Having a subscription for youtube Premium im starting to ignore these kind of video's... in paying not to get commercials now you get them in the videos like this. Linus has some nice videos but I'm starting to get fed up by his sponsors.
I think you can do some great things with HDR, but I think a lot of people tend to overdo HDR and I just don't like the look of extremely obvious HDR. I think pictures look the most refined when you apply HDR in a subtle manner.
I think that goes for many more artistic mediums than pictures. Almost anything is better when done subtly, rather than there in your face, so yeah, I agree :p
@@freevbucks8019 - I notice a difference with HDR. It's like SDR but with a non destructive contrast range. Colors pop more and SDR black fogginess is pushed back too. It kinda feels like the bright version of OLED for VA panels.
MarioDragon Actually, due to the time it takes light to travel long distances, we could build a telescope so far away that when looking at his head, we would see the joke just as it was going over his head.
Would love to see a video about HDR in video games. this does a good job of explaining the concept in still photography, but what about digitally rendered 3d environments that you move about in? how practical is HDR in a video game?
HDR in VR gaming is absolutely insane. It really helps with immersion cos the world around you looks much more tangible, especially with an OLED screen with proper blacks, then for instance the sun glints in the corner of your peripheral vision almost making you feel like you need to squint. Awesome.
I'm quite sure how it works. This video isn't uploaded in HDR. HDR shows up as a separate play option for the videos, it says something like '2160P HDR'. I've watched other HDR videos on YT. Do you know how HDR works?
BonkedByAScout you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and how this works. Any video can show HDR. HDR in this context, means that the shadows were brightened and the highlights were darkened. This is all. The procedure is called tone mapping.
HDR is basically the visual equivalent of the way radio stations compress their audio dynamic range so that everything plays at the same volume. Both techniques have practical benefits, but can ruin the fidelity of the source material when overused.
Just a little correction: dynamic range is measured in stops not f-stops. F-stops exclusively refer to the aperture of the lens. Stops however can be used for exposure (i.e. two stops overexposed) or dynamic range with there being say 15 stops of dynamic range between the darkest and brightest part of the image.
Sometimes motion can make the image look really nice. I did some HDR in 6th form and found that motion can be really nice if you are patient enough to take the same photos 100's of times to find the one you were looking for. HDR works really well in macro blakc and white which was my final photo.
For the next as fast as possible, can you please explain what single/double precision is and floating point ops? I have a vague idea but I would really like to know what these are further.
What happened to your Pebble?!?! I also have a red Pebble, and a lot of people say it's silly, and literally just 2 hours ago I used the argument "Linus has one and he's awesome, therefore I'm also awesome."
I miss Linus without a beard. And his voice sounds higher-pitched in this video, than in his recent videos, like he went through puberty later in life.
i use HDR on my phone all the time, ive never had a problem, my phone isnt the best in low light so this helps, also the flash makes things look horrible
Has a similar effect though. You will find that when you turn HDR on when it is night time, it makes objects easier to pick out in the dark. So I guess a similar principle. Not sure if that is 100% correct but certainly what I take from it.
It probably just means that it has a similar effect, though through different means. Just that it would bring out the darks and lights better, but I doubt it produces the same image multiple times to get that, it would be too big a hit to anyone's FPS.
HDR in a game is the same theory, though a different application. As with a game, the game camera doesn't take an "image" of the world, the game knows a lot more about the scene than what the player see's. Because of this, it means that the scene lighting can be changed appropriately. So, in a game like DayZ, it uses a piece of software, normally a pixel shader to determine what the scene should look like. If a particular area of the scene appears to be too dark, then the colour range will be shifted to give more colour detail to the scene. This is to give more contrast. so for example, if we rate black colours from 0 to 255, if all of the base colours of objects are between 0 and 32, that will be quite hard to make out objects, as that is a pretty dark scene. This colour range can then essentially be stretched, so that those 32 colours get shifted into a 0 to 96 range for example, to give a greater contrast. The same applies for light scenes in reverse. This technique is also sometimes referred to as pupil dilation, as it will give the impression of the players eyes adjusting to the lighting. Dark places, you start to see better in the dark, then when you go into the light, it is extremely bright, however if you have been in the light, the shadows appear darker to the player, until you are in them. In games, it is not about taking multiple snapshots of the scene, as all of that information is already present and can be calculated. The result of the images produced in games only have a limited amount of data, however as you know information about every specific pixel / vertex on screen in a game, you can essentially do whatever you need with this data, and will allow you to locate / pick-out different objects, even if their colours are exactly the same. Something which is not possible with a camera, or even with your eye for that matter.
*TL;DR:* - Notice how it's hard to take a picture of landscape AND sky both visible on a sunny day? Solution: - Your camera takes multiple photos with different brightness and blends them together: 1) Camera takes photo with lowest brightness (so the sky is actually visible, but everything else dark) 2) Camera takes another photo with normal brightness (sky partially visible, everything else partially visible) 3) Camera takes last photo with max brightness (sky completely white, everything else clear as a day) 4) Blend these photos together digitally to get both blue sky AND everything else looking sharp and clear!
Thanks for the explanation! Is there a way to do this manually with two separate photos? Additional question if you feel like it: is it possible to take pictures of a micro object without blurring with a mediocre camera?
Techquickie Wow I am actually impressed and rescind my previous snide statement. I should never have questioned the almighty Linus, who has now taught me two things in one video!
Bro why if I select RAW photo for hdr (high dynamic range) it is not active...if I select photo JPG hdr (high dynamic range) is active but can't be used the setting returns to OFF and the duration of the photo is 2x/second..camera nikon 5500
(Start Phoenix Right theme song) OBJECTION! You told the audience to dislike each time they got board! However, what they didn't know, was clicking it twice cancels the dislike! Therefor, my client can't be the killer! And the real killer... IS LINUS!
I don't know why these videos are too damn good. I finished the main segment and Linus started talking about Shutterstock when my girlfriend called - I paused the video, had a chat, and once I was on the phone I resumed the video to listen to the rest of the advert. I didn't have to... I mean, I'd already learned what I needed to. But I did. ... I willingly listened to an advert. Man, this channel's crack.
Im a Photographer and HDR is actually pretty unnecessary with the screens that are viewing the images that I output, so most of the time ill just end up under exposing by 1 or 2 stops and using the detail of the low ISO Raw image of my D7100 to push the shadows, revealing detail but not removing too much contrast.
Nice explanation for starter photographers, and i recomend using HDR only for cold colour landscapes or just for having crazy unreal imager for your wallpaper. :3
HDR should never be used on an iPhone. There are a few rare times when HDR is great but there is never a time where an iPhone can produce anything but mud using HDR.
I've been using HDR for photos. It's not so much the expanded dynamic range that gets me; in fact, it's the tone map features available in HDR programs. You can create very stylized accents, and create your own style. I look at vivid, grungy, and/or overly detailed images as a great basis for art, while I think that for photography is quite overwhelming.
It makes Counter-Strike Source look like an overly bright bunch of bullshit, especially on the Dust maps. That's enough for me to know I don't want it anywhere near me. Worthless feature, just like motion blur and depth of field... I always turn that garbage OFF! Don't even get me started on some other nonsense like chromatic aberration....
Can HDR compete with a CRT? I currently have at my house a CRT for my PC and a Dell IPS at my apartment, even thou it's supposed to be a good IPS it can not compete with my CRT, it doesn't even come close, both are 2k(althou one is 4:3 and the other 16:9), and TN Panels are not even in the neighbourhood. The thing is, every weekend I get blasted with the CRT goodness, super high contrast, amazing colours and brightness levels, coming back to the IPS panel is always quite frustrating...with glowing black and ever so slightly backlight bleeding.
Hmm no, dynamic range is measured in EV. Exposure value, these are calculated in stops, and can be referred to as stops but not exclusively F-stops. F-stops are used to describe the difference in light passed due to the physical aperture of a lens. A good example of this misunderstanding is the graphic at 1:06 which is wrong, it's expressing focal ratio, not stops. f/14 and f/16, the difference between those numbers is actually only 1/3rd stop. Where as the script is implying these are absolutes, 14 and 16 stops with two stops difference of dynamic range between both values. It would have to be f/8 and f/16 to make this true. What should have been said is 14 / 16 EV or just 14 / 16 stops. Not f/14 / f/16.
HDR 10 and beyond are fantastic in movies and games that support it, this video is now out of date. how do I know? I just bought a 65inch 4K OLED with HDR and its a fucking revelation. I had a 42inch HD TV from LG and I compared them the LG looks like it's broken, I was going to put in in the bedroom now I am just selling it and buying another HDR TV. watch guardians of the galaxy part 2 on a TV that does it well then tell me HDR is a waste of money.
Simple. Take a Picture from a tripod that is Metered to your liking (Metering 0 or 0.3 -0.3 whatever)(Have your moving subject in frame. The only photo with your moving subject). Now go down a stop and take a picture (No Subject). Continue going down 1 stop and take pictures. When you are happy doing it 3 to X number of times go back to your original Metering (The 0 or 0.3, -0.3). Now go up a stop and continue taking pictures. If you did it 3 stops down and 3 stops up you have a total of 7 images (1 Original, 3 over, 3 under). Now Head into Lightroom and then Photoshop. Take the 3 over and 3 under exposed images and make your HDR. now add a layer and add your subject. Play with the colors and get it to the way you like. Clean the images. and your done. I do this all the time (If I have the time to setup) to get detail in my blacks and bring my whites back. I like the natural look.
I have an LG Smart TV with HDR support, model no# LG43UF770T. Now my doubt is, do I need to have a PS Pro or Roku or something else to stream 4K HDR content on Amazon Prime Video because I already have Amazon app installed on my smart TV. And I am able to stream 4K naturally on TH-cam. Please help me on this. Thanks in advance.
This isn't actual HDR, this is so-called "tone mapping" to squish a HDR image into a standard range while still preserving detail. No wonder it looks surreal. Cameras capture light and write the values into a file, and monitors then read the file and try to reproduce the light as precisely as possible. It would make sense to use an unbounded number for this purpose (there is an absolute black, but not an absolute white in real life), but most cameras clamp it into an interval of [0,1] and encode it in either 8 or 10 bits of precision. I don't know exactly why they do this, but my guess is that it has something to do with the sensors not being able to provide much resolution when they're exposed so much. The point is, they give you information about the light intensity in a certain range, and just return 0 or 1 when it's beyond that range. The "HDR" Linus is talking about is just artificially shifting the extremes down to the midtones, which totally ruins the realism. It's not high dynamic range, just detail preservation. You could just squish the HDR range linearly, but that would make it really dim, and despite our eyes' impressive adapatation abilities, the detail just won't be visible due to that (unless you have an ideal monitor set to a massive brightness). You *can* make a true HDR image by fusing exposures, and it's actually the standard way of doing it. You just don't "borrow the dark details from the bright image and the bright details from the dark image", you use a *completely different image format* to encode it. Radiance RGBE and OpenEXR are common ones. They encode the true light intensity without any ugly shifting, they take the bright details from the dark image and *shift it into the brighter range*, not just overlay it over the midtones like an idiot. However, these images can't be directly displayed on most monitors. An ideal monitor should take in an array of RGB brightnesses and output anything from 0 to infinity. Obviously, we can't have infinite brightness in real life, this is HDR, not IDR. LCD monitors have a problem with the blacks, becuase they use light-blocking pixels in front of a backlight, which can't block all light completely. They generally look ok in bright scenes because the sheer contrast makes it look black to our eyes, but you can definitely notice when watching a space scene or something. A few solutions to this could be local backlight dimming and ultra-bright OLED displays where pixels emit their own light (both hard to make). The monitor also needs a massive bit-depth to sample the huge range adequately. So in order to display it on a regular LCD potato monitor, you either simulate what a camera does and pick a range and clamp it to that (which kinda defeats the purpose of using HDR), or use a tone mapping operator (TRO) to squish it down and retain some of the detail. The challenge here is making a TRO that doesn't look like crap. Anyway, enough rambling, I just wanted to say that there's more to HDR than merging 3 images like that.
Those aren't true HDRs, the high dynamic range has been compressed into a LDR (low dynamic range) image; HDRs may have been used in the process, but they're not the end result. True HDR images can't be displayed by conventional monitors, at least not fully; but they're great for providing realistic lighting for CGI, specially when they're full 360 panoramic HDRs.
HDR might give you intense colors in all of your lights but that is not natural. In its own biological process the eye tend to ''desaturate'' the highlights, for example. That's why we talk about a video-look and a film-look (celluloid film) because while video tend to capture vivid amazing colors all the way, film doesn't and looks far more natural. That's why you need to grade your video material, folks, and not just adjust the saturation. And still you can get amazing results with HDR if you process it the right way, and that means manually.
Yeah, well I F*CKING HATE the HDR, mostly because in the source engine (half-life 2 anyone) turning it on (which is default) caused enough problems to crash the game multiple times untill I turned it off completely. so yes, i HATE it.
Interestingly enough of the new 4k UHD Blu-Ray's available a couple don't need HDR. These were the first two Ghostbusters movies (shot and finished on film). Whereas something like The Revenant (digitally captured at 6.5k and digitally finished) does
Don't explain photography... You can't explain F-stops without explaining exposure, you're just going to confuse everybody who doesn't understand it, If you don't understand shutterspeeds and ISO levels then you won't know how to deal with F-stops...
I take pictures around the campus I work at for reports that my office produces. I often times use my Samsung NV11 to shoot 3 different exposures (Built in HDR mode sorta) and combine them in Photoshop. I live in a desert and the sun is very bright. It washes out a normal photo, anything not captured in HDR looks like garbage.
this is probably a silly question, but is HDR available on analog cameras? In other words, in the analog age of cameras, where photographers able to essentially do what HDR does today?
I was kinda annoyed when it said 'as fast as possible', but by the end of the 4 minutes (I'm excluding the end spruik) I was happy. You really did explain the whole of it well, including the nuances of it - things that might usually left out (to the loss of the viewer). My trust in committing attention to you talking has increased dramatically. Thank you for isolating the advert to the end of the video, because I don't want to watch it :) Cheers.
I just got a 4k HDR tv and I have no idea what's the point of HDR, the few videos and games I tried just looked weird, kind of washed out, low on colours, they say it's supposed to look natural but it looks almost black and white. More details in both dark places and light places? Feels like just tightening the contrast ratio to me, makes sense why the image would look flat. I don't get it really
I'm a hobbyist photographer, so take what I say as such; I'm no pro. But in general I like HDR technology. There are times when it's handy, and times when it's not. I think learning to use it in appropriate situations is perfectly fine. And while it may make some images look surreal, I don't think that's necessarily always a terrible thing. I think Linus hit all the points about how HDR works, problems with using it, and situations it is better for.
What are the differences in HDR. I am looking for a 4K tv and one said HDR10 and others say just HDR, then one which I assume is better. It said Active HDR. I would assume the active one adapts more then standard? Any info be great and if you have a video on this. I would like to check it out.
Could of done without the bullshit sales pitch about shutterstock, it's very annoying and not what I wanted to watch. A shame there is no ad block that mutes/pauses the video and says: "Explanation of the subject is now over, now he's advertising some bullshit"
German Television just steals content from the Internet. Yesterday I saw a video from AFV in TV which said Source: TH-cam or they just say Source:Internet. If I would do my homework like that, I would get a F every time for stealing.
HDR looks to me like a panel with brightness and contrast cranked up a bit. Like we suddenly just discovered brighter colors on monitors! Monitors were just in a stagnent market and they needed something to market. I can't believe how much all of the tech TH-camrs bought into it.
You can somewhat cheat the hdr system but results may vary.. what I mean is the lazy method. if you don’t want to carry around tripod all the time. What I do is in Lightroom you can choose a picture that you want to apply hdr to and create multiple virtual copies of that picture and under exposing it by going down two f-stops and over exposing by going up two f-stops on the other virtual copy. After that you can take those pictures to an hdr software of your liking.. works pretty good for the most part but like I said results vary and is a pseudo method.
hey Techquickie!!..........quick question, if i want to take a night shot of, uhm....maybe an airplane on the ramp at night, or even a video of that aircraft..........what settings on my andriod camera phone should i use??
HDR time lapses are my thing :P i have a shutter of about 1/2000 and shoot about 5 pictures with different exposures all in about 2/3 seconds so i don't get any nasty/ugly blur.
"hit that dislike button atleast twice" that's not good, should have been "hit that dislike button an even number of times for " else 3 clicks and uneven clicks upwards keeps the dislike. Still a bit funny though.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[1/2] แก๊ง 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้บุก CAMPปลิ้นครั้งนี้ห้ามเสียอาการ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6WUjXHe1TM/mqdefault.jpg)
As always, whenever Linus says "speaking of" that means that you can stop the video.
Having a subscription for youtube Premium im starting to ignore these kind of video's... in paying not to get commercials now you get them in the videos like this. Linus has some nice videos but I'm starting to get fed up by his sponsors.
@@sygys bruh you just responded to a 5 year old comment.
@@pegasus_2137 ikr
Insomniac Millennial hello
I can't believe 5 years went by since I left this comment.
I think you can do some great things with HDR, but I think a lot of people tend to overdo HDR and I just don't like the look of extremely obvious HDR. I think pictures look the most refined when you apply HDR in a subtle manner.
I think that goes for many more artistic mediums than pictures. Almost anything is better when done subtly, rather than there in your face, so yeah, I agree :p
pure HDR is suspiciously close to SDR
@@freevbucks8019 - I notice a difference with HDR. It's like SDR but with a non destructive contrast range. Colors pop more and SDR black fogginess is pushed back too. It kinda feels like the bright version of OLED for VA panels.
Did he just say 'automagically'? Awesome
😂😂
Considering that it's a real word, I'd say yes, he did say it.
@@MacDaddyDev hello im from the future
Walid Fakhfakh 😂
@@walidfakhfakh3660 lol
250 DOLLARS A MONTH?! Ehhhh, Google is still fine
Samantha03 NASA couldn't invent a telescope that could see how far my joke went over your head
MarioDragon Actually, due to the time it takes light to travel long distances, we could build a telescope so far away that when looking at his head, we would see the joke just as it was going over his head.
Samantha03 don't worry, you already gave TWO fucks
***** No we couldn't unless you can travel faster than light which is impossible. And you couldnt see it from that far with NASA's telescope anyway.
FINDarkside If we were already far back enough, we could.
Man this guy's great, he should start his own company
Would love to see a video about HDR in video games. this does a good job of explaining the concept in still photography, but what about digitally rendered 3d environments that you move about in? how practical is HDR in a video game?
HDR in VR gaming is absolutely insane. It really helps with immersion cos the world around you looks much more tangible, especially with an OLED screen with proper blacks, then for instance the sun glints in the corner of your peripheral vision almost making you feel like you need to squint. Awesome.
@@shenmeowzo 7 years late, but I agree
"Hit that dislike button at least twice"
XDDDD
I hit it only once, sorry, twice just takes you back to nothing
Andres Hernandez no fucking shit
atleast twice ,right. i will press it 3 times then
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
If you hit it fast enought it will be counted as Dislike lol
HAHAHA hit the dislike button twice, I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE
how has no other youtuber said this!?
haha i will like your comment button thrice...
Bishu15 Death I liked your comment Frice...(five times)
It actually disliked when I did that
i dislike then like and dislike again.
2:02 "audomagically"
Yes, Mistakes happen.
Thanks for the free HDR Wallpaper linus at 4:49. I took a printscreen and removed the logo from techquickie. I appreciate our work.
The video isn't uploaded in HDR.
@BonkedByAScout I'm not sure you understand how this works...
LOL He deffinetelly doesnt understand how HDR works :D
I'm quite sure how it works. This video isn't uploaded in HDR. HDR shows up as a separate play option for the videos, it says something like '2160P HDR'. I've watched other HDR videos on YT. Do you know how HDR works?
BonkedByAScout you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and how this works.
Any video can show HDR.
HDR in this context, means that the shadows were brightened and the highlights were darkened. This is all. The procedure is called tone mapping.
HDR is basically the visual equivalent of the way radio stations compress their audio dynamic range so that everything plays at the same volume. Both techniques have practical benefits, but can ruin the fidelity of the source material when overused.
Well put... its "garbage out" without the garbage in...
no?
THAT WAS A GOOD ADVERTISING SEGWAY!
One of few good ones lols.
I loved the "how to basic" one for the shave products
Linus needs to do a "how to do a good sponsored segway as fast as possible
*****
Actually, Follows * according to Translate. :D
***** What if he's just segueing into a Segway ad?
Umm, that’s Linus...
Just a little correction: dynamic range is measured in stops not f-stops. F-stops exclusively refer to the aperture of the lens. Stops however can be used for exposure (i.e. two stops overexposed) or dynamic range with there being say 15 stops of dynamic range between the darkest and brightest part of the image.
LOL I thought HDR meant High Definition Resolution xD, well thanks for the lesson Linus =D
Whats the Goal with TVs?
do people want to recreate real life?
or make TV look better than real life
or you see blacks greater than oled lol
Sometimes motion can make the image look really nice. I did some HDR in 6th form and found that motion can be really nice if you are patient enough to take the same photos 100's of times to find the one you were looking for. HDR works really well in macro blakc and white which was my final photo.
For the next as fast as possible, can you please explain what single/double precision is and floating point ops? I have a vague idea but I would really like to know what these are further.
What happened to your Pebble?!?! I also have a red Pebble, and a lot of people say it's silly, and literally just 2 hours ago I used the argument "Linus has one and he's awesome, therefore I'm also awesome."
I switch to whatever I'm reviewing at any given time.
i didint expect linus when in here
I miss Linus without a beard.
And his voice sounds higher-pitched in this video, than in his recent videos, like he went through puberty later in life.
*Is HDR good while gaming?*🤔
FPS games and racing games especially...
If not then why 27" 4k gaming monitor Asus PG27UQ is having HDR?
Linus literally has a video for every single topic
watching this videos on an HDR monitor today shows how FUCKED the old color management was during 2014 techquickie editing.
"dislike twice" - oooh I see what you did there
sneaky mofos
well what about HDR in video games i.e. BeamNG Drive how does that work
i use HDR on my phone all the time, ive never had a problem, my phone isnt the best in low light so this helps, also the flash makes things look horrible
lol HDR evolved so much now. I look at this video and think linus is talking shit about HDR videos now...
So how does this work in DayZ? :)
HDR in games is a different beast.
Has a similar effect though. You will find that when you turn HDR on when it is night time, it makes objects easier to pick out in the dark. So I guess a similar principle. Not sure if that is 100% correct but certainly what I take from it.
It probably just means that it has a similar effect, though through different means. Just that it would bring out the darks and lights better, but I doubt it produces the same image multiple times to get that, it would be too big a hit to anyone's FPS.
iVulgarThrust Yup, that's what I thought.
HDR in a game is the same theory, though a different application. As with a game, the game camera doesn't take an "image" of the world, the game knows a lot more about the scene than what the player see's. Because of this, it means that the scene lighting can be changed appropriately.
So, in a game like DayZ, it uses a piece of software, normally a pixel shader to determine what the scene should look like. If a particular area of the scene appears to be too dark, then the colour range will be shifted to give more colour detail to the scene. This is to give more contrast. so for example, if we rate black colours from 0 to 255, if all of the base colours of objects are between 0 and 32, that will be quite hard to make out objects, as that is a pretty dark scene. This colour range can then essentially be stretched, so that those 32 colours get shifted into a 0 to 96 range for example, to give a greater contrast.
The same applies for light scenes in reverse. This technique is also sometimes referred to as pupil dilation, as it will give the impression of the players eyes adjusting to the lighting. Dark places, you start to see better in the dark, then when you go into the light, it is extremely bright, however if you have been in the light, the shadows appear darker to the player, until you are in them.
In games, it is not about taking multiple snapshots of the scene, as all of that information is already present and can be calculated. The result of the images produced in games only have a limited amount of data, however as you know information about every specific pixel / vertex on screen in a game, you can essentially do whatever you need with this data, and will allow you to locate / pick-out different objects, even if their colours are exactly the same. Something which is not possible with a camera, or even with your eye for that matter.
5:30 "hit that dislike button (at least) twice for each moment that bored you" i.e. dislike then remove your dislike rating. Oh Linus.
"Hit the dislike twice for each moment that bored you."
Ha! Clever.
I would love to see 8bit dithering HDR vs 10 bit native HDR comparison
*TL;DR:*
- Notice how it's hard to take a picture of landscape AND sky both visible on a sunny day? Solution:
- Your camera takes multiple photos with different brightness and blends them together:
1) Camera takes photo with lowest brightness (so the sky is actually visible, but everything else dark)
2) Camera takes another photo with normal brightness (sky partially visible, everything else partially visible)
3) Camera takes last photo with max brightness (sky completely white, everything else clear as a day)
4) Blend these photos together digitally to get both blue sky AND everything else looking sharp and clear!
Thanks for the explanation! Is there a way to do this manually with two separate photos?
Additional question if you feel like it: is it possible to take pictures of a micro object without blurring with a mediocre camera?
This video is too technical.
"hit the dislike button at leat twice" lmao
lol it's a trap
Lol, loved this
I did it on my phone and the video got 1 dislike!
Thanks for the video,HDR looks like the colors have been washed off ill stick to the dynamic mode
So basically this is what we needed in the moon landing to be able to see the stars in the back ground ;D
It would probably help if they didn't film it on a set too lol
Is it ok if I hit the dislike button twice for each part that bored me and the like button once for each time that didn't?
No.
Of course, that sounds like a perfect plan, I'll join you!
Yes, just do the dislikes first and the likes second.
0:33 "rated at 6 f-stops" (holds up 3 fingers) okay Linus...
That's six in American sign language. Bam.
Techquickie Wow I am actually impressed and rescind my previous snide statement. I should never have questioned the almighty Linus, who has now taught me two things in one video!
I feel like I never understand what this guy is saying.
then why we need HDR display to view HDR content? isnt it just some software refined image?
I defy anyone to be more irritating than this dude.
hahah! 'au'd'o-magically' dude its so good *every time!*
Paul Meranda heyyy 2019
.....indeed, friend.
Automagically 😂 im going to keep that one
What a hysterical sounding guy and irritating voice ....
God I can't stand Linus' commercials in every single video now...
Gotta make money somehow
Too bad I have a 24 f stop lens ITS 2019 BOI
Edit:Now its 2020
No clue what the fuck Linus is talking about :l
Bro why if I select RAW photo for hdr (high dynamic range) it is not active...if I select photo JPG hdr (high dynamic range) is active but can't be used the setting returns to OFF and the duration of the photo is 2x/second..camera nikon 5500
(Start Phoenix Right theme song)
OBJECTION! You told the audience to dislike each time they got board! However, what they didn't know, was clicking it twice cancels the dislike! Therefor, my client can't be the killer! And the real killer... IS LINUS!
I don't know why these videos are too damn good. I finished the main segment and Linus started talking about Shutterstock when my girlfriend called - I paused the video, had a chat, and once I was on the phone I resumed the video to listen to the rest of the advert. I didn't have to... I mean, I'd already learned what I needed to. But I did.
... I willingly listened to an advert. Man, this channel's crack.
thank you for this awesome video !
Specially came from reading article on lifehacker.com to dislike this video for advert....
f-stops are a measurement of aperture not dynamic range. dynamic range is just measured in stops
905 VISUALS rekt
Technically it can be measured in f stops as DR is the difference between the highest and the lowest
he was completely wrong on HDR
Im a Photographer and HDR is actually pretty unnecessary with the screens that are viewing the images that I output, so most of the time ill just end up under exposing by 1 or 2 stops and using the detail of the low ISO Raw image of my D7100 to push the shadows, revealing detail but not removing too much contrast.
Ahh man, you used to make good videos
Nice explanation for starter photographers, and i recomend using HDR only for cold colour landscapes or just for having crazy unreal imager for your wallpaper. :3
So for gamers, its better to choose displays with higher dynamic contrast ratio than going for a HDR ready display?
HDR should never be used on an iPhone. There are a few rare times when HDR is great but there is never a time where an iPhone can produce anything but mud using HDR.
So, 60fps would technically be 180fps?
You guys should do a Fast As Possible on Hardware Acceleration. I always see that on browser settings but I have no clue on what it actually means.
Why not TechQuickie420 :D
huehuehuehuehue
+Techquickie Crazy how far this has come, especially with the current state of 4K on various devices including Smartphones.
I've been using HDR for photos. It's not so much the expanded dynamic range that gets me; in fact, it's the tone map features available in HDR programs. You can create very stylized accents, and create your own style. I look at vivid, grungy, and/or overly detailed images as a great basis for art, while I think that for photography is quite overwhelming.
It makes Counter-Strike Source look like an overly bright bunch of bullshit, especially on the Dust maps. That's enough for me to know I don't want it anywhere near me. Worthless feature, just like motion blur and depth of field... I always turn that garbage OFF! Don't even get me started on some other nonsense like chromatic aberration....
You mean “Hit the subscribe button atleast twice” LOL
liked that trick so much, hit the like button twice, that means you got twice as much likes right?
Can HDR compete with a CRT?
I currently have at my house a CRT for my PC and a Dell IPS at my apartment, even thou it's supposed to be a good IPS it can not compete with my CRT, it doesn't even come close, both are 2k(althou one is 4:3 and the other 16:9), and TN Panels are not even in the neighbourhood.
The thing is, every weekend I get blasted with the CRT goodness, super high contrast, amazing colours and brightness levels, coming back to the IPS panel is always quite frustrating...with glowing black and ever so slightly backlight bleeding.
1,000 people accidentally hit dislike once.
Hmm no, dynamic range is measured in EV. Exposure value, these are calculated in stops, and can be referred to as stops but not exclusively F-stops. F-stops are used to describe the difference in light passed due to the physical aperture of a lens. A good example of this misunderstanding is the graphic at 1:06 which is wrong, it's expressing focal ratio, not stops. f/14 and f/16, the difference between those numbers is actually only 1/3rd stop. Where as the script is implying these are absolutes, 14 and 16 stops with two stops difference of dynamic range between both values. It would have to be f/8 and f/16 to make this true.
What should have been said is 14 / 16 EV or just 14 / 16 stops. Not f/14 / f/16.
HDR 10 and beyond are fantastic in movies and games that support it, this video is now out of date.
how do I know? I just bought a 65inch 4K OLED with HDR and its a fucking revelation. I had a 42inch HD TV from LG and I compared them the LG looks like it's broken, I was going to put in in the bedroom now I am just selling it and buying another HDR TV.
watch guardians of the galaxy part 2 on a TV that does it well then tell me HDR is a waste of money.
Simple. Take a Picture from a tripod that is Metered to your liking (Metering 0 or 0.3 -0.3 whatever)(Have your moving subject in frame. The only photo with your moving subject). Now go down a stop and take a picture (No Subject). Continue going down 1 stop and take pictures. When you are happy doing it 3 to X number of times go back to your original Metering (The 0 or 0.3, -0.3). Now go up a stop and continue taking pictures. If you did it 3 stops down and 3 stops up you have a total of 7 images (1 Original, 3 over, 3 under). Now Head into Lightroom and then Photoshop. Take the 3 over and 3 under exposed images and make your HDR. now add a layer and add your subject. Play with the colors and get it to the way you like. Clean the images. and your done. I do this all the time (If I have the time to setup) to get detail in my blacks and bring my whites back. I like the natural look.
I have an LG Smart TV with HDR support, model no# LG43UF770T. Now my doubt is, do I need to have a PS Pro or Roku or something else to stream 4K HDR content on Amazon Prime Video because I already have Amazon app installed on my smart TV. And I am able to stream 4K naturally on TH-cam. Please help me on this. Thanks in advance.
This isn't actual HDR, this is so-called "tone mapping" to squish a HDR image into a standard range while still preserving detail. No wonder it looks surreal.
Cameras capture light and write the values into a file, and monitors then read the file and try to reproduce the light as precisely as possible. It would make sense to use an unbounded number for this purpose (there is an absolute black, but not an absolute white in real life), but most cameras clamp it into an interval of [0,1] and encode it in either 8 or 10 bits of precision. I don't know exactly why they do this, but my guess is that it has something to do with the sensors not being able to provide much resolution when they're exposed so much. The point is, they give you information about the light intensity in a certain range, and just return 0 or 1 when it's beyond that range.
The "HDR" Linus is talking about is just artificially shifting the extremes down to the midtones, which totally ruins the realism. It's not high dynamic range, just detail preservation. You could just squish the HDR range linearly, but that would make it really dim, and despite our eyes' impressive adapatation abilities, the detail just won't be visible due to that (unless you have an ideal monitor set to a massive brightness).
You *can* make a true HDR image by fusing exposures, and it's actually the standard way of doing it. You just don't "borrow the dark details from the bright image and the bright details from the dark image", you use a *completely different image format* to encode it. Radiance RGBE and OpenEXR are common ones. They encode the true light intensity without any ugly shifting, they take the bright details from the dark image and *shift it into the brighter range*, not just overlay it over the midtones like an idiot. However, these images can't be directly displayed on most monitors.
An ideal monitor should take in an array of RGB brightnesses and output anything from 0 to infinity. Obviously, we can't have infinite brightness in real life, this is HDR, not IDR.
LCD monitors have a problem with the blacks, becuase they use light-blocking pixels in front of a backlight, which can't block all light completely. They generally look ok in bright scenes because the sheer contrast makes it look black to our eyes, but you can definitely notice when watching a space scene or something. A few solutions to this could be local backlight dimming and ultra-bright OLED displays where pixels emit their own light (both hard to make). The monitor also needs a massive bit-depth to sample the huge range adequately.
So in order to display it on a regular LCD potato monitor, you either simulate what a camera does and pick a range and clamp it to that (which kinda defeats the purpose of using HDR), or use a tone mapping operator (TRO) to squish it down and retain some of the detail. The challenge here is making a TRO that doesn't look like crap.
Anyway, enough rambling, I just wanted to say that there's more to HDR than merging 3 images like that.
Those aren't true HDRs, the high dynamic range has been compressed into a LDR (low dynamic range) image; HDRs may have been used in the process, but they're not the end result. True HDR images can't be displayed by conventional monitors, at least not fully; but they're great for providing realistic lighting for CGI, specially when they're full 360 panoramic HDRs.
HDR might give you intense colors in all of your lights but that is not natural. In its own biological process the eye tend to ''desaturate'' the highlights, for example. That's why we talk about a video-look and a film-look (celluloid film) because while video tend to capture vivid amazing colors all the way, film doesn't and looks far more natural. That's why you need to grade your video material, folks, and not just adjust the saturation. And still you can get amazing results with HDR if you process it the right way, and that means manually.
watched you a few times on purchase advice. glad i found you! subbed :D
Holy fucking shit!!!! Linus, the IT computer God actually replied to the top comment!! DUDE THAT DUDE IS LUCKY AS FUCK!! IM SO JEALOUS DUDE!!
Yeah, well I F*CKING HATE the HDR, mostly because in the source engine (half-life 2 anyone) turning it on (which is default) caused enough problems to crash the game multiple times untill I turned it off completely. so yes, i HATE it.
Interestingly enough of the new 4k UHD Blu-Ray's available a couple don't need HDR. These were the first two Ghostbusters movies (shot and finished on film). Whereas something like The Revenant (digitally captured at 6.5k and digitally finished) does
Don't explain photography... You can't explain F-stops without explaining exposure, you're just going to confuse everybody who doesn't understand it, If you don't understand shutterspeeds and ISO levels then you won't know how to deal with F-stops...
I take pictures around the campus I work at for reports that my office produces. I often times use my Samsung NV11 to shoot 3 different exposures (Built in HDR mode sorta) and combine them in Photoshop. I live in a desert and the sun is very bright. It washes out a normal photo, anything not captured in HDR looks like garbage.
Webinar - HDR simplified: A deep dive into High Dynamic Range Imaging
➡ th-cam.com/video/VDznAxA6smg/w-d-xo.html
this is probably a silly question, but is HDR available on analog cameras? In other words, in the analog age of cameras, where photographers able to essentially do what HDR does today?
Yes... sort of. You'd have do some trickery during development with multiple exposures, and possibly some masking or other techniques.
I was kinda annoyed when it said 'as fast as possible', but by the end of the 4 minutes (I'm excluding the end spruik) I was happy. You really did explain the whole of it well, including the nuances of it - things that might usually left out (to the loss of the viewer). My trust in committing attention to you talking has increased dramatically. Thank you for isolating the advert to the end of the video, because I don't want to watch it :) Cheers.
I just got a 4k HDR tv and I have no idea what's the point of HDR, the few videos and games I tried just looked weird, kind of washed out, low on colours, they say it's supposed to look natural but it looks almost black and white. More details in both dark places and light places? Feels like just tightening the contrast ratio to me, makes sense why the image would look flat. I don't get it really
I'm a hobbyist photographer, so take what I say as such; I'm no pro.
But in general I like HDR technology. There are times when it's handy, and times when it's not. I think learning to use it in appropriate situations is perfectly fine. And while it may make some images look surreal, I don't think that's necessarily always a terrible thing.
I think Linus hit all the points about how HDR works, problems with using it, and situations it is better for.
What are the differences in HDR. I am looking for a 4K tv and one said HDR10 and others say just HDR, then one which I assume is better. It said Active HDR. I would assume the active one adapts more then standard? Any info be great and if you have a video on this. I would like to check it out.
Could of done without the bullshit sales pitch about shutterstock, it's very annoying and not what I wanted to watch. A shame there is no ad block that mutes/pauses the video and says:
"Explanation of the subject is now over, now he's advertising some bullshit"
German Television just steals content from the Internet. Yesterday I saw a video from AFV in TV which said Source: TH-cam or they just say Source:Internet. If I would do my homework like that, I would get a F every time for stealing.
HOLY BALLS! 250$ for 1 month of a couple of images? Yea, sure I guess you guys have a reason to pay for and use it. But like...it's pictures...what...
HDR looks to me like a panel with brightness and contrast cranked up a bit. Like we suddenly just discovered brighter colors on monitors! Monitors were just in a stagnent market and they needed something to market. I can't believe how much all of the tech TH-camrs bought into it.
You can somewhat cheat the hdr system but results may vary.. what I mean is the lazy method. if you don’t want to carry around tripod all the time. What I do is in Lightroom you can choose a picture that you want to apply hdr to and create multiple virtual copies of that picture and under exposing it by going down two f-stops and over exposing by going up two f-stops on the other virtual copy. After that you can take those pictures to an hdr software of your liking.. works pretty good for the most part but like I said results vary and is a pseudo method.
My friends 15 year old niece still taking dark pictures as fuck because they haven’t discovered HDR yet 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
hey Techquickie!!..........quick question, if i want to take a night shot of, uhm....maybe an airplane on the ramp at night, or even a video of that aircraft..........what settings on my andriod camera phone should i use??
HDR time lapses are my thing :P i have a shutter of about 1/2000 and shoot about 5 pictures with different exposures all in about 2/3 seconds so i don't get any nasty/ugly blur.
"hit that dislike button atleast twice" that's not good, should have been "hit that dislike button an even number of times for " else 3 clicks and uneven clicks upwards keeps the dislike. Still a bit funny though.
last
Great video Linus, this is exactly what I wanted to know. What is HDR+ though?