Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: AntoineC on May 01, 2011, 12:47:06 pm
-
Hi all!
I was just contacted by a user of this forum recommending me to be part of your community and to discuss directly with the members. So, here I am!
I am the creator and main developer Oloneo PhotoEngine, a professional HDR tool. The software is in beta (actually since last July!). You can download the beta at:
http://www.oloneo.com/en/page/download.html
We have more and more professional photographers using the product for landscape photography. There is an image gallery on our home page that shows a few images:
http://www.oloneo.com
Please post your comments and suggestions about the beta in this thread. I will be happy to answer to your questions directly on the forum.
Thanks,
Antoine Clappier
Creator of Oloneo PhotoEngine
-
Please post your comments and suggestions about the beta in this thread.
The feature set looks promising. I wish there was a Macintosh version, and unfortunately I'm not comfortable running Windows on any of my systems.
-
We plan to create a Mac OS Version.
Thanks,
Antoine
-
Hi all,
We updated the PhotoEngine beta this morning. The latest version (v1.0.400.298) now includes a Lightroom plug-in and a direct export to Photoshop (or the post processing tool of your choice).
The beta is available for download at:
http://www.oloneo.com/en/page/download.html
Thanks,
Antoine Clappier
-
I enjoy doing HDR. Most of my work is concentrated on getting the most natural-looking results, although I sometimes do more "interpretive" work as well.
I have been using the Oloneo HDR software through several versions of the beta, and find it to be exquisite in its ability to produce beautiful and natural-looking results. I use several other programs (NIK HDR Efex Pro, Photomatix Pro v.4, HDR Expose, and Photoshop CS5's Merge To HDR Pro) and find that Oloneo and HDR Expose rank the highest in terms of ease of getting natural results.
-
I enjoy doing HDR. Most of my work is concentrated on getting the most natural-looking results, although I sometimes do more "interpretive" work as well.
I have been using the Oloneo HDR software through several versions of the beta, and find it to be exquisite in its ability to produce beautiful and natural-looking results. I use several other programs (NIK HDR Efex Pro, Photomatix Pro v.4, HDR Expose, and Photoshop CS5's Merge To HDR Pro) and find that Oloneo and HDR Expose rank the highest in terms of ease of getting natural results.
How do you get natural results? I tried Oloneo perhaps a year ago, and couldn't get a natural result, and none of the presets worked.
I've tried numerous HDR programs over the years, but none beat manual blending for my needs. I usually take just two shots 4 stops apart and blend them manually in PS which gives the most pleasing results, but would consider going the HDR route as long as I don't have to worry about halos and overcooked results.
-
I've tried numerous HDR programs over the years, but none beat manual blending for my needs. I usually take just two shots 4 stops apart and blend them manually in PS which gives the most pleasing results, but would consider going the HDR route as long as I don't have to worry about halos and overcooked results.
Hi Feppe,
I hesitate to react in this thread, but I suggest you try SNS-HDR (its Neutral preset adds zero tonemapping, you can take it from there). Personally I prefer to work from Raw-converted TIFFs, but it can also read Raws. Two shots 4 stops apart is not optimal for HDR or Expoure Blending, mathematically you may get good results with 2 stops apart, but common wisdom rather sticks to someting like 1 or 1.33 stop intervals to avoid potential artifacts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Two shots 4 stops apart is not optimal for HDR or Expoure Blending, mathematically you may get good resuts with 2 stops apart, but common wisdom rather sticks to someting like 1 or 1.33 stop intervals to avoid potential artifacts.
I distrust common "wisdom," especially in photography. Do you have some research backing up the claim that 4 stops apart is not optimal for exposure blending? Guillermo Luijk has an excellent article (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm)on the topic which is my basis for using 4 stops.
I've found two shots 4 stops apart to be plenty in most situations, and I don't have to tackle with halos, multiple masks or artifcacting. I do take third very fast shot (~0.5 secs) when shooting nighttime cityscapes to capture highlights.
I'll check out SNS-HDR.
-
Hi Feppe,
How do you get natural results? I tried Oloneo perhaps a year ago, and couldn't get a natural result, and none of the presets worked.
I don't think that it was Oloneo PhotoEngine! We have added preset support very recently and the first beta was released less than a year ago.
The beta testers say that they get the most natural results with PhotoEngine and that it is the strongest point of the beta (with speed).
The beta is a 18MB download. Take a minute to download it. I think you will like it.
Thanks,
Antoine
-
Hi Feppe,
I distrust common "wisdom," especially in photography. Do you have some research backing up the claim that 4 stops apart is not optimal for exposure blending? Guillermo Luijk has an excellent article (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm)on the topic which is my basis for using 4 stops.
4 stops apart is quite large. Let me explain:
Exposure compensation value is calculated as the base-2 logarithm of the ratio of the exposures of two photos. In other words, the pixel values in the first photo are 16 times lower than the ones found in the second photo (the inverse of base-2 logarithm is 2 to the power of the number of stops, here: 2^4 = 16).
Camera censors have a "sweet spot". Below a certain low value, data is buried in noise. After a certain high value, the censor response to incoming light becomes non-linear.
The goal of HDR is to use the range of values between these two extremes for each of the photos you are assembling. The algorithm attempts to use only the best part of each photo in terms of exposure.
Here is an example:
- Photo 1: regular exposure
- Photo 2: under exposed of 4 stops (-4EV)
Assuming 8-bit images (the reasoning is the same with 12 or 14 bits but easier to follow).
- Total range of pixel values is: [0 255]
- Useful range is, say: [50 200] (under 50 there is too much noise, after 200, signal becomes non-linear)
For both photos, the algorithm will use the range [50 200].
- Photo 1: [50 200]
- Photo 2: [50 200]
Now, the Photo 2 is 16 times darker than Photo 1 (4 stops). Because of that, pixel values of Photo 2 must be multiplied by 16 before assembling with Photo 1:
- Photo 1: [50 200]
- Photo 2: [16*50 16*200]
That is:
- Photo 1: [50 200]
- Photo 2: [800 3200]
As you can see, the resulting HDR image has values ranging from 50 to 3200. Highlights in Photo 1 are fully recovered. There is anyway a serious issue: where are the values from 200 to 800? Answer: nowhere! There is a large gap between the range [50 200] and [800 3200]!
At this point, you should start guessing why the "2 stops rule" makes sense in HDR photography!
With 2 stops, the exposure ratio is 4 (2 to the power of 2). Let's take the previous example:
- Photo 1: regular exposure
- Photo 2: under exposed of 2 stops (-2EV)
Ranges after blending:
- Photo 1: [50 200]
- Photo 2: [4*50 4*200] = [200 800]
The HDR image has now a range of [50 800] and this time there is not gap from [50 200] to [200 800]. To get the same dynamic range than the first example, you could take three photos 2 stops apart:
- Photo 1: [50 200]
- Photo 2: [4*50 4*200] = [200 800]
- Photo 3: [16*50 16*200] = [800 3200]
You end up with a continuous range of [50 3200] without any gaps.
The previous discussion is pure mathematical reasoning (and I have simplified quite a lot what is really happening in HDR / Exposure Fusion). Does it really matter to practical HDR photography?
Most of the time, the answer is yes, but not always!
The light in most scenes increases smoothly from the darkest shadows to the brightest highlights. Introducing a gap in the tonal range is not a good idea. You should then use the 2 stops rule. I even recommend setting the photos 1 stop apart for best results (in that case, there is a tonal overlap between each photo that is beneficial).
In the case of night photography, there are mainly two ranges: very deep shadows and highlights (such as street lights). In this special case, there is a natural gap in light intensities in the real world scene. Using 4 stops can make sense in this situation. I would anyway recommend that you use 2 stops or less for other reasons (such as additional image stacking that will reduce noise but that is another long story!)
Regards,
Antoine Clappier
-
4 stops apart is quite large. Let me explain:
I was asking specifically about exposure blending, not HDR, so your calculations are irrelevant. When doing exposure blending there's no multiplication resulting in gaps - I'm just combining the two exposures with a tweaked luminance mask. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'd shoot differently if I start doing HDR, as I do appreciate HDR requires different shooting regimen than exposure blending.
Also, I shoot the opposite of your example: ETTR exposure, and +4 EV (not underexposure like you propose) which burns out highlights but lifts detail from shadows for increased DR. I'm having hard time understanding why one would even want to do -4 EV except in extreme circumstances, such as street lights in night shots.
-
Hi Feppe,
The +4EV or -4EV question is a matter of point of view since it is a relative value. In the example above, I could use the Photo 2 as the reference and the Photo 1 as the overexposed photo at +4EV (or use +2 and -2EV respectively or any other combination). Mathematically the results are strictly the same.
You are right. Exposure Fusion is different from regular HDR. There is anyway a blending occurring when merging the two or more photos. With two photos, there are three areas in the resulting photo:
- Pixels coming only from the Photo 1
- Pixels coming only from the Photo 2
- Pixels coming from a blending of Photo 1 and Photo 2
In Exposure Fusion software, the blended part is generally produced by the collapse of two Laplacian Pyramids with varying weights (roughly, a stack of difference images at multiple resolutions). Because of the multi-resolution scheme, the blended area can be large and represent a significant portion of the resulting image.
The blended area is incorrect when the two images are too far apart in term of exposure for reasons similar to the ones described in my previous post (essentially: pixels which are quite unrelated in exposure get mixed together). This error can introduce color shift, noise and halos in the blended portions of the image. The problem is generally much less obvious than with regular HDR.
If you blend the images manually in Photoshop or other tools, the previous issues becomes irrelevant as you decide which parts will get blended.
I am speaking from a purely technical point of view and in the general case. I just want to show there are some mathematical reasons behind the 2 stops approach. My goal is certainly not to show that the "2 stops rule" is the definitive method. I see the "2 stops rule" as a guide for beginners. By using it, photographers can avoid major mistakes in most situations.
With more experience, users discover than the needed number of shots and relative exposure are highly dependent on the photographed scene (and the camera used). Some calls from multiples photos separated of 1EV, some others will work with just two at +-4EV. And some, with only one photo and no editing at all! ;-)
Antoine
-
Hi Feppe,
4 stops apart is quite large. Let me explain:
[snip]
The numbers here are quite ridiculous. First of all, the use of 8-bit example data skews the result by lopping off 4 stops of DR available in today's raw files.
Let's assume we are working in linear gamma (where exposure blending works best). Then the range 50-200 is only two stops out of the available 8 stops of linear 8-bit data. So of course there is no overlap between the two images' data if one limits the range used for blending that drastically!
So let's use more realistic numbers: Take 12-bit raw data, and blend the top two stops of the 4 stops more exposed image (which will be used for shadows) with stops 6-8 of the less exposed image. There is plenty of overlap, since there are 3-4 stops more DR below the blending range in the less exposed image.
Sensor non-linearity is not an issue except perhaps in the top one or two stops near sensor saturation, so irrelevant to the blending range which is 4-6 stops below raw clipping (which could only be the same as sensor saturation at base ISO).
The 16-fold disparity in the size of the quantization step is also not an issue. Even at base ISO, SNR never exceeds about 250:1 even for large pixels, and so noise dithers tonal gradations sufficiently that the difference in quantization steps will not be noticeable.
The only issue I see with a 4 stop disparity in exposure is that shot noise will be substantially different between the two images in the tonal ranges they have in common; I don't know whether this would be readily apparent, however.
-
The only issue I see with a 4 stop disparity in exposure is that shot noise will be substantially different between the two images in the tonal ranges they have in common; I don't know whether this would be readily apparent, however.
Hi Emil,
That's correct. It also shows as more noisy gradients when the global microcontrast is boosted (which is often the case to improve the look of the images with squashed tonal contrast). That's why I currently stick to 1.33 stops (or 2 at most), but then I sometimes see the noise difference between individual images with just 1/3rd stop exposure difference :(
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's correct. It also shows as more noisy gradients when the global microcontrast is boosted (which is often the case to improve the look of the images with squashed tonal contrast). That's why I currently stick to 1.33 stops (or 2 at most), but then I sometimes see the noise difference between individual images with just 1/3rd stop exposure difference :(
You can see the different in print or 100% zoom on screen?
-
Perhaps there are details that I'm missing, but naively the only difference between HDR and exposure fusion is the tone curve applied after the exposures are combined.
-
You can see the different in print or 100% zoom on screen?
At 100% zoom on screen in a side by side comparison, so relatively insignificant in print (unless blown-up large enough). But I'm also not anal about it, so I settle for 1.33 stop increments in exposure fusion, which passes my seal of approval, but I draw a sharp line at 2 stops.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Perhaps there are details that I'm missing, but naively the only difference between HDR and exposure fusion is the tone curve applied after the exposures are combined.
Exposure Fusion and HDRI are different algorithms. Actually, they cannot be directly compared! You can compare:
- Exposure Fusion
- HDRI generation, followed by Tone Mapping
1- HDRI:
The goal of HDRI is to generate an High Dynamic Range Image from a set of low dynamic ones. When this phase is achieved, you get a high dynamic image with usually 32-bit floating point values per channel. The dynamic range is unchanged at this stage (no tone curve is applied).
If you are interested in the mathematical details, read the original Paul Debevec publication: Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs
http://www.debevec.org/Research/HDR/debevec-siggraph97.pdf
2 -Tone Mapping:
The goal of Tone Mapping is to bring back the HDR image to low dynamic for display or print. The principle is to compress the dynamic range while retaining the details. There is whole range of methods to achieve that. They fall in two main categories:
- Global methods (applying the same tone curve to all the pixels)
- Local methods
With local methods, usually the image is switched to the log domain, the image is split in a detail layer and global layer (this is achieved for instance with a Bilateral filter), the global layer dynamic range is compressed and finally recombined with the detail layer. The end result is a low dynamic image with preserved details.
3- Exposure Fusion
Exposure fusion is an empirical method that compresses the dynamic range in one pass without creating any high dynamic data. The idea is very simple: the algorithm cut the photos in pieces, eliminates the ones with “incorrect” exposures and reassembles a low dynamic image. Mathematically this does not make much sense but it works surprisingly well. Some level of blending must occur between the pieces otherwise obvious seams appear (due to the errors already explained in my previous posts).
A paper on Exposure Fusion:
http://research.edm.uhasselt.be/~tmertens/papers/exposure_fusion_reduced.pdf
Regarding your comment about "quite ridiculous numbers"! I admit that using 8-bit values is an over simplification. I used these values to explain the process without entering in too much detail. If you read HDR papers, you will see that a large part of the original dynamic range is rejected. The blending is done using a weighted sum using hat or Gaussian functions. The [50 250] range is not that far from what is happening inside an HDR/Tone Mapping software.
Antoine Clappier
Oloneo
-
Sounds like we are talking about different things. The technique referred to in the Luijk article that feppe referenced is not the same as the one you referenced.
-
How do you get natural results? I tried Oloneo perhaps a year ago, and couldn't get a natural result, and none of the presets worked.
Here is a jpeg that was reduced from a tiff made in Oloneo of 5 images, 1 1/3 stops apart, with tonemapping aimed at the least obvious effects that would still give me shadow detail without blowing highlights. One exposure would not capture the range of contrast. This was not processed after, and is not what I consider a finished image.
(http://)
-
Antoine, that is simply wonderful!
I reworked a few difficult old bracket sets and was very pleased with the results. It appears I can now push things quite a bit farther while still remaining naturalistic and avoiding excessive granularity. And the responsiveness makes everything so much easier. The user interface is very nice indeed. A lot of control there, feels kind of liberating. Including the LDR controls is brilliant, saves a lot of guesswork!
One feature most panoramic stitch photographers would appreciate is the ability to work on several images side by side. But even without that, Oloneo is looking terrific, thanks for the work! Put me down for a release copy.
-
Impressive indeed. While I am not a HDR fan, I gave it a try and found it sleek and fast. It's very easy to obtain good, natural looking, results.
-
When is the OSX version due out?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very interesting program. ;)
A few observvations..........
1. It seems I can only make adjustments using the sliders and not using the up/down arrow keys (as I would in ACR or LR - there I only use the sliders to get close to where I want to be. I use the up/down keys for fine tuning.). This makes very fine changes almost impossible. It would be useful to have this feature.
2. There doesn't seem to be any highlight/shadow warning. I would have thought that this would be essential in a HDR program. No?
3. I have installed Oloneo as a LR plugin. However, I cannot get any image to open. Even choosing a single image I get the error message: "Error reading file: '__Photoenging_Temp1.tif'. Unable to find the specified file." What am I doing wrong?
4. Finally, when I Browse to a folder of images, I do not see preview images. I only see .dng or .tif files and file name icons in the browser window. In order to know which image(s) I want to open, I have to open the same folder in Bridge and make a note of its filename. Very strange, but maybe the fault is mine?
5. If I click on the ? next to Low Dynamic Tone, I am taken to a video called "To convert your image to black and white or modify saturation........". This must be incorrect?
However, the effects that can be achieved are very interesting and I would recommend that people try the program. The Presets are great! ;D
I'm Vista x64bit.
D.
-
Hi Dinarius,
You can move a slider using the arrows (you have to select the slider first). You can also hold the Control key while dragging with the mouse to fine tune a value with a high accuracy.
The video is correct. It is just that YouTube decided to show that particular frame as a preview before you start the video! Simply click the play button to watch the entire video.
Unless you are using files without thumbnails, you should see the thumbnails in the Browse Workspace. Please contact us using:
http://www.oloneo.com/en/page/support/technical-support.html
We need more information and may need to see one of your files to answer to your questions (the same goes for the issue with Lightroom).
Thank you for your kind words and for recommending PhotoEngine. :)
Best regards,
Antoine
-
I've only played with the software for a short time, but the one thing that pops out at me is that when you process a single raw file through Oloneo the results are really really good... except there should be a noise reduction option in this area.
So far, with processing 3 and 5 image sets, made for HDR processing, the results have been extremely nice - especially after flipping through some of the presets.
Cheers to your achievement! Consider adding the noise reduction to the single image processing pipeline!
*steve
-
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your kind comments.
We do plan to add a single image noise reduction feature. Meanwhile, you can use the Lightroom plug-in to pre-process the image or the Export to Photoshop option to post-process.
If you use Lightroom, do the following:
- Edit the raw photo in Lightroom
- Set everything to zero except noise reduction (Lightroom always changes the Brightness, Contrast Curve, Black Level, etc)
- Use the PhotoEngine plug-in or simply select Edit In PhotoEngine (use TIFF 16-Bit ProPhoto RGB)
This can be further accelerated by creating a Preset in Lightroom.
Thanks,
Antoine
-
Antoine, like the program. I have CS5, Photomatix, and Nik HDR programs and generally use Oloneo. I preprocess in LR, set all to zero. Adjust sharpness and noise and then to Oloneo. I process a very flat file in Oloneo and then to PS for final work. Attempt to get a semi-natural result.
Two things:
When I go to PS, the save dialog does not give the correct fileneame. I get 'From Lightroom...tif'. I seem to remember that it worked correctly for a while when first installed (trial version, will purchase in a couple of days). This is a major annoyance.
If I am over aggressive and use a file which is too overexposed, the ghosting does not seem to work. The overexposed file is way out of register. Remedy is to reprocess eliminating that file. I like the feature is CS5 that allows files to be toggled on/off without having to go back to LR.
Probably a technical reason for not having, but I would really like a RGB readout of the values at the cursor. Even if approximate.
Also probably a limitation due to LR, but it is really annoying to always have to synchronize when going back to LR.
And finally, what is the difference between Method 1 and Method 2 when removing ghosts? Ghosting is always a major problem and I sometimes have to switch to one of the other programs for better results.
Larry
-
Hi Antoine,
Apologies for the delay in replying to you.
1. Thanks for clarifying the issue with controlling the sliders using the arrow keys. A few impressions......
a. This works, but in reverse order on my Vista x64 system. i.e. Up Arrow reduces/ Down Arrow increases.
b. The incremental increases are quite large, I think. TM Strength +/- 7, Detail Strength +/- 20, Exposure +/- 80, Fine Exposure +/- 10.
My main problem, however, is with the thumbnail views. If I Browse directly to the images in the card reader, I see the files. Equally, if I copy the files onto my Desktop, I see the files.
However, my normal workflow is to Import files from a card into Lightroom, thereby creating a folder of .dng files.
I cannot see .dng thumbnails in the Browse window.
Any idea why?
Thanks.
D.
ps. I love the Presets! Great fun! :D
-
Hi Dinarius,
1. Sliders:
The sliders actually follow the Windows guideline. Apparently Up means decrease and Down means increase at Microsoft! Now, you can also use the Left and Right Keys that work in logical way. All sliders work with a 10% increment when using the keyboard. We could use smaller increments but that does not work well with the Timeline that records all changes.
2. DNG:
PhotoEngine displays thumbnails included in DNG files. Please verify that Lightroom is set to create a thumbnail when exporting to DNG (Enable "Jpeg Preview" in File Handling in Lightroom Preferences if I recall correctly).
Thanks,
Antoine
-
1. Sliders:
The sliders actually follow the Windows guideline. Apparently Up means decrease and Down means increase at Microsoft!
Where? For example, volume increases as you push the slider up in all versions of Windows I've used.
-
Check for instance the Color Intensity slider found in (Windows 7):
Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Personalization\Window Color and Appearance
The vertical sliders such as sound volume or icon size use the reverse approach. Don't ask why! This is the way Microsoft has defined how Windows sliders work.
Thanks,
Antoine
-
I am also trying the trial version. I like the results I've seen from others but need more time to evaluate it for myself. Some comments so far:
1) I would not buy the PC version as I have a Mac. I am running the trial using Parallels.
2) The histogram is acting up. See below.
3) When making changes or just clicking back a step in the history, the image becomes very pixelated and the message "Updating.." is displayed. This makes it impossible to directly see a difference between two versions. See below.
4) It is very slow for me and sometimes crashes. I am running it with XP Pro 64 bit, which has 3GB of RAM allocated to it via Parallels. That seems like enough to run one program and have one image open but perhaps it's not.
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/oloneo_issue.jpg)
-
Further query: I imported a 16-bit TIFF file which was 480MB and when I exported it, it had grown to 590MB. Any idea where the extra 110MB came from?
-
Further query: I imported a 16-bit TIFF file which was 480MB and when I exported it, it had grown to 590MB. Any idea where the extra 110MB came from?
Hi Graham,
Perhaps different compression?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Perhaps different compression?
They are both uncompressed files.