results are the same on all. Why do you question my 'computer environment?'

If you want to compare image quality, let's have a level play ground that a 3rd party can independently reproduce these results. Thank you.
You are welcome. For what?

Regarding the jpeg file size, are you saying large is good or small is good? Wukong allows you to save jpeg files as normal quality (small file) and high quality (large file). Usually most people save as tiff or bmp instead.
Large is good!

Could not find a way to change it??? use the file type drop down box when you save files. This is just like every other windows program out there.
I appreciate your insinuation to my stupidity. I am rather dense. But your intuitive interface has the options in the wrong place, in my opinion.

Message edited by author 2008-01-17 20:21:14.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/17/2008 08:20:18 PM · #148

Originally posted by BHuseman:

You didn't see a difference because I mistakingly posted the same file twice. That is fixed now.

OK, I see the difference and I see that your example seems to have the same problems with clouds/sky as mine did - it doesn't know what to do with it or it is too aggressive in the processing of it. Overall I liked your original image better, but that, apparently, may just be me.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

01/17/2008 08:24:39 PM · #149

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?