HDR of moving objects?????

[EDL]

Ok, so my understanding of HDR is that a series of 3 (if using 2 f/stop increments) or 5 photos (if using 1 f/stop increments) are used to create an HDR photo. Under exposed, properly exposed and over exposed. So I set up and take each of the shots then run them through the HDR software. It all makes sense to me, but...

I was perusing HDR examples and I have seen a lot of HDRs of objects in motion, like a rally car sliding around a corner. Cool, but...something didn't compute.

How to get all the shots of a moving object without the movement creating too great a difference in the positioning of the object, or some sort of processing in camera that spits out multi exposures of the same shot all at once, or a processing technique in the HDR software....or, are they playing games with a single RAW file in PS by "artificially" creating the under and over exposures then running the set through the HDR software?

 

[480sparky65 65]

They're just adjusting the brightness in post and 'creating' the over- and underexposed frames. IMPO, it's not 'true' HDR.

 

[fenderjaguar]

Pseudo HDR is what you are seeing. Take a photo you like and make for example 2 copies of it where one is -2 ev and the other is +2 ev then put the 3 together. Sometimes it looks cool and sometimes it doesn't. It usually won't work when there is a sky involved. It will work but it just won't have that HDR look to it.

 

[mjhoward]

It's not HDR at all... just Tone-Mapping.

Tone mapping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fenderjaguar]

Here's an example of Pseudo HDR

 

[vipgraphx]

You can take real hdr with a moving subject if you are in good lighting. You need a fast burst though.If you use photomatix it has a deghosting function that you can choose what exposure you want. Usually the 0 one will work and you used that for the moving subject. Sometimes it will work and sometimes. It just depends on the photo. Or you can mask it the original file that has the motion stopped and use that. Sometimes you. We'd to tone map it to get a better match with your hdt to snapped photr to can use the single raw file and as mention create a over under exposed and run it through her software or just Send the single raw file to her software and tone map it as a single photo.

 

[480sparky65 65]

Here's an example of Pseudo HDR

He may thought it was close, but I noticed a lot a huge differences. The sky, mainly. The true HDR had lots of depth and character to the clouds. The pseudo HDR was all washed out. Big difference in the trees on the left, too.

 

[fenderjaguar]

Here's an example of Pseudo HDR

He may thought it was close, but I noticed a lot a huge differences. The sky, mainly. The true HDR had lots of depth and character to the clouds. The pseudo HDR was all washed out. Big difference in the trees on the left, too.

Yeah I know. That's why I told him/her in my first comment that it doesn't work when a sky is involved. He also points out in the video that the sky is blown out. I would never do a pseudo HDR with a sky in the shot.

 

[Skaperen]

You can still get real HDR out of this. It just won't be ALL HDR. The moving parts won't be. The non-moving parts can be. For example you have a wide range background and you can shoot that from your tripod with the bracketing. Then shoot the scene with the car moving through at an exposure best for the car. Apply HDR methods to the background scene. Then cut the car into the HDR result. The edges won't have to be perfect if the surround of the car is the same as the HDR product.

 

[mikeduk]

Photomatrix pro does a good job of one image HDR / tone mapping.

Nik's HDR Efex is OK but the results always seem to come out a little over done IMO.. more so than an HDR image should do anyway