What is HDR in files? Can I export any RAWs as HDR in RawTherapee? Or do I need a special camera that captures extra data in the RAW? Do you use this?
You can edit raw as hdr in Lightroom and export as avif or jxl since camera raw file contains higher dynamic range than jpg can display
But there is one small problem This kind of files are mostly useless on the web
>>4466284Its jpeg 2.0 that only works properly on macs. its mostly for professionals who deliver masses of files and need the smaller size for faster uploads and burst rates but still need SOME recovery/correction latitude. the intern/assistant uses a mac, does the culling, cropping, and standard shadow/highlight/white balance tweaks, and turns the heif into a jpeg.
>>4466290Heif/heic and jxl have this feature for sure. But the Hasselblad UI makes it look like it’s in the jpg too? https://www.hasselblad.com/learn/sample-images/
>>4466297There's a fake and gay version that embeds some more data in the exif, it works like those shitty TVs where the backlight adjusts so they can put fake numbers on the box.The whole concept is generally stupid, you can do HDR with any file format that supports embedded profiles if you just select a profile with wider dynamic range than sRGB. Apple did their own thing just so their images look like shit on non-apple displays.
>>4466299True HDR should be floating point though.
I tried that on Canon, I thought it would be nice with smaller files that keep more data. Unfortunately the files are a bitch to work with, at least on windows. It's possible to open them in lightroom, but you need to compress the range a lot to make it look normal in non hdr. And in Canon DPP they crashed my computer. Something like a cst in resolve would be needed to make it worthwhile for me, it's just too much of a hasssle as it is now.
HEIF is a format similar to HEIC and both are basically 10-bit files designed for use in Macs and iPhones. The original goal was to replace JPEG with its superior bit-depth and compression. Camera manufacturers started giving you the option to save as HEIF instead of JPEG to give you a better workflow with Macs, and in case it actually became market-dominant over JPEG. It didn't.HEIF is gay for web-use even if Goog has incorporated some basic-level compatibility. JXL does what it does better, but it doesn't have the backing of a big company.As for why they call it "HDR" is kind of accurate and kind of bullshit. It's high dynamic range in terms of having a better bit-depth, but not HDR as we typically assume in photography, which is bracketing.If you're shooting RAW then you've still got more data to work with than a HEIF, and JPEG is still far more compatible and accepted than HEIF, so it exists in a weird middle-ground where everything still eventually becomes JPEG for end-use cases.
>>4466367>but not HDR as we typically assume in photography, which is bracketing.For me it’s the other way round. A stacked/bracketed image is just fake bullshit digital manipulation.REAL HDR is the kind which uses the displays hardware features to make individual spots brighter than 100%.
>>4466385In a logical sense I agree with you; HDR *should* mean exactly that: High dynamic range in a single frame. But to be fair that's what a RAW is. Bracketing is fake and gay and is sometimes useful, but has been called "HDR" for a lot longer than HDR PQ has been around (what HEIF technically abides by)./shrug
>>4466290Cant you just select 'preview for SDR display' and compress it all into normal jpeg compatibility?
>>4466392> But to be fair that's what a RAW is.No. It’s fucking not. RAW is the fucking raw sensor data - or as close to it as possible. Undebayered. Maximim bit depth. HDR is instructions to the hardware of the screen.
>>4466399Hdr has 2 compability problems1. No software gives you the option to manually "view this as hdr" or "view this tonemapped to sdr". They all (no matter if photo or video) try to automatically do it. And if you see a washed up grey mudd, you’re fucked2. This will be a dead horse in 10 years. No way to casually view them without some obscure software. Like DVD viewer software nowadays: it still exists but it’s pita.
>>4466405>RAW is sensor data and maximum bit depth possible, so it is in fact NOT high dynamic rangeYou sound stupid. You know you sound stupid right? Nobody said RAWs are for final viewing.HDR is not an instruction either, that's the ITU-R BT.2100 specification (or SMPTE or w/e).
>>4466385>A stacked/bracketed image is just fake bullshit digital manipulation.a camera's sensor is a light measuring device. if you need more information you measure multiple times. you are a fucking faggot, go shoot analog
>>4466467I think it's an adobe or darktable users viewI merged bracketed shots in capture one once, and all it did was reduce shadow noise and unclip some highlights.
>>4466468Sounds like AHDR + highlight recovery prioritization. Err... canon calls it something like D+ mode or something?
>>4466470I don't know or care what canon does in their jpeg engine or whatever I don't use that junkI shot a bracketing burst and the merged shot was the same as the middle metered shot but it had less noisy shadows and I could recover a little more highlight info. It wasn't a big deal. I think the people who hate HDR bracketing are using shitty programs that merge to a flattened out uncanny visual mess like mid 2010s dslr boomer photography.
>>4466471I'm saying the logic sounds similar, jerkoff. Fuck me for referencing something I'm familiar with I guess.The shadows are automatically using a higher exposure shot and then lowering the gamma curve to where the middle bracket sits (whole concept of ETTR). While with the highlights it's just looking for stuff that is clipped in the middle shot but isn't in the underexposed and applying some graduation to reduce your blowouts.
>>4466467> you measure multiple times> And let your camera or software decide how to combine that in a jpeg> To obtain fake rockwellian lookIf your "measurement device" claim was correct, exposure stacking would just produce a higher bit depth raw, like high res stacking produces a raw with more megapixels.
>>4466482> To obtain fake rockwellian lookDo you just instinctively go shadows +100 highlights -100 on every photo? Which program does this? SeriouslyNow we have both capture one and canon bodies do HDR by just... reducing shadow noise and un-clipping the highlights
>>4466482>conflates bracketing with some retarded processing done by some software>doesn't know what bit depth isyep, I knew you were a pseud
>>4466483>un-clipping the highlightsCompressing the highlights.>>4466484You are just not very smart. To have actually "more data" from exposure stacking you need bits to store the data. Otherwise ou didn't get more data. The exception is stacking equivalent exposures to reduce noise.
>>4466444But he's right. In HDR the brightest pixel is brighter than 100%.In a 16-bit RAW data the brightest point 16 times "1" in several undebayered pixels that are next to each other. This is maximum white.In a HDR picture the brightest pixel is maximum white PLUS a profile map in the EXIF data that instructs the hardware to push this spot to be even brighter. So bright, in fact, that it couldn't do it for the whole screen simultaneously.
>>4466467>>4466482That is not HDR. That is bracketing/stacking.
>>4466484>doesn't know what bit depth isSounds like YOU don't understand what bit depth is. If a pixel is clipped, it is clipped. No matter if it is clipped in 8 bits or 14 bits.
>>4466506I always bracket -2 0 +2 and don't have an issue>>4466505The world operates on srgb jpegs. Bracketing is how you do HDRHigherDynamicRange
>>4466506Jesus Christ what a retard you are. Literally high school dropout level idiocy. Medical diagnosis. Exposure stacking gives you an extra bit per extra stop in your stack, but you have to store your bits somewhere. You do three exposures, one at base, one exposure two stops more exposed, one exposure two stops less. You need to store the 4 new bits, which now contain data that would be clipped. If your normal raws are 14 bit, you need at least 18 bits.
>>4466511Except you're also raising the noise floor, and competent software merges to HDR using 16 bit dng iirc
>>4466512raising (shadow information above) the noise floor*
>>4466284it is possible 12 or 14 or 16 bit raw data snapshoting at base sensitivity 24/7 and normalize jpg
>>4466503No display technology can go brighter than the brightest it can go. No "knobs go to 11" tomfoolery will change that.What they do is they dim the backlight everywhere else so that bright area looks brighter by comparison. Which could be fine in theory but it looks like shit in practice. Because your "4k" tv is limited to like 0.1 megapixels of high contrast so any detail in high contrast areas gets all muddy.
>>4466625But that’s exactly what hdr screen technology is (and therefore what the files do). The knob goes to 11/10. But not for the whole screen simultaneously, only parts
>me, creating HDR raws out of three raws with different exposure
>>4466694And only apple products support it properlyAnd no one fucking cares because a proper 16 bit raw to 8 bit srgb jpeg conversion produces a good looking image just like 14+ stop DR film always produces good 8 stop DR prints
>>4466704>me, creating HDR raws out of five exposure brackets, each a pixel shifted raw comprised of 16 Bayesian filter crushing raws.>which I will show to no one bc fuck everyone>and then accidentally delete when moving data around between different ssd’s>ahhh to be a photographer
