Me too, Mac version

Cheers

Me too, for a Mac version.

Im in......windows

davidbogdan

Screw the mac and give us windows ;-)

windows;)

I belive it is logical to do it for both, WINDOWS & MAC

But, but, then we wouldn't have pages and pages of illuminating "write a Mac version of it plsohpls I'll give you my first born son!"

Hey, I don't have a Mac, and I have no idea how Macs are programmed. If anyone is interested, I will let him know about the blending algorithm to implement a Mac version.

Sorry!

I work on Linux. You were talking about integrating it in dcraw? How did that pan out?

Any update on this program?

I have already thought of how to implement all the algorithms, and now I have come to the user interface. It will consist of 5 stages:

1. RAW development
2. Image Alignment
3. Relative Exposure calculation
4. Advanced features (blend thresholds, anti ghost, progressive blending)
5. Blending

These stages have to be calculated in a sequence and we can perform them all at a time or just up to the currently selected option. And we can change parameters and repeat the process only from a specific point, not having to repeat the calculation of previous stages.

However I want to keep it simple for non advanced users, so there will be a "Do it all" button that will use default parameters to get the resulting image at a mouse click. Advanced features can be learnt in a progressive way.

If you have any suggestions this is the time!
(I am sorry Mac users, I don't have a Mac, and I don't know how to program your beautiful machine).

Wow, I'm glad to see the development is quite far already. Good work!

My suggestion is to make the final image a layer so it can be easily blended with the originals. It would also be nice to have any mask layers retained for manual tweaking, like PhotoKit Sharpener does.

I can't wait to try this out!

GLuijk,

it looks very good to me! So I would expect that there would be a cost involved? and when will it be available?


great work there - very impressive

Henrik

GLuijk,

Thanks for the update! From what I understand from your post, it is wonderful:)
Please let me know if you need any help with beta testing.

Looks pretty, but in this case the proof is definitely in the eating.

As for the Mac users (and me Linux user): What are you using for a graphics toolkit? If you used QT, it'd be autoportable to Mac and Linux.

If that's not an option, are you going to release the source so somebody else could have a go at a port?

-Lars

mmm I am using the Gfl SDK 16-bit graphic library by a French guy called Pierre E. Gougelet. It's a C library but he provides a VB6 API so I can call its functions from my code. In fact I just need to be able to read/write image files and read/write pixel channels in 16 bit. It was hard to come to a library that can just do that.

I am not sure whether I will set the source code for download, still have to think about it.

What's the meaning of 'the proof is definitely in the eating'? hehe it's the first time I hear about that expression.

Regards.

The actual quote is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", quoted in Don Quixote by Miguel Cervantes. Means that "Actual use is the best test":

http://bartelby.com/59/3/proofofthepu.html

--John

Ah, well, since it's in Visual Basic 6, the program won't be portable, that's a shame.

But perhaps some enterprising person can -- as you suggested earlier -- take the algorithms and make an independent, portable implementation.

Isn't it enough that Guillermo is very generously and graciously sharing and writing this for free (BTW Guillermo, I'll also happily pay for it - you should be rewarded for your work) that we also have to have people complaining that he's not writing a Mac version, or asking him to make his source code freely available??

Load Bootcamp and use that. If I was writing this product and I saw this response to my efforts, then I'd keep it to myself. But then I'm not as nice or as generous a person as Guillermo ...

dito.

I would suggest making this program Open Source unless you want some company ripping it off and reprogramming it in C++Turbo or something. Then we WILL be paying for it. Also, if you make it Open Source, people will work on it indefinitely and it can never be sold--ever. Either that or Copyright it ASAP.

I don't see how open sourcing it would make it any less likely that someone will rip it off.

And the program is copyrighted automatically, just like photos, manuscripts, etc. In the US you need to register it to sue for punitive damages AFAIK, but Guillermo is not based in the US.

Nevertheless, if he won't be charging money for it, I'd also like to see it licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. I use the Attribution license for all my photography on my website, with the aim of encouraging people to use and distribute it as much as they can, while retaining copyright and getting credited. Creative Commons also has commercial-friendly licenses which allow charging for the program under certain circumstances.

Well, I am using DCRAW to develop the RAW files and Xnview libraries to read/write pixel values, so the only think it's really mine is the idea to put all that together and make it work to blend images.

However I think I have in mind some nice algorithms to eliminate ghosting and visible borders with local progressive blending, as well as producing high quality B&W images doing all calculations (exposure correction, B&W channel mixing and even gamma) in floating point precision before the final 16-bit rounding is applied.

I have been very lazy these last weeks, today is a nice afternoon in Madrid to devote to some coding.

I would like to show some results soon.

Thanks for the interest.
Regards.

Hey, cool down a bit, you don't have to be quite that hostile and fanatic about your dislike for everything non-Windows and open source, especially when I've suggested no such thing.

I did, however lament that he'd locked himself to a very specific platform -- one that's not even future proof for Windows!

Guillermo has previously suggested that he'd release the algorithms used, so that others could implement the solution, and if he does that, it would be much appreciated.


:roll:


If you were the author of the program and posted such a response, you'd definitely get to keep it to yourself; very few people want to use software made by people with such hostile attitudes, because they simply don't want to be treated that way.


You certainly aren't.

Guillermo has been both nice and generous, and I hope he continues to be so, regardless of how he chooses to make his software available. His attitudes has also shown that he's responsive and friendly when people make suggestions for improvements and changes.

Yes, a small fee for the software and/or services would probably be appropriate.

In the US, those ideas are probably still possible to patent.


It will be interesting to see (yet another) demonstration of your results!

Keep it up!

Jan, just because my post followed yours (I didn't quote yours either) doesn't mean my remarks were addressed solely to you: they were addressed to all those who when offered something for free were ungrateful and wanted more. Just for the record, I too am a Mac user. I also use a PC at those times when I can't get appropriate software for the Mac, and vice versa. Bootcamp too difficult to use, too inconvenient? I use it, it works fine: it's not perfect, but life's like that. I have a hammer in my toolbox, but I also have a screwdriver - I don't use just one of them for all jobs. Buggers my workflow when I have to switch from one to the other though...

And I'm so glad you won't use software that's not written by nice people (I trust you got a full character reference of all the Apple and Adobe developers by the way).

Peter

Guillermo Luijk,

When is your beautiful Software due for release?

I hope soon

- again

1) PowerMacs/PowerBooks can't use Bootcamp to load Windows.
2) Not everybody runs a compatible version of Windows anyway, and VB6 isn't guaranteed support in future Windows versions.
3) Not everybody wants to hand money to Bill Gates.
4) And even so, not all of the world is Mac + Windows.

But none of these items are really problematic if the algorithms are free for others to implement.

Not wishing to exacerbate things but, could Vmware or an equivalent product not be a solution for those not running Windows? It is not perfect but it would allow a version of windows to be run for Linux certainly - I'm not a Mac person but I think this works.

I have used it in the past for friends who have programs which only run under Windows 95 or Windows 98 and they still need access to the program (the backwards compatibility of XP or 2000 is insufficient). So perhaps VB 6 could be handled in a similar manner.

I would love to have the ability to run some programs which only run on a Mac on my PC in a VM if Mr Jobs would allow me to

Stu

Your stuff sounds very interesting. I'll keep an eye on this thread to see when you have it ready.

Sergio

My Chequebook / Paypal account is ready the moment the program goes on sale - can I assume raw conversion within the program is not essential, or if it is, then Mamiya ZD files will be supported?

Quentin

Me too - I'd pay $50 for a Mac version with a decent GUI.

Julian

Well, I have found that many people don't feel comfortable with the idea of any program developing their RAW files. I can understand it perfectly, you are used to some tools and workflow, and don't want to change.

However a very important point to make all algorithm and calculations easy is that images are in their primitive linear state; while all commercial RAW developers generate gamma corrected and usually colour profiled images.

DCRAW is a very good RAW developer, and supports an always increasing (till his author David Coffin decides to stop updating; that will be a sad day) list of cameras; including your Mamiya.
Find a list here: FORMATS SUPPORTED BY DCRAW

In addition to this, no matter if you used 2 or 10 shots for the same scene, all of them will be quickly developed and their relative exposures accurately calculated (not read from EXIF), and this can be done thanks to having total control of the development process. So not having to develop the images by yourself avoids errors and saves time.

Some people asked for a 16-bit DNG output that could be later developed on any RAW developer of your own. I think this is a great idea but, at least at the moment, far of my intentions and skills.

However I am planning to introduce a tonal richness quality increase and a virtually unlimited DR expansion (16 f-stops or more is definitively possible) thanks to the introduction of the gamma correction performed in floating point precission, prior to one only 16-bit final integer rounding. In a 16-bit linear RAW no more than ~12 f-stops can be coded with a reasonable tonal richness due to the lack of levels in the lowest f-stops.
The difficult part will be to find in the real world a scene with such a huge dynamic range!

PS: BTW Quentin, I looked through your portfolio and your images are oustanding! do you think you really need this tool? lol

This is my first post in this forum, I have to say I registered because of this thread. A very nice program! I hope it isnt too late to make a suggestion, I would like to have command-line support if possible. Would be awesome ^^

All the best

Christian

Guillermo, congratulations on your new program! (I'm sure there will be many more to come, too!)

Not sure that such a big compression will give a good picture in a screen or worse in a paper.
I've seen so many awfull HDR pictures, partly because authors wanted to show everything in the picture, even in very dark areas !
Keep in mind that our eyes have also an "instantaneous limited dynamic range" !
So, a good idea will be creating an "S-shape" to preserve dynamic and to keep good contrast in the the "mid-tones" !

But I'm very impressed by your work and results !!

Thierry

well most HDR images which look awful, actually don't look that way for being HDR (in fact many of them are not even really high DR), but because their author abused of the tone mapping process which yiedls very unrealistic results if not properly used.

My program is not going to apply any tone mapping. What I do is much simpler, just an image CONTAINING all the information spreaded along many f-stops. It will be up to the user to choose the way how to make use of it. Curves can be applied, so as even tone mapping if your HDR software allows a single TIFF as input.
These huge DR images I am talking about, will be something more interesting from a scientific point of view, that from a practical. In fact, a single S curve applied on to a large DR image (let's say 13 f-stops or more) to show all the available DR will produce a flat (poor in contrast) and boring image. But I want to try it anyway.


PS: thx Gloria!

GLuijk,

if you could also add a superresolution algorithm to ths program, this will be priceless.
There is a program PhotoAcute (photoacute.com) it works, but only on small images, it cannot be used for high end photography.

I started this post: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=19860
(Multishot superresolution software) as I am looking for a solution to digitize my 6x7 negatives using Mamiya ZD, yet at a higher resolution than the sensor can record. PhotoAcute can create higher resolution images due to sub-pixel misalignment of the originals, it also cleans noise as you get better signal statistics from multiple captures.
Combine all these features into what you are doing - and this will be a complete marvel.

Thanks,

Yes, I saw with great interest the PhotoAcute website and was amazed by the superresolution feature. But believe me, what I do is really really SIMPLE, absolutely not much technical background needed.
Algorithms such as those from PhotoAcute are only at reach of real men, and I am not at all. lol

Hi Guillermo,

Thanks and noted about the ZD support.

As to my shots, you are much too kind; I'm just a hack who will benefit enormously from your software

Cheers

Quentin

The blending tecnique(s) described in the mentioned articles are some kind of substitute for "Curves" when the scenes has a contrast that streches beyond the dynamic range and curves don't work. The result is always to lighten up the shadows or dodging the highlight in order to recover detail and legibility where it would be lost.

GLuijk tecnique can be used to recover details in the higlights but can be used also with a totally different goal: the lowlights are not made brighter, but less noisy. The picture has the same exposure but looks as if was taken with an "ideal" camera, with almost no noise.

I find this is new, extremely interesting, and absolutely to be encouraged.

Also I find that if the tecnique works with scanned film, this would give film a renewed interest, because only if you shoot film the tecnique can be applied also to handheld shots, and to shots with flames, leaves moving under the effect of the wind, persons running... in the slide everything is still.

I find this extremely interesting

Fabrizio

It's funny that absolutely ANY blending tool (PS HDR, Photomatix,...) has necessarily to do this at some initial stage: blend the images without altering its original parameters. Unluckily none of them stops there, and all seem to be wanting to fiddle with your image: tone mapping, brightness and contrast adjustments, strange exposure corrections,...

Thanks.

I am new to this forum (and its interface) and when I wrote this comment to an insertion in the first page I did not notice that there where 7 more pages of comment. So I read them all now. Absolutely instructive.

I discovered a version of your program is already born, but only for RAW formats.

I would like to stress that the two exposures with different shutter time can be made only with tripod and in particular circumstances (still life, very broadly speaking).

But for those scanning film, this tecnique can be used always! This would make a program that would handle scanned TIFFs superarchgigauseful!

So may I timidly suggest that either yourself, or somebody with the algorithm, write an "action" for PS or a stand-alone program that do the same with two TIFFs, one normally exposed and the other overexposed.

With my scanner (Nikon LS 5000 ED) I tried to acquire 2 TIFFs: one at normal exposure, and one with +2 EV analogue gain (cannot go further than +2). I then used them with two of the tecniques in the abovementioned LL tutorial, they seem to me perfectly aligned and the result is extended DR in a very clean way (using the second of the three methods).

So, if the scanner is capable of producing 2 TIFFs which are perfectly aligned already with PS CS2 (and easily alignable with PS CS3 as far as I understand) and that can be used for HDR (good news) maybe also your noise reducing tecnique could be used with film scans and with enormous benefits (yes also scanners suffer from lowlights noise). I understand doing the thing in RAW is cleaner and gives better results, but I would give it a try.

(Now that I think about it, actually I can save scans in Nikon native RAW format but don't know what am I supposed to do with them and have always ignored the RAW. Maybe I can pass them to the RAW processing software you wrote your program for)

Cheers
Fabrizio

That's possible. Actually I start from RAW files because I want to start from linear TIFF images, and the only way I found to have linear TIFFs from the beginning (since 99.99999% of TIFF images in this world are gamma corrected), was to develop the linear RAWs myself from my code.

But the concept is general and can be applied to gamma corrected images. The main problem is not actually the gamma (undoing it is trivial Maths). The problem is that TIFF files are usually not just gamma corrected images. They have also been converted to some colour space (means matrix operations that modify all RGB data) and have been adjusted in contrast (means all levels have moved again), brightness and so forth.

No idea what kind of TIFF and parameters can be adjusted in a scanner (never used one), but we would need TIFFs with as few adjustments as possible (apart from gamma). BTW if gamma can be set to 1.0 in the scanner settings (I doubt it) it would be perfect.

GLuijk,

I have Nikon Collscan 8000 which can generate NEF raw files.
I you would like, I can provide samples at various exposure levels, let me know the specifics.

there is actually no limitation, just try to set the same white balance in all the shots. sorry, in all the scans lol

how much can you increase the exposure level?
if you provide me with 3 NEF scans, the regular one with no blown pixels, and two additional at +3EV and +6EV, we can do a nice test.

Send them through yousendit to: gluijk(at)hotmail.com

PS: choose a difficult scene, high dynamic range for instance, with which you didn't feel happy doing just one scan (poor detail in the shadows, noise,...).

I use an automated luminosity mask blending technique using PS2 which I think has a similar effect on noise.

I use it with several exposures, however, as I use it to create extended dynamic range images, rather than using it just to remove noise in shadow areas.

I'm not sure if it will work with only two exposures, however - Glijik's technique looks a lot more sophisticated behind the scenes.

I'll bet there are folks here who could improve this technique with their "Blend if..." expertise.

Anyway, here it is for Photoshop:

How to do Automated Luminosity Masking


1a) Open up the two images to blend. If you have a bunch of the same scene using a tripod, and want a blend using the whole dynamic range, it is better to make multiple blends, each of exposures *not too far apart from each other*

1b)Using move tool, SHIFT-left click to drag darker image onto lighter image
1c) Minimize the 1st dark image

2) Important - - verify alignment by Layer window ( where you see the layers, layer masks, etc) options list - Use Difference mode. Zoom in is best, so that you can move image by pixil at a time using arrow keys. -> be sure to set Layers Mode back to normal when done!

3) ALT-left click on eye icon on background ( lower) layer. The picture should become lighter.

4) CONTROL-SHIFT-ALT- ~ ( tilde key) creates luminosity mask. Hit all four of these keys simultaneously. You should now see “marching ants” delineating the highlights.

5) ALT-click missing eye icon (hit the space where it used to be) on the upper layer. The picture should now turn very dark. i

6) Go to the main “LAYERS” menu at top of screen, , select “Add layer mask” and “reveal selection”. (Boom!)

to improve:

7) ALT-click on layer mask icon ( on original layer, to the right. This will be the upper layer of the two, and all the way tot he right)

8) Gaussian blur of about 3 pixils - apply. This should sharpen the pic. To check, zoom in, click ( not alt-click) on the layer thumbnail, to the left of the layer mask thumbnail.

To improve more:

9) again, click ( not alt-click), on the layer mask thumbnail to activate it. Open up the LEVELS box in the Adjustments section, and adjust blend using “Levels” adjustments. Basically slide the middle slider to the right to “blend” the relative contributions of the two pictures.

Hi Guillermo,

Any chance for your Software Release before Christmas?

Optimist

I hope so! although I will be on vacation in Namibia from tomorrow for the next 3 weeks.

I was this morning shooting at a typical-for-tourists restaurant in Madrid downtown, those places plenty of disgusting bull heads hanging from the walls. And the routine worked perfect to recover all hair texture in the black bulls (there were two of them) which were full of noise in the least exposed shot, at the same time as light areas were not blown. Worked very well.

Glad to hear that, Thanks

Have a nice trip!!!