Yet more HDR software...
Looks like it might be an interesting bit of 'HDR for people who don't
want to learn about HDR' software, including some morphing features
From a programming point of view it's GPU-based, and not just Mac-
only but Leopard-only, being based on quite a few of the new Core
Oh, and it's not out until MacWorld...
P.S. And the designers have obviously spent *far* too much time
studying Aperture's GUI. ;-)
- On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ian Wood wrote:
> <http://creaceed.com/hydra/>Personally, since I don't do any CGI work, I really *don't* want to
> Looks like it might be an interesting bit of 'HDR for people who don't
> want to learn about HDR' software, including some morphing features
> for alignment.
learn about HDR any further than necessary to make purty pictures...
it's not that I'm not technically interested, but for me (and I'd
imagine the majority of users) I just want to know enough to get good
results - lately seeing what Enfuse is capable of in this regard,
compared to the vast amounts of time many of us have spent trying to
get good results from a conventional HDR->LDR workflow, the more hard
work the software does for me, the better :)
Put another way, it seemed like no matter how much I thought I knew
about HDR->LDR processing, I couldn't get reliably good results
without at least as much work as I did in conventional exposure
masking/blending workflows. Then I used enfuse and immediately
remembered that it wasn't the "HDR" part of the workflow I caredabout
- it was all about getting good LDR results, through any means
I've been trying to make HDR->LDR workflow work for me since around
2001-2 when I was at The Getty, using HDRShop and the tonemapper.exe
plugin (as well as CinePaint and a few other rare tools at the
time)... anything that comes along that makes that pain go way is
interesting, even if it means totally dumbing it down. Hell, 90% of
the tests I've done with enfuse have given me better results (in my
subjective assessment!) on the first pass, using default settings,
than anything I was ever able to get with a tonemapper from PhotoMatix
My 3 or 4c :)
- On Jan 2, 2008, at 9:32 PM, rogerhoward@... wrote:
> 90% of+1!
> the tests I've done with enfuse have given me better results (in my
> subjective assessment!) on the first pass, using default settings,
> than anything I was ever able to get with a tonemapper from PhotoMatix
> or elsewhere.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]