Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2015, 02:23:30 am
-
Hi,
Anders Torger, a frequent poster here on LuLa has developed a software called Lumariver HDR. It is an HDR program but very different from any other, because it can work on raw files all the way. One option to use it is to take a bunch of raw files and generate a raw file with very clean shadows that can be enhanced by any raw processor. Anders has even developed methods to rewrite Phase One IIQ files. Here are some sample using my P45+ and also a Sony SLT A99 image.
Take this image
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617-CF045290_small.jpg)
and let's look at the piano
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617-CF045290_piano.jpg)
Now here is the same image using three exposures (or so) merged in Lumariver HDR:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617_lumariver_piano.jpg)
With the full image here:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617_lumariver_small.jpg)
I also shot this with my Sony Alpha 99, a single exposure shot is here:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617-_DSC4758_small.jpg)
And the piano detail is here:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/20140617-_DSC4758_piano.jpg)
As usual, all raw images are available here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/
Best regards
Erik
-
Excellent work! What a pity for us Microsoft Windows users :-\ :-[
-
We're supposed to get a windows version out and also speed it up... but as we're a company that work on different things (not only photo software) it's lagging more than we would like, so I still can't say anything about a release for that :-/
-
With the same number of exposures generated , does 'how clean the shadows are' depend on the SNR of different sensors?
-
Torger, don't forget my offer to help on any windows betas!!. I would love to see this come out for win based machines.
Eric, are the examples from the P45 or A99? on the piano?
Thanks
Paul
-
Hi Paul,
The piano shots are just 1:1 crops from full size images.
- First image is single exposure P45+
- Second image is P45+ and Lumariver HDR
- Third image Alpha 99 single shot
The enclosed image may show it better.
- Left: Sony Alpha 99 SLT, single exposure
- Right, top: P45+ multi exposure HDR
- Right, bottom: P45+ single exposure
Both single exposures are essentially ETTR, with some clipping on the windows. These are no test images but shot on travel. The reason these were chosen for this demo is that the windows are taking small part of the image, so I think we have little flare.
The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/
Best regards
Erik
Torger, don't forget my offer to help on any windows betas!!. I would love to see this come out for win based machines.
Eric, are the examples from the P45 or A99? on the piano?
Thanks
Paul
-
Hi,
This is HDR, so SNR is not dependent on sensor, as long as we have a sufficient range of different exposures.
Best regards
Erik
With the same number of exposures generated , does 'how clean the shadows are' depend on the SNR of different sensors?
-
How does this software differ from Photomatix? Thanks, Jim
-
Hi,
The way I use it the merged images result in a raw image. So I can just reimport the raw image and do my tone mapping in Lightroom. So it does not write a TIFF but a raw image.
Here is Anders Torger's own description (from: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=84461.0 )
This is a commercial announcement, but as a long-term and active forum member I thought it would be okay, and I'll of course be around to answer questions etc, so it's not just a fire-and-forget spam announcement Smiley
We're doing a "stealth introduction" of our first commercial photo application called "Lumariver HDR". Actually it's here at Luminous Landscape we announce it first. We've had it ready for a while but it took some time to get our Apple Developer ID for signing, but at last it's there ready to download and install.
It's an HDR software that can do merging and tonemapping, and is in that far from unique, but we have some features that makes it one-of-a-kind:
The tonemapping algorithm is made to produce natural-looking results. We're not after the "HDR grunge look", but simply control difficult lighting situations and produce a natural-looking image. I think myself that we are up there with the best in terms of results Smiley, and you get to see the resulting multiply map which you can export to work further on in photoshop etc.
It can read raw files (various formats) and merge to raw output (DNG), so you can work with the file in your favorite raw converter just as if it was a normal raw file.
Import/export: all output is made visible as layers, including merge maps and the tonemapping multiply maps, and can be exported/imported to your favorite photo editor such as photoshop for further editing.
Raw highlight reconstruction: optional advanced reconstruction of highlights such that you can get the sun center be yellow etc.
No black magic hidden away from the user, you get to see the true linearity of the file, all output as layers, we don't hide away anything from you. We want the photographer to be in control and be able to see what the algorithms do.
"Zero-noise HDR" and reproduction HDR, you can merge raw files into a new raw file with the exact same properties as the original (ie no modification to linearity etc), just without noise in the shadows, which can be useful for those that just want to have an extremely robust file for post-processing or just noise-free raw in reproduction work. I've used it myself when copying dense color reversal films.
LCC (flat-field correction). I'm a medium format tech cam user myself so I've of course made sure it works well with a tech cam workflow. I often shoot with grads myself to capture large DR in one shot in the field, and LCC-cancel that and tonemap with greater control in Lumariver HDR, that workflow and others are described in the manual.
Supported formats: TIFF 8/16/32 bit floating point, OpenEXR (an HDR format), various raw formats (.cr2, .nef, .iiq, .mos etc), DNG input and output (including floating point DNGs). The wide input/output possibilities makes it possible to do merging in this HDR software and tonemapping in another or the other way around.
You find the manual and a fully functioning trial at http://www.lumariver.com. I recommend to take a look at the manual.
Currently it's Mac OS X only. We work on full-size floating point images so it's a resource-hungry software, we recommend running it on a fairly recent and powerful machine, especially if you work with high res medium format files Smiley. We've focused on getting best quality possible in the output rather than speed, we expect to improve speed in further updates though. I shall be honest and say that we don't aim for the casual user, while we try to not be too user-unfriendly it does not hurt to be somewhat familiar with how digital photography works and HDR in general.
I use the software myself for my landscape work. My favorite workflow is shooting one raw with a grad to control the sky, LCC to cancel out the grad (and color cast, I have a tech cam), import in Lumariver HDR, tonemap it, and export to DNG (ie raw in raw out) and open up in my raw converter and make further adjustments there. It's open for many other types of workflows though. When I make a fine-art print I almost always make manual fine-tunings in a photo editor and then I export the tonemap multiply map layer(s), may also adjust merging if the image is a merge.
If you have any questions write here in this thread, or post me a private message or email me.
Best regards
Erik
How does this software differ from Photomatix? Thanks, Jim
-
Excellent work! What a pity for us Microsoft Windows users :-\ :-[
meanwhile you can use photoacute ( http://www.photoacute.com/ ) , which you can also get for free if you submit some lens profiles (at least it used to be so before)
-
Another propaganda for Sony CMOS evangelism! ;D
Hi Paul,
The piano shots are just 1:1 crops from full size images.
- First image is single exposure P45+
- Second image is P45+ and Lumariver HDR
- Third image Alpha 99 single shot
The enclosed image may show it better.
- Left: Sony Alpha 99 SLT, single exposure
- Right, top: P45+ multi exposure HDR
- Right, bottom: P45+ single exposure
Both single exposures are essentially ETTR, with some clipping on the windows. These are no test images but shot on travel. The reason these were chosen for this demo is that the windows are taking small part of the image, so I think we have little flare.
The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/DRArticle/Lockenhous/
Best regards
Erik
-
Another propaganda for Sony CMOS evangelism! ;D
actually the best propaganda is MF manufacturers switching as soon as somebody did a big sensor for them
-
Hi,
The way I use it the merged images result in a raw image. So I can just reimport the raw image and do my tone mapping in Lightroom. So it does not write a TIFF but a raw image.
Here is Anders Torger's own description (from: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=84461.0 )
Best regards
Erik
Well this looks interesting! I'll give it a try soon and report back. Jim
-
It seems that there is some visible "softening" on the final images that Eric has posted....
-
It seems that there is some visible "softening" on the final images that Eric has posted....
This is inevitable for bracketing. You do lose some sharpness due to subpixel alignment between exposures. That's why I like shooting with a sensor that comes with better DR.
-
This is inevitable for bracketing. You do lose some sharpness due to subpixel alignment between exposures.
then it can be used for superresolution approach ( photoacute again ), so there is a silver line.
-
Hi,
Adding grain/noise to an image always enhances impression of sharpness.
On this samples I added some grain to the HDR image and also applied same sharpening to both files.
Best regards
Erik
It seems that there is some visible "softening" on the final images that Eric has posted....
-
This is inevitable for bracketing. You do lose some sharpness due to subpixel alignment between exposures. That's why I like shooting with a sensor that comes with better DR.
Lumariver HDR does merging with stitching, not blending (except in seams) so you generally don't lose sharpness, unless you need to align the images. We've found that for HDR shot from a tripod no alignment and stitch method gives the best practical results and is also easier to work with in terms of manual post-processing. Minor alignment errors can often be handled without issues as the stitch seams is optimized to be put in low contrast areas whenever possible.
-
I can understand what you are saying now. So generally the vibration caused by cocking the copal 0 shutter on a technical camera can be negligible? Your program simply analyze exposure zones and stitch different zones together? Do you generate a new RAW file for output?
-
Lumariver HDR does merging with stitching, not blending (except in seams) so you generally don't lose sharpness, unless you need to align the images. We've found that for HDR shot from a tripod no alignment and stitch method gives the best practical results and is also easier to work with in terms of manual post-processing. Minor alignment errors can often be handled without issues as the stitch seams is optimized to be put in low contrast areas whenever possible.
I think this is a great approach. I downloaded the software and tried a few pictures. It seemed doing as well as my manual/semiauto blendings using layers in Photoshop. It was a bit difficult to check out the results due to the many watermarks and honestly this put me a bit off. Why put watermarks in trial mode. If you try Lightroom there is no watermarks. I would recommend to remove these. But I really like the principle and to the previous poster, I believe that blending using this approach will give better results than tone mapping a single RAW even from a Nikon D810. I have shown examples of this before.
-
We have watermarks because we have no time limit on the trial and it was the easiest thing to do. Good feedback anyway, perhaps we should change the approach and make a time limit instead.
-
We have watermarks because we have no time limit on the trial and it was the easiest thing to do. Good feedback anyway, perhaps we should change the approach and make a time limit instead.
I may buy it anyway as I like the approach, but I think a time limited trial would be better. I still have to go through the manual which is very comprehensive, but also a bit nerdy written although I do like that. I personally believe that many will be lost during that manual. When I have gone through it properly I would like to give feedback. The very fact that there is such a manual written is amazing because quite often even great software sometimes comes with very skimpy manuals or almost none. So kudos for writing this up. My feeling is that there should be an easier to digest version, but let me come back on that later.
-
Yes, the manual is nerdy and sort of deliberately so. There are zillions of HDR software out there and we don't intend to rule the world with this one, Lightroom's built-in tonemapper is so good for the casual user that it has killed most of the casual user HDR market anyway.
Instead this is for the "nerdy" user like myself which wants to be in control and see what's happening (and like tonemapping to work the way we like). Our original plan was to have this nerdy reference manual, but add some lighter videos to show example workflows. We don't have any GUI screenshots in the manual as the manual was written at the time when the GUI was not finished. So we know about some of the issues. We're a small company though and we got choked with other work so we've unfortunately not been able to progress on that, hopefully we will soon. Meanwhile we put the time we have into actual software development, releasing a maintenance release soon with some updated raw support. So although we certainly appreciate feedback we may not be possible to react to it as quick as we'd like.
-
Hi,
Regarding time limited trial vs. water marks, I actually prefer watermarks. For me it takes very long to evaluate any software. This was the case for me with Capture One, for instance. I never really liked it, but I finally bought it. I still don't like it
This stuff with time limited licenses just doesn't work for me. Generally I seldom find software I really like, so I run some tests and I will not buy. But, time to time there is a new image I want to test.
Sometimes I buy a license, just to support a product I find interesting or worthwhile.
Best regards
Erik
I may buy it anyway as I like the approach, but I think a time limited trial would be better. I still have to go through the manual which is very comprehensive, but also a bit nerdy written although I do like that. I personally believe that many will be lost during that manual. When I have gone through it properly I would like to give feedback. The very fact that there is such a manual written is amazing because quite often even great software sometimes comes with very skimpy manuals or almost none. So kudos for writing this up. My feeling is that there should be an easier to digest version, but let me come back on that later.
-
Hi,
Regarding time limited trial vs. water marks, I actually prefer watermarks. For me it takes very long to evaluate any software. This was the case for me with Capture One, for instance. I never really liked it, but I finally bought it. I still don't like it
This stuff with time limited licenses just doesn't work for me. Generally I seldom find software I really like, so I run some tests and I will not buy. But, time to time there is a new image I want to test.
Sometimes I buy a license, just to support a product I find interesting or worthwhile.
Best regards
Erik
My view is tainted since I hate watermarks :) I think a time limited trial will expedite most evaluations to a yes or no. Regarding Capture One I have had a license since C1 v.3, but After C1 v.3 I changed and I never wanted to commit to the C1 software. C1 v.4 was completely incompatible with v3 and I lost all my edits. In the back mirror now, maybe not a big deal. But it was something I could not accept. Any company that hangs me up and dry with no option will not get my attention for their products. The last license I upgraded to was v7 and that's it. Adobe has never let me down (so far).
-
Yes, the manual is nerdy and sort of deliberately so. There are zillions of HDR software out there and we don't intend to rule the world with this one, Lightroom's built-in tonemapper is so good for the casual user that it has killed most of the casual user HDR market anyway.
Instead this is for the "nerdy" user like myself which wants to be in control and see what's happening (and like tonemapping to work the way we like). Our original plan was to have this nerdy reference manual, but add some lighter videos to show example workflows. We don't have any GUI screenshots in the manual as the manual was written at the time when the GUI was not finished. So we know about some of the issues. We're a small company though and we got choked with other work so we've unfortunately not been able to progress on that, hopefully we will soon. Meanwhile we put the time we have into actual software development, releasing a maintenance release soon with some updated raw support. So although we certainly appreciate feedback we may not be possible to react to it as quick as we'd like.
I understand you, but Lightroom does (as you know) not yet solve the HDR merging problem. Maybe it will in Lr6 and maybe they will choose a method like yours. If that's the case I would be happy, but I doubt it. I need an HDR solution to teach on my workshops as we shot a lot in challenging situations and I'd like to teach a method that does not require a PHD in rocket launchers to use :) I have the Photoshop blending method I mentioned in a thread recently and now yours, so this looks good. I plan to come back at some time with more about this.