Now.......if I shoot 7 frames per image....that would be 7 x 75mb which equals 525mb per final completed image. Suppose I went out that day and shot 100 HDR images. I would need 700 individual shots. That would be 75mb x 700 which equals 52500mb's.
That's pretty insane. For the HDR shooters out there wanting a D800..........two things come to mind.
1) Better get massive amounts of external HD space.
2) You might need a new computer with enough balls to process the files.
I'm loving the D800.......but when the reality of any camera with high megapixel count's such as the D800 is seriously examined........HDR is going to take on a whole new set of problems and expense.
Its not that big of a deal if you have a professional rig. Don't you build your own computers? I was under the impression most do here. I have no problem with medium formats nvm this stuff. Been seeing this a lot, but guess I've been spoiled with workstations for the last few years.
innovis wrote:
Its not that big of a deal if you have a professional rig. Don't you build your own computers? I was under the impression most do here. I have no problem with medium formats nvm this stuff. Been seeing this a lot, but guess I've been spoiled with workstations for the last few years.
I used to custom build my own PC's. Now I have AVA Direct do it for me. Killer prices and you pick what you want for hardware.
The problem is...........many people can't afford to upgrade their computers along with all the cash they will be pouring out for camera equipment.
What is the question here? I dont shoot HDR, but I still shoot 700-1000 pictures on a shoot (outdoors and indoors). If you have that camera you will have to deal with the storage (and processing and etc). If you can not afford the gas, don't buy a Hummer.
BTW, 75MB is the worst case scneario. You can turn on lossless compression to save some space.
I'm not a huge HDR fanatic, but I don't understand why more than 3 shots would be required for almost any HDR.
Something like a -2,0,+2 spread always worked fine for any HDR I've done. I dunno, maybe I'll try one of these 5 or 7 shot spreads just to see what the fuss is about.
edit - Holy crap, I just read the link...that's a heck of a lot of work for 1 HDR shot.
edit 2 - Oh, the fun part comes when they've not updated Photomatix yet, so you have to use...TIFFs generated from RAWs
Using more than three raw for a HDR composite is a total waste of effort. If you think feeding seven raw's into a HDR engine does something "better", then you're doing something very wrong.
Raw files are linear in nature. What you need is enough leeway to make a nice slide over from one opacity to another, and since you have at least 8 perfect Ev's of DR per raw, that's a +/-4Ev 3-image bracket.
A +/-4Ev 3-bracket gives about 16-18 workable Ev's of material, and then you hit the glass ceiling (in many more ways than one). Stray light limits even very good glass at about 13Ev's of usable material of "good photographical quality". If you want more than this you have to start doing stuff like partial image blocking (using scrims in front of the lens) to block of the brightest parts of the image so that they don't pollute the shadow areas with stray light when doing the longer exposures.
I definitely think Nikon will have to either edit their firmware to offer different sized RAW images like canon does with the 5D2, or offer it as a firmware upgrade after release. It is unrealistic to think that people would want 75Mb files for every single RAW shot they take with the camera. 36MP is great, but the vast majority of people buying this camera will not NEED 36MP for every shot.
If this gets resolved in a firmware change before release, this camera will appeal to so many more people than it already does right now.
Tommy_D wrote:
If this gets resolved in a firmware change before release, this camera will appeal to so many more people than it already does right now.
We need one of those largely ineffectual online petitions!
Really though, I completely agree with what you were saying. I had horrible thoughts last night of having to shoot jpgs for many things if I had a D800. It was awful.
Using more than three raw for a HDR composite is a total waste of effort. If you think feeding seven raw's into a HDR engine does something "better", then you're doing something very wrong.
Raw files are linear in nature. What you need is enough leeway to make a nice slide over from one opacity to another, and since you have at least 8 perfect Ev's of DR per raw, that's a +/-4Ev 3-image bracket.
A +/-4Ev 3-bracket gives about 16-18 workable Ev's of material, and then you hit the glass ceiling (in many more ways than one). Stray light limits even very good glass at about 13Ev's of usable material of "good photographical quality". If you want more than this you have to start doing stuff like partial image blocking (using scrims in front of the lens) to block of the brightest parts of the image so that they don't pollute the shadow areas with stray light when doing the longer exposures....Show more →
I could not disagree with you more. I have shot HDR and worked on processing techniques for years and the method I use requires at the very least 5 shots I frequently do 11 for incredible detail and quality. It makes a gigantic difference in the final image. Apparently you have not done much HDR shooting. I am not talking some theoretical idea here....I'm talking practical nuts and bolts been there done that tangible work. The method I link to works miracles.......but.........requires several frames per final image.
