[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2011/02/yazX1D.jpg[/newsimage]Today’s high-definition video offerings are so clear that you can practically count the pores on people’s faces, but it’s still obviously a digitally-generated image that doesn’t match the quality of the way we see things with our naked eyes. Dark scenes in movies are particularly problematic, as movie producers struggle to make their films more realistic than ever. The use of a technique that is over 150 years old, however, promises to change all of that. Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/high-dynamic-range-tech-to-deliver-more-realistic-video-imagery-39426/](http://www.myce.com/news/high-dynamic-range-tech-to-deliver-more-realistic-video-imagery-39426/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
Fully agree about buying this ahead of 3D. Hopefully, cable companies would fall in line and offer this, either in a new box, or via a firmware update to their existing ones.
Sounds like more marketing hype to me. The effects produced by cameras are part of the art of film-making. We KNOW we are watching a film and this simple fact is part of the experience. Techniques and systems for making HD video look more like film are widespread. Point being: film is still the standard that is sought after. Add the fact that current TV technology is pretty much fixed for many years to come. So my response is: so what?
I welcome any tech that makes video look more realistic and lifelike. I’d love to be able to capture my own HDR video footage.
They’ve been promoting HDR video for years, I’ve seen the same site several years ago with identical content … there must be serious impediment to it’s adoption.
Just quickly, a second camera, or at least dual image camera, is required to take under exposed & over-exposed images. Similarly for video.
After this, significant processing time is required to merge the images/video.
How will this process potentially work in 3D? 4 cameras?