Internet of shit
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
especially obvious
We seem to have differing opinions...
And @remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth Yeah, like @Tsaukpaetra said, it might be obvious if you're really into photography, but honestly, I don't see that much difference between the two.
You don’t see that the sun’s glare in the second photo is much less bright and far smaller, resulting in yellowish clouds around the sun instead of being totally white there? The other clouds are also lighter, especially the dark grey ones.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
especially obvious
We seem to have differing opinions...
And @remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth Yeah, like @Tsaukpaetra said, it might be obvious if you're really into photography, but honestly, I don't see that much difference between the two.
You don’t see that the sun’s glare in the second photo is much less bright and far smaller, resulting in yellowish clouds around the sun instead of being totally white there? The other clouds are also lighter, especially the dark grey ones.
and you can see a lot more detail on the ground as well in the HDR version.
For the record, it was obvious on my Pixel2 (small size, not the 2S).
-
Maybe @remi has non-HDR eyes...
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
especially obvious
We seem to have differing opinions...
And @remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth Yeah, like @Tsaukpaetra said, it might be obvious if you're really into photography, but honestly, I don't see that much difference between the two.
You don’t see that the sun’s glare in the second photo is much less bright and far smaller, resulting in yellowish clouds around the sun instead of being totally white there? The other clouds are also lighter, especially the dark grey ones.
No, not really. Perhaps I'll slap it into those before-after slice things, but I have to be looking with something akin to a magnifying glass and a spectrometer to see anything more significantly different than "these two pictures were taken approximately 13 seconds apart at an offset of perhaps 3 degrees and transform of a few inches".
-
@Zerosquare said in Internet of shit:
Maybe @remi has non-HDR eyes...
TDEMSYR but I can see how you might be confused.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
TDEMSYR
It's a joke. I'm well aware that all human eyes have high-dynamic range compared to imaging sensors. And it wouldn't matter anyways for pictures rendered on a non-HDR screen.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
And @remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth Yeah, like @Tsaukpaetra said, it might be obvious if you're really into photography, but honestly, I don't see that much difference between the two.
You don’t see that the sun’s glare in the second photo is much less bright and far smaller, resulting in yellowish clouds around the sun instead of being totally white there? The other clouds are also lighter, especially the dark grey ones.
I did not say I didn't see any difference, I said that "I don't see that much difference". Yes, when I'm looking closely at the two pictures, either focusing on a particular area at a time, or if I manage to have them both on the screen simultaneously and pay attention to them, I see some differences in the clouds, in the grass etc.
But if I'm just casually scrolling past the pictures, no, I don't see any glaring difference. And certainly not to the point where, if I was say browsing someone else's vacations pictures, I'd immediately say "this one is better". I might notice it if I was scanning my own pictures to select which one is the best, but if I'm not paying attention to the technical quality of the pictures, I would definitely miss it. If the original post had not said which one was the HDR one, I would have been able to find out, but it would have taken me more than a quick glance, it would have required me to actually look closely at the pictures.
Which again, back to my original point, means that while HDR is a nice technique, for random photos taken with an average phone camera, it's an option that is useless to me.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
No, not really. Perhaps I'll slap it into those before-after slice things, but I have to be looking with something akin to a magnifying glass and a spectrometer to see anything more significantly different than "these two pictures were taken approximately 13 seconds apart at an offset of perhaps 3 degrees and transform of a few inches".
More like 1.3 seconds apart, if that. This was taken with automatic HDR on my iPod touch, which takes a normal and an HDR photo one right after the other. One is slightly offset from the other because I probably moved my hand a little between the two pictures (the HDR pic takes a noticeable amount of time), but they were basically taken at the same time and place.
@remi said in Internet of shit:
if I manage to have them both on the screen simultaneously and pay attention to them, I see some differences in the clouds, in the grass etc.
Try opening both in a tab of their own and switching between the tabs.
But if I'm just casually scrolling past the pictures, no, I don't see any glaring difference. And certainly not to the point where, if I was say browsing someone else's vacations pictures, I'd immediately say "this one is better".
I don’t think that’s the idea behind HDR photos.
I might notice it if I was scanning my own pictures to select which one is the best
And I do think that’s the idea behind HDR photos.
Back when the technique was first developed, people used it for really artsy photos with lots of false colour, like these:
And though they look nice, phone HDR doesn’t do that. Rather, you get more detail in the picture because things don’t get washed out as easily by glare or by lack of light. This is the kind of thing you don’t notice as such, but does make for a better picture. If you know what to look for, you can probably spot it if you’re looking for it, like the relative lack of glare from the sun in the HDR version of my photos, but in this, it’s probably a bit like typography. That is, nobody notices good typography, but people will notice bad typography, even if they can’t put their finger on it.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
No, not really. Perhaps I'll slap it into those before-after slice things, but I have to be looking with something akin to a magnifying glass and a spectrometer to see anything more significantly different than "these two pictures were taken approximately 13 seconds apart at an offset of perhaps 3 degrees and transform of a few inches".
More like 1.3 seconds apart, if that. This was taken with automatic HDR on my iPod touch, which takes a normal and an HDR photo one right after the other. One is slightly offset from the other because I probably moved my hand a little between the two pictures (the HDR pic takes a noticeable amount of time), but they were basically taken at the same time and place.
@remi said in Internet of shit:
if I manage to have them both on the screen simultaneously and pay attention to them, I see some differences in the clouds, in the grass etc.
Try opening both in a tab of their own and switching between the tabs.
Here, I did the needful.
Now that I'm on my 4K monitor, I do see some difference. But, I reiterate, still not significantly.
-
@Tsaukpaetra the big pure-white blob due to direct sunlight has half the radius with HDR. That shouldn't be too hard to spot regardless of resolution.
-
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
That shouldn't be too hard to spot regardless of resolution.
It's not a problem of resolution...
@hungrier said in The Official Status Thread:
@anonymous234 Maybe it's not his monitor
-
@Tsaukpaetra Not sure how you can't see a glaring difference, pun intended.
-
@topspin maybe he's browsing with Lynx and all he sees is autogenerated 16-color ASCII art that's only a shitty approximation of the pictures, and now that he has bigger screen, he can make the terminal window larger to make ASCII art more detailed.
-
@TwelveBaud said in Internet of shit:
If used unsafely, some hair straighteners can cause a fire. We were unable to cause a fire with these hair straighteners because their safety features were working as designed.
They don't mention it explicitly in the article, but when the straightener is lying on the bed, as in the picture, 235°C can be enough to start a fire.
-
@topspin said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra Not sure how you can't see a glaring difference, pun intended.
It's automatically adjusted for preprocessing and post.
<< this is my glare face.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Try opening both in a tab of their own and switching between the tabs.
Either you're deliberately obtuse or you really don't get it. Yes, there is some difference. Yes, I can see it. I've said that repeatedly. I've said several times how I can get see the differences. I don't need you to explain me one more time how I can see differences that I have already seen.
Especially since this... is... not... the... point.
But if I'm just casually scrolling past the pictures, no, I don't see any glaring difference. And certainly not to the point where, if I was say browsing someone else's vacations pictures, I'd immediately say "this one is better".
I don’t think that’s the idea behind HDR photos.
I might notice it if I was scanning my own pictures to select which one is the best
And I do think that’s the idea behind HDR photos.
And as I said before and will say again, this means it is a good tool to have when you are taking pictures where you care about the quality, not just snapping a random thing at a random instant. Which, again and one more time, means that to me it is useless to have in a phone, since this is how I use the camera of my phone (again, when I want to take better pictures such as landscapes that I know I might want to "publish" somehow afterwards, I use a DSLR, not a phone, because a phone will almost always give me a technically worse picture).
One more time, I don't dispute the value of HDR, nor the fact that HDR is available on phones. I simply stated that, for the kind of casual pictures that I take with my phone, HDR never made a significant difference in my experience, and wondered if I was missing something, and the discussion proved that no, I didn't, for that kind of use HDR doesn't really matter. That is all.
it’s probably a bit like typography. That is, nobody notices good typography, but people will notice bad typography, even if they can’t put their finger on it.
And when I take pictures with my phone, they are in any case bad because I don't spend time finding the perfect angle, or the perfect lighting, or the right aperture and all other possible things. Because I use my phone as a convenience camera to easily capture a fleeting thing, not as a technically good tool (kind of like I use my Swiss army knife for a lot of things where a proper screwdriver, chisel etc. would do a much better job, except that I don't have them handy). So I don't care about typography, because the rest of the layout is just a sketch anyway.
Anyway, I'm going to stop this discussion here. If after that many post my point still doesn't come across, there is no point continuing.
-
@remi I think your problem is that you haven't realised that the two pictures are actually different. You see, HDR makes pictures look different so the pictures are different. That's probably why you haven't realised the pictures are different, but they are different. Try looking again and you'll see that they're different
-
@Jaloopa said in Internet of shit:
@remi I think your problem is that you haven't realised that the two pictures are actually different. You see, HDR makes pictures look different so the pictures are different. That's probably why you haven't realised the pictures are different, but they are different. Try looking again and you'll see that they're different
Yeah, they really aren't the same.
-
@remi HDR isn't some magic filter thingy that takes every picture to a new level. It's designed to solve one problem, and one problem only - very high contrast sceneries, where the contrast is way above what the display is able to... well, display. The RGB range is extended from 0-100% to 0-1,000,000% or something like this, and after all samples are collected, a good "downsizing" method is decided and the picture is converted down to 0-100% in a way that makes imperceptible brightness differences perceptible again. Unless there's a pitch black region or a pure white region in the picture, HDR won't do anything. But if there is such thing, HDR is a godsend.
-
@Gąska I wonder how many people can repeat the same thing that I already know, in slightly different ways, while consistently missing the point.
Based on the "gonads are functionally endometrium" thread, many more, I guess.
-
Also:
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
Unless there's a pitch black region or a pure white region in the picture, HDR won't do anything. But if there is such thing, HDR is a godsend.
In my experience, no. HDR does not work at all if there is a pitch black/pure white area. It might change things a bit, but definitely not to the point where the image becomes good in both areas. I've never seen it gain more than 1, maybe 2 stops at the very max, but rarely even that.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gąska I wonder how many people can repeat the same thing that I already know, in slightly different ways, while consistently missing the point.
Just keep saying the wrong thing and people will correct you forever.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
at least the HDR mode on phones, it's a bit different when you do HDR manually with photo editing software
Here's your problem. It's not that HDR sucks. It's that your phone sucks.
-
-
@TimeBandit you're in the right thread.
-
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
@remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gąska I wonder how many people can repeat the same thing that I already know, in slightly different ways, while consistently missing the point.
Just keep saying the wrong thing and people will correct you forever.
OK, so what is wrong when I say that HDR is useless to me? Please enlighten me.
-
-
@Zecc I was going to make an HDR joke on that (something like "don't worry if some parts of your answer are less clear than others, I'll use HDR to equalise"), but it was too long to fit into the margin.
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Try opening both in a tab of their own and switching between the tabs.
Either you're deliberately obtuse or you really don't get it.
What I got was your comment of:—
if I manage to have them both on the screen simultaneously
Which I took to mean you were looking at the photos on a screen too small to show them both at the same time.
And as I said before and will say again, this means it is a good tool to have when you are taking pictures
where you care about the qualitySuggested deletion for reason of redundancy.
Okay, sure, there are times when the quality doesn’t matter, but the vast majority of the time, when I take a photo, I want it to be a good one. I didn’t just point the camera at the sky for those pics I posted, I put some effort into composition, getting the horizon level, etc.
One more time, I don't dispute the value of HDR, nor the fact that HDR is available on phones. I simply stated that, for the kind of casual pictures that I take with my phone, HDR never made a significant difference in my experience, and wondered if I was missing something, and the discussion proved that no, I didn't, for that kind of use HDR doesn't really matter. That is all.
That is not what your initial question on this implied. You asked about getting different pictures, and I posted two that are. Which one you like better, and why, is entirely up to you — but that does mean that taking both a normal and an HDR photo means you have the choice of picking the better one.
@remi said in Internet of shit:
Also:
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
Unless there's a pitch black region or a pure white region in the picture, HDR won't do anything. But if there is such thing, HDR is a godsend.
In my experience, no. HDR does not work at all if there is a pitch black/pure white area.
I’m fairly certain that the photos I posted refute that claim. How much more bright white than directly into the sun do you want?
Photoshop says the middle of the sun bit in the non-HDR photo is #ffffff; the same area in the HDR photo isn’t much different, but the top of the glare area if also pretty much entirely #ffffff in the non-HDR photo, but I measure values like #ecd7d2 in that area in the HDR one.
It might change things a bit, but definitely not to the point where the image becomes good in both areas.
My feelings are that in quite a lot of the sky pictures (like these) that I’ve taken, the HDR photos are better. Not always, though, so having both allows me to, as I said above, pick the one I like better.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Back when the technique was first developed, people used it for really artsy photos with lots of false colour, like these:
<very colorful images />That looks quite cool. Do you have any pointers as to how people did that? It's something I'd maybe like to play around with. (And I'm either blind or using the wrong Google keywords...)
-
@TimeBandit said in Internet of shit:
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
your phone sucks
I want a phone like that
What about a phone that controls a device that sucks?
I have on hand someone's pet project to make such a thing....
-
@cvi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Back when the technique was first developed, people used it for really artsy photos with lots of false colour, like these:
<very colorful images />That looks quite cool. Do you have any pointers as to how people did that? It's something I'd maybe like to play around with. (And I'm either blind or using the wrong Google keywords...)
I hear it involves dragging points on a graph around.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Ah. Ok. Although then the HDR doesn't really matter? (Or do you use an actual HDR image as input?)
-
@cvi said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra Ah. Ok. Although then the HDR doesn't really matter? (Or do you use an actual HDR image as input?)
I think the only reason HDR would be used is to reduce the amount of completely white or completely black areas.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Sorry, was just about to clarify what I meant with "actual HDR" in my post above. Actual HDR here would be an image with more than 8 bits per channel, whereas what you get from phone HDR is typically a tonemapped image that's been flattened to 8 bits per channel (but from multiple inputs).
Edit: But I guess the answer is "no, the HDR doesn't really matter", except that you avoid fully saturated areas in the input.
-
@cvi said in Internet of shit:
8 bits per channel
Fuck, and here I am, stuck with three and two bits per channel....
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
three and two bits per channel....
But why? (I mean other than packing things into 8 bits.)
However: A2R10G10B10 ftw!
-
@remi said in Internet of shit:
Based on
the "gonads are functionally endometrium"Cricket thread, many more, I guess.FTFY
-
@Tsaukpaetra: you're porting Hypatia to a Sega Master System?
-
@Zerosquare said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra: you're porting Hypatia to a Sega Master System?
I think it would be easier to get live game streaming working on it, and streaming it from The Cloud.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
I have on hand someone's pet project to make such a thing
Knowing your relationship with your bitches, I wonder if there's a double meaning there...
-
@Jaloopa said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
I have on hand someone's pet project to make such a thing
Knowing your relationship with your bitches, I wonder if there's a double meaning there...
My bitches don't suck.
-
@cvi said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
three and two bits per channel....
But why? (I mean other than packing things into 8 bits.)
However: A2R10G10B10 ftw!
I never understood why keep 2 bits for alpha channel - that's too low to be useful for anything. Wouldn't R11G11B10 be better?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
@TimeBandit said in Internet of shit:
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
your phone sucks
I want a phone like that
What about a phone that controls a device that sucks?
I have on hand someone's pet project to make such a thing....
I’ve no desire to know what your definition of “pet project” is.
Filed Under: tony’s bitches
Edit:
Whoa!
by @Jaloopa
-
@M_Adams said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
I have on hand someone's pet project to make such a thing....
Filed Under: tony’s bitches
Filed under: he doesn’t like being called that.
-
@Gąska I prefer the even bit distribution, and the 11/10 bit unsigned floats that you typically get with R11G11B10 (5 or 6 bit mantissa,
) are a bit ... special.For the A2..., either ignore the alpha, or use it for masking. There are some other clever things you can use them for. Alas, for images, I'd probably rather go 16-bit floats (wasteful, I know) and if that becomes a problem, then look at other options.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
What about a phone that controls a device that sucks?
An IoS Roomba?
-
@dkf said in Internet of shit:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Internet of shit:
What about a phone that controls a device that sucks?
An IoS Roomba?
Since you asked...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/462232974708965386/598725081526698007/edited_Large.mp4
JK, it doesn't suck. Well, not literally...
-
@cvi said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Back when the technique was first developed, people used it for really artsy photos with lots of false colour, like these:
<very colorful images />That looks quite cool. Do you have any pointers as to how people did that? It's something I'd maybe like to play around with.
IIRC from reading about this when I first came across them some years ago, it involves taking three or more photos that are identical aside from exposure (so use a tripod), then putting them together in specialised software that lets you adjust how exactly they’re blended. Wikipedia has an article on it that probably provides the pointers you need.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Which I took to mean you were looking at the photos on a screen too small to show them both at the same time.
And yet you conveniently ignored the fact that 1) I did not ask for a way to see the differences and 2) I never said that I could not see any difference.
And as I said before and will say again, this means it is a good tool to have when you are taking pictures
where you care about the qualitySuggested deletion for reason of redundancy.
Rejected. You still have not read what I wrote, even less understood it. And yet you quote the relevant part immediately after your own answer that goes straight against my own quote:
Okay, sure, there are times when the quality doesn’t matter, but the vast majority of the time, when I take a photo, I want it to be a good one. I didn’t just point the camera at the sky for those pics I posted, I put some effort into composition, getting the horizon level, etc.
One more time, I don't dispute the value of HDR, nor the fact that HDR is available on phones. I simply stated that, for the kind of casual pictures that I take with my phone, HDR never made a significant difference in my experience, and wondered if I was missing something, and the discussion proved that no, I didn't, for that kind of use HDR doesn't really matter. That is all.
See? I'm not going to rephrase one more time what I've already said many times. It should be clear why I said " it is a good tool to have when you are taking pictures where you care about the quality".
That is not what your initial question on this implied. You asked about getting different pictures, and I posted two that are. Which one you like better, and why, is entirely up to you — but that does mean that taking both a normal and an HDR photo means you have the choice of picking the better one.
My initial query might have been a bit ambiguous, I'll grant you that. I think that since then I've added enough details that you ignored in your previous answer.
@remi said in Internet of shit:
Also:
@Gąska said in Internet of shit:
Unless there's a pitch black region or a pure white region in the picture, HDR won't do anything. But if there is such thing, HDR is a godsend.
In my experience, no. HDR does not work at all if there is a pitch black/pure white area.
I’m fairly certain that the photos I posted refute that claim. How much more bright white than directly into the sun do you want?
I guess I want to see that on picture that I take with my phone. I tried once more: I took twice the same picture (more or less), one with HDR and the other without. Here they are (snapshot of both side-by-side on my screen -- I could send the original pictures if you really insist, but I think these should be enough to make my point, plus I'd have to make sure I've stripped out tags
). Quick, tell me which is which?
How much does HDR help in making the dark areas (below the desk) less dark, and the bright areas (outside of the window) less bright? Is the HDR picture significantly better than the non-HDR one? More importantly, is the difference between the two smaller than the difference I would get by, say, framing the picture slightly differently (to get naturally less bright/dark areas), or focusing my phone on different areas of the picture?
To me, the answer to those questions is "not really, no, no". Thus my much repeated conclusion that to me, HDR is useless.
