Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HDR in Ultimate 2020 - new feature just doesn't work....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hello,

    Before we think about exchanging files, please review the feedback from Shakil:

    For auto-aligning were you using the following option from the top toolbar?

    "Layer > Auto-Align Layers"

    This Auto-Align feature works better when the exposures are similar in all the layers in the stack.

    For Auto-aligning images for HDR the option inside top toolbar's Layer > HDR... > Auto-Align Layers works a bit better.


    Thanks,
    Mark

    Comment


    • #17
      Dear ACD support team, I must say it's extremely disappointing you're completely avoiding this issue and trying to find excuses in the alignment workarounds.
      As I said when opening this discussion, and others added along the way - the feature doesn't work! It's not an alignment issue, it's the software unable to deal the the span of exposures.
      You asked me for example files almost 3 months ago, I sent you plenty with detailed explanation and heard nothing back. Now you keep asking others to send you files. For what?
      Just admit this feature does not work in 2020, don't mislead your customers!

      Comment


      • #18
        Hello Ariel,

        I've spoken with Customer Care and the development team and it is my understanding they replied to you by email on October 15, 2019 with suggestions, including a link to: Creating an HDR Image.

        I've also been informed: One of the files you provided have no information in the highlights, as the exposure is too high and that caused poor HDR results.

        Can you confirm that is the case?

        Regards,
        Mark


        Comment


        • #19
          Hello Mark,

          Yes, I've received general suggestions that are totally useless, I have never received a real answer to the problem I raised. BTW, reading through the posts above, you can see NO ONE received real answers to the raised problems, other than trying to blame the alignment (NOT an issue!) or the photographer capabilities.
          I'm even more surprised to see the other comment (after 3 months!) about "One of the files you provided have no information in the highlights". To remind you, I have attached to my example files an excellent HDR output file (side by side with the terrible ACDSee HDR result), which I created with another simple HDR software, so this is definitely not the reason.
          The whole purpose of HDR software is to increase the dynamic range, if it's too wide to be captured by the camera in one photo/exposure. So obviously there will be some extreme exposures in SOME of the pictures, the whole idea is for the HDR software to capture the wider range from multiple exposures into one HDR file. Something ACDSee obviously can't do well, and now I realize why I shouldn't even expect it.

          I would love to hear ONE happy user (not an ACDSee employee) to prove me wrong with a really good HDR output file.

          One additional comment: I'm a very long ACDSee user and this is the SINGLE REASON why I don't buy the Ultimate 2020 upgrade. I'm willing to accept you telling me this feature doesn't work and you'll be fixing it in a future release, I'm not willing to accept 3 months of no acceptable answers, dragging me through useless suggestions and trying to blame me for your team's lack of understanding what HDR is all about.

          Regards,
          Ariel.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hello Ariel,

            Please be assured that no one at ACD is blaming you. That is the feedback from the development team when examining the images provided. Certainly not meant to be accusing anyone and if it came across like that I do apologize.

            The product team comments:
            What is happening here is that the algorithm is receiving too much weight from the over-blown sky and too little from the one that has more detail. As a result, the raw HDR output will have an overblown and clipped sky.

            The algorithm that was chosen was selected because on average it worked better than the others. It is probably fair to say: any set that favors too much on either end (over or under exposed) could present a problem.

            But it doesn’t mean improvements cannot be investigated. When we get a chance the product team will investigate further.

            Regards,
            Mark

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by mcosgrove View Post
              ...
              The algorithm that was chosen was selected because on average it worked better than the others. It is probably fair to say: any set that favors too much on either end (over or under exposed) could present a problem.

              ...
              Mark
              Maybe that is the problem, I'm judging only from that one sentence I've quoted here, but it seems you have only one "algorithm" that is being used for everything. This may work for some images, some of the time.
              HOWEVER, you should compare that to the Photomatrix software. (I'm sure that program will be familiar to the developers). Photomatrix gives the user multiple ways of influencing the final output from a set, so, if too much weight is given initially to one of the images, then this can be modified by the user appropriately with one of the many sliders.

              Comment


              • #22
                +1 Trevor. There is even a usable set of opensource mathematical methods and implementations. After a quick search, I could believe how many papers and patents(some expired) on mathematical methods of HDR photography.

                "algorithm that was chosen", "get a chance .... will investigate further", "algorithm is receiving" are key indicator this was more of a marketing check box effort. In today's state, it may be better to pull back the feature.

                Frankly, I am surprised how much work was done to Ult2020 that was not covered in the marketing collateral. To me, it seems there was significant improvements to the editing controls.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Definitely enough said (at least from my side) on this topic. I couldn't have said it better than in #22 above:
                  "algorithm that was chosen", "get a chance .... will investigate further", "algorithm is receiving" are key indicator this was more of a marketing check box effort.
                  In today's state, it may be better to pull back the feature.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X