HDR imaging for the cheap and gifted

People who are seriously after HDR output tend to pony up the dough for a big and chunky DSLR, knowing they'll get the highest quality possible. But if you're short on cash, here's a homebrewed mod that combines a gutted Polaroid x530 Foveon shooter with a Viliv to produce HDR-like imagery on the cheap. Essentially, the Viliv does all the processing and control work, while the el cheapo camera is used for its ability to save to raw format. You could instead pick up a compact Ricoh CX1 and save yourself a lot of trouble, but where's the fun and tinkering in that? The homemade hardware might not be pretty to look at, but make your way past the break to see if the results are worth the effort.

[Via Hack a Day]

[BobSpaceTech @ Jul 17th 2009 8:32AM]

That's all the examples?

[Zach @ Jul 17th 2009 9:24AM]

Oooor you could buy a dirt-cheap D40x off ebay and do it yourself without the hassle. You're gauranteed to get a higher quality too. I guarantee you the D/A converter in this doesn't go above 8-bit.

I'll stick with my D300...

[J @ Jul 17th 2009 8:56AM]

Actually in the article he mentions he's getting 32-bit.

[Jeff @ Jul 17th 2009 8:36AM]

Yuck. I would rather have a Canon with CHDK installed. It even lets you script the camera for those who want the nerd factor. Take a look at what people have done with CHDK: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk

[Temple @ Jul 17th 2009 10:44AM]

You don't even need CHDK installed, most point and shoots can do HDR with a lot less effort then what's provided in this article. Also, the sample image provided isn't even a good example of HDR, the shadows aren't even exposed, meaning that the photograph doesn't even have 'high dyanamic range'.

Example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/corneveaux/2411779874/

[John from Buffalo @ Jul 17th 2009 8:40AM]

The idea for HDR is not _1_ image, but rather 3 (or MORE) RAW images. If you can get a camera that does RAW images, period, you can use software techniques to manage - namely Dynamic HDR, Photomatix, and Photoshop.

HDR is cake. You just have to know how to a) auto-bracket (on a DSLR) or manual-bracket (move the f-stop up and down) and b) merge and play with some sliders. Honestly, "cheap" HDR approach ($15 in particular as show in the Panocamera hack) for the appropriate use of HDR - either you make it up in time in front of the computer or you make it up in the field using bracketing. If you want a good image PERIOD, then hacking your way there just ain't really going to cut it.

But then again, it _IS_ a cool hack for minimalism HDR affects. :)

[Dustin @ Jul 17th 2009 10:01AM]

You should change your shutter speed, not your aperture, lest you end up with a series of shots with varying depth of field.

And IME, auto bracketing isn't enough data for good HDR images.

[R @ Jul 17th 2009 12:32PM]

While HDR is "cool", it's certainly not something to be applied to every image. A lot of times people overdo it and it just looks like crap, or more precisely like those lighted photographs that are sold in malls with little motors behind a water fall that makes the waterfall appear to shimmer. :P

[jeesusfreek @ Jul 20th 2009 10:39AM]

ok...

changing your aperture is going to change your depth of field, always, and changing your shutter speed will have other unwanted effects (motion blur, etc).

Correct HDR imagery is made by changing the exposure compensation, and letting the image processor adjust the "exposure" of the photograph, so that neither shutter speed or aperture are adversely affected.

9 photos with various stops of exposure compensation (which can be done on a very old-school camera that is worth its salt) will produce decent HDR imagery if the user is experienced enough in Photoshop..etc.

[Zach @ Jul 17th 2009 9:27AM]

32-bit? HDR photography naturally captures 32 or 64 bit photographs, depending on the dynamic range you capture. I'm talking about what comes out of the DA converter per exposure. I'm betting it's onlg 8 bit.

[LogoPolis @ Jul 17th 2009 10:03AM]

He's blending 9 images. The Foveon has 12-bit output raw output, but any camera with even 8-bit jpegs blended from a range of nine photos is going to give a damn good 32-bit color space.

CHDK, besides only working on some Canons, is a difficult beast with an interface shoe-horned over the camera's standard menus. It needs some work to make it more like using an iPod and less like a Creative Nomad.

Besides, Jeff's CHDK link is just link spam. Try CHDK at WIkia for the real scoop.

[Jeff @ Jul 17th 2009 3:55PM]

@LogoPolis,

Nice try. But you will see that the page I linked is right on the CHDK main page. I'm assuming everyone can Google CHDK and click the first link to get the goods.

Also, do you honestly think that CHDK is more difficult than this hack? Both require an old cheap camera, except CHDK doesn't require you tear your camera apart.

[Graham @ Jul 17th 2009 9:39AM]

here are some good examples http://firesuite.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=2

auto bracketing is the easy part i think the real skill comes in editing it down later, way too many people leave that ghosting/halo effect on their images which makes them look bad

[samsundaram @ Jul 17th 2009 10:07AM]

that's the most high tech dildo I've ever seen! Not that I've seen a lot of dildos...

[Andrew @ Jul 18th 2009 8:55AM]

I like the CHDK route, because I have an old Canon SD600 laying around.