Hi, Greg,

Thank you for the input. With your confirmation, I can be rest-assured
that I don't have to worry about taking couple more under-exposed
brackets for concentrated light sources, which also make the alignment
and merging process harder.

I am actually on Windows with HDR Shop. Really hope that there is a
windows version of Photoshere such that we can use its flare reduction
feature, which seems not available anywhere else. I have read comments
in this mail list and other places about merging directly from RAW for
accuracy. In my experience, it brought me more troubles than
generating visually obviously better IBL results. At the end, I am not
after pure scientific accuracy. Hence, I just use commercial
applications like Adobe Lightroom to convert RAW brackets to
intermediate TIFFs, with minimum color or luminance related
adjustments applied, for HDR merging.

I have had this "capturing concentrated light sources" question for
quite a while and did came across Stumpfel's paper/thesis and
corresponding section in your book (the section written by Debevec).
My main interest is image-based lighting for visual effects type of
works. As I came across a SIGGRAPH course note by Ben Snow's (ILM) and
read about their on-set lightning acquisition workflow: Canon 1DS +
Sigma 8mm fisheye + 0.6 ND filter for exterior shot. If compared to
Stumpfel's 3.0 filter with varied aperture sizes controlled by laptop
to shorten the exposure time for over-exposed brackets, I wonder if
the former is simply capturing the environment map as a high-ish
dynamic range image (instead of fully recover light sources
illumination) and relying on visual-based indirect approach (via 18%
gray sphere photograph) to calibrate the light source's contribution.
But then what's the point of using that 0.6 ND filter if the indirect
calibration of light source's contribution will be conducted anyway?
Why not just capture an environment map without the filter and
manipulate the pixel values of the light source in floating point
space in post until whatever their calibration approach tells them
that the illumination of the light source is properly represented?

best,
Jason

_______________________________________________
HDRI mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/hdri

Reply via email to