| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marona
Joined: 18 Apr 2005 Posts: 90 Location: cambridge, uk
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: TuFuse or Photomatix you choose |
|
|
I bought photomatix pro a few months back, i'm not a big fan of overcooked hdr photos, but you can use it to create realistic hdr shots. just read max's last post and downloaded TUFuse.
just tried it out with the default settings and it looks really good, i had a single raw file i wanted to convert to hdr or rather drag more out of it. i know hdr is not for single raw files, but here is what i did....
in canon DPP i output 5 16bit tiff files from -2 to +2 exposure range with 1 stop between each shot. i slapped these into photomatix and this is about the best i could muster after playing round with the final tone mapped image in photoshop.
i then tried tufuse, converted the 16bit tiffs to 8 bit and threw them at tufuse, popped the output into photoshop and a minute later i had...
i'm impressed, the saturation is more natural in the tufuse image, here is a 100% crop of each.
hdr
tufuse
i'm going to give it a go on some of my other images, but as a first shot attempt i'm impressed.
many thanks max! _________________ ------
keith
www.marona.co.uk
www.cambridgeimages.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
maxlyons
Joined: 20 Jun 2003 Posts: 3340 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: Re: TuFuse or Photomatix you choose |
|
|
| marona wrote: |
| many thanks max! |
Thanks for the interesting comparison.
At first, I wondered why you converted your 16 bit images to 8 bit before using TuFuse, and then I realized that perhaps you had encountered a bug in TuFuse with 16 bit Tiff files. I tested, and found that there was a problem. I've uploaded a new version (version 1.21) that fixes the problem so that TuFuse should be able to handle 16 bit files correctly now.
Max |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marona
Joined: 18 Apr 2005 Posts: 90 Location: cambridge, uk
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: cheers... |
|
|
thanks again, i wasn't sure it was a bug with tufuse i just thought it couldn't handle 16bit tiffs, all the better now though.
here is another photomatix & tufuse conversion comparison from 3 separate exposures 2 ev apart.
first one is with photomatix and then about 10 minutes in photoshop to make it look half decent.
this one is with tufuse and then about 1 minute in photoshop!
again i prefer the tufuse look. keen to give the depth of field a go as well at some stage. _________________ ------
keith
www.marona.co.uk
www.cambridgeimages.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Terrywoodenpic
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 350 Location: Saddleworth England
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marona
I am amazed how much more real your TUfuse stuff looks than the rather false photomatrix look.
There will of course be those out there, who prefer the Technicolor look of Matrix.
Give me real every day.
I can see this as an in-camera option one day, much like the Highlight enhancers of recent times. _________________ Terry
After 60 + years in photography, Now Down sized to Canon G6 Digital and Olympus OM1n film cameras, and accessories. Now up sized/added a Canon 40D and minolta G600 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bill t.
Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 475 Location: New Mexico
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A quick word of thanks to Max for this wonderful tool! Somehow this little gem had escaped my attention until now.
Haven't had a chance to work with it much, but as Marona suggests Tufuse produces an output file that is very easy to manipulate in Photoshop. Tufuse shadows and highlights have great tonal separation. The highlights in particular are very luminous without the strong compression typical of Photomatix...this is obvious on the right side of Marona's Tufuse sample.
Also, Tufuse does not produce bizarre artifacts such as the "dark scabs" around leaves that move between exposures. The ghosts Tufuse creates for moving objects are light and transparent in way that suggests movement, rather than gray and opaque and strange looking. In addition to it's quick processing speed, the lack of motion artifacts in need of removal make Tufuse by far the faster program.
Hoping to have some free time soon to play with the parameters. But using just the simplest command line I got test results that were very impressive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
waters
Joined: 26 Dec 2005 Posts: 79
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any chance that a third picture with Enfuse could be generated? I like TuFuse over Photomatix |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marona
Joined: 18 Apr 2005 Posts: 90 Location: cambridge, uk
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: enfuse & tufuse |
|
|
here is the raw output from both tufuse followed by enfuse, both using the default options, can you spot the difference? i've not done anything to them in photoshop just resized and save for the web.
first one is tufuse second is enfuse. _________________ ------
keith
www.marona.co.uk
www.cambridgeimages.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Terrywoodenpic
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 350 Location: Saddleworth England
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say from those examples that Tufuse shows greater local contrast in a tone area, especially noticeable on the road way and on the vegetation on the left.
This gives a slightly better sense of modelling. _________________ Terry
After 60 + years in photography, Now Down sized to Canon G6 Digital and Olympus OM1n film cameras, and accessories. Now up sized/added a Canon 40D and minolta G600 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
maxlyons
Joined: 20 Jun 2003 Posts: 3340 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Re: enfuse & tufuse |
|
|
| marona wrote: |
| can you spot the difference? |
TuFuse and Enfuse are based on the same algorithm so they should deliver fairly similar results. However, I can think of a few reasons why there may be subtle differences.
1. By default, Enfuse also gives some weight to saturated pixels, not just "well exposed" pixels. By default, TuFuse only weights pixels based how well exposed they are. You can change the relative weights given to the three quality measures (exposure, saturation, focus) by using command line arguments, but, by default, the weights are different between TuFuse and Enfuse.
2. If two stage blending is performed by Tufuse (i.e. Tufuse detects images with the same exposure in the stack), then this will cause different results from Enfuse.
3. The way the weights for the three quality measures (exposure, saturation, contrast) are combined into a single measure differs between Enfuse and TuFuse. Enfuse uses a power function, while TuFuse uses an average. This means that Enfuse and TuFuse may assign a different overall "quality" to a pixel (which influences the creation of the final image) even if the same individual weights for the three measures are used.
4. TuFuse has some logic to deal with cases where the "quality" of all input pixels is zero.
5. By default, TuFuse and Enfuse may not choose the same number of pyramid levels (i.e. frequency levels) to use when performing blending. The number of levels can be explicitly chosen via the command line.
I suspect that the main (perhaps only) reason why there are differences in Marona's pictures is because of the first point I mentioned above.
Max |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|