4 ms·

It's not the same as "normal" HDR: https://research.googleblog.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and-high-dynamic-range.html https://research.googleblog.com/2014/10/hd

• Someone1234 10y ago
  I read the article. That is absolutely normal HDR. I was doing most of those techniques five years ago via DSLR burst and merging the images in post. What from that article don't you consider "normal HDR?" Because as I said, everything listed there is completely par for the course. "HDR+" is just obvious branding for standard HDR that happens to use more bracketed shots than other HDR systems (e.g. 5x instead of 3x).
  • puzzle 10y ago
    Normal HDR is usually implemented as bracketing. As the section "Capturing high dynamic range scenes" explains, HDR+ does not use bracketing.
• lightbyte 10y ago
  That article describes exactly how "normal HDR" is achieved with a DSLR.
  • fulafel 10y ago
    I don't think "normal HDR" traditionally includes this: "HDR+ addresses [low-light blur/noise] by taking a burst of shots with short exposure times, aligning them algorithmically, and replacing each pixel with the average color at that position across all the shots. Averaging multiple shots reduces noise, and using short exposures reduces blur."
    • ynniv 10y ago
      Reducing shutter speed to reduce blur isn't new (https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1528656007/notimagestabilization https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1528656007/notimagestabili...), accumulating sensor exposure is how DSLRs work, and aligning frames is how image stabilization works. It might not be what we call "HDR", but there's nothing new here. The combination in a phone camera sounds nice.
  • puzzle 10y ago
    Normal HDR combines regular, underexposed and overexposed shots. HDR+ does not.
    • andybak 10y ago
      Yes but a lot of cameras have low-light mode which takes multiple shots (not bracketed). I'm still not seeing how this isn't a fairly simple combination of existing techniques.
• ska 10y ago
  That's true. It's an implementation of several similarly old techniques. Imaging and image processing scientists have been doing this stuff for decades. From the results I think they did a great job, but at least for the parts I've heard discussed in any technically detail they haven't really broken any ground in the imaging sense - what they have done is apply it to consumer electronics. They aren't the only ones doing this, mind, but they've done a good job on a mass produced platform. So that benefits a ton of people. Really it is sort of an "obvious" next step, because physics is limiting what the sensor & optics can do while packaged in the size we seem to have converged to on a phone.