Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Amazing HDR Image of Tokyo Nightscape
flickr.com — Flickr user /ltus's amazing HDR image Tokyo Nightscape "taken atop the Roppongi Hills Mori Building in Tokyo, Japan." Be sure to go to the 3008 x 2000 full-size image for the full effect.
sbwms- 2903 diggs
- digg it
- tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I was about to complain about this because we get at least one HDR image on the front page every week, but wow.
- ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+100Don't bother with the full size. The original looks terrible comparatively.
- EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -23/+10Awesome looking picture...
Seriously held back by ***** jpg compression artifacts...
PNG FTW! - EmmSee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Wow..
I think the rain makes the colors even more extraordinary... nice natural blur. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Impatience results in artifacts... The camera should have been set at a much lower ISO.
- spr33, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I doubt it was due to impatience, it's more likely a handheld shot.
- NorCal05, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Johnson, maybe it wasn't impatience. Maybe it was artistic vision
- TomP, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1MASSIVE!
Edit: The server at flickr.com is taking too long to respond. - WHAAAAAAT - fronta1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2if thats not democracy in action, i dont know what is...beautiful
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can really see problems with the lights for the cars in the full size version. I'm still glad I saw this picture though.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"Impatience results in artifacts"
Actually, the higher ISO results in more noise. Shooting digital with JPG rather than RAW results in artifacts.. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Jesus. Why do people think HDR means your image has to be blurry with flowing lights?
HDR is meant to capture real light, not to make your images look fancy. Oh, and don't use the highest ISO speed your camera can handle if it's going to make your images look like *****. - Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It was raining, and he was shooting through a window with water all over it. Says so in the picture comments...
- RRJackson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very nice composition. The white balance is off by a mile, though. Open the full-size one up in Photoshop and start tweaking the curves and you can really get something, though. Lose that yellow fog hanging over everything and give the thing some range between light and dark (you know, High Dynamic Range...heh...) and it looks pretty cool despite the flare and dust.
- gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I normally don't do HDR photography myself but this guy here has it all done wrong.
WB more than likely set on auto
HDR = ISO 100 or less
He should rethink the shot over and take a camera course.
www.gxcdesign.com/photogallery
I have some HDR shots on there, though not as dramatic as some have seen - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@invader
Touché
- korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+106Buried.
Waldo was WAY too easy to find.
/1st Grade- thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Yeah, but did you find his glasses, walking stick, binoculars and other useless crap that was hidden in order to get kids to shut up for a car trip?
- sicc, on 10/12/2007, -35/+2This has to be photoshopped, no?
It looks awesome as hell, but it looks a little too cool. If it is real, wow.- aclements, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28The whole idea of HDR is that it is Photoshopped (or some other program). The images are made by selectively choosing areas from areas of several images with different exposures to create one with the best dynamic range.
- Phearce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@sicc -- HDR = High Dynamic Range. That means multiple images adjusted for the bright and dim portions of the scene were merged. So, technically photoshopped, but not they way you meant.
- sporkmonger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's an HDR image. Basically several exposures combined together. But other than the combining operation, there probably wasn't a whole lot of Photoshopping involved. This is just what HDR looks like.
Edit: Aww, they beat me to it. - sicc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Oh.
=x - jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that's the way most HDR images look
*shrug*
pretty cool image, shame for the rain - unfinite, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10It's not /really/ an HDR image. It's only 8bit rendering of one.
A true HDRI would be higher than 8bit (usually 32bit).
The image would have more information than your monitor (8bit) can display.
http://www.debevec.org/Probes/ has a useful gallery of HDRI probes that you can open in newer versions of Photoshop.
Use: Image > Adjustments > Exposure... to see how much information a true HDRI has. - kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Am I the only one that thinks that these types of unrealistic HDR images are just pointless and silly from a photographic sense? To me the whole idea of creating an HDR image is to use the increased dynamic range that you get from multiple exposures to create an image that is more realistic, not one that looks like it came out of a comic book. Current digital cameras aren't capable of capturing as much dynamic range as the human eye and thus the need for multiple exposures to create a more realistic HDR scene (i.e. lots of detail in the shadows and highlights).
I just don't see the point to those that like to create an HDR image and then tone-map the hell out of it into something that is completely unrealistic. - MysticMaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. I don't like HDR images for this reason. They look a little too fake. I'll take a hardware solution like the Fuji S3/S5
- plotinuus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why is everyone digging unfinite down? he is right. A HDR image is a higher Dynamic Range Image. It has a higher(!) dynamic range. This image has the same dynamic range as every other one on the net, 8 bits per channel.
This image that we are looking at is a HDR image that has been approximated to normal dynamic range using a technique called tone mapping. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Why is everyone digging unfinite down? he is right. A HDR image is a higher Dynamic Range Image. It has a higher(!) dynamic range. This image has the same dynamic range as every other one on the net, 8 bits per channel.
This image that we are looking at is a HDR image that has been approximated to normal dynamic range using a technique called tone mapping."
I think you need to look closer at what you typed, because you answered the question for yourself. "The image that we are looking at is a high dynamic range image [...]"
To really drive the point home, let's use a metaphor. Say someone shows you a picture of a giraffe. They say, "Hey, look at this giraffe." Then you respond, "That's not a giraffe! That's a photo of a giraffe!"
I'm sorry, but I don't really like snobby HDR elitists like 'unfinite'. I could take a 16-bit, single exposure RAW image and tone map it to 8-bit and it would still *technically* be a high dynamic range image. But there are plenty of a-holes out there who claim that only 5+ exposure images are 'truly HDRs'. I've talked to quite a few people who are just learning how to make HDRs, and they sound really discouraged when they tell me about some of the things HDR elitists say.
Sorry for the rant. - plotinuus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry invader but I still completely disagree. I would like to offer another metaphore-
Say I take a picture on my camera at 3000X3000 pixels. I would call this a high resolution image, or HRI. Soppose I then want to show that image on the web, but 3000X3000 is too big so I shrink it down to 800X800 to fit on the web, maybe I apply a sharpen filter to it. It would be silly to call this a HRI. It is clearly not.
It would be a HRI that has been converted to a lower resolution.
HDR is an image format. It is not a filter or effect. People all over the thread are commenting on the tone mapping effect that has been applied to it. The HDR image was not invented to make these tone-mapped images, there are a whole range of uses for the HDR format, and there are a whole range of other ways to approximate HDR images so they can be veiwed on our monitor.
The coolness of the image comes from the tone-mapping technique, not from the HDR fromat. The HDR format was invented, and then a bunch of scientists or computer people thought- "hey wouldnt it be cool if we took this HDR data from the image and used it to add detail to the shadows, I think Ill call it tone-mapping." - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Invader: Damnit! Magritte fooled us again! First that damned picture of a pipe, and now this!
- Jake2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15The quality of that thing at full size is terrible... nice image, but not front page-worthy.
@sicc: It's HDR. - TuxedoMax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I see light pollution isn't an issue of major concern in Tokyo. I
- ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know....imagine the amount of electricity consumed in just this picture alone...scary.
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24Amazingly *****, could that be any more blurry and still be considered a picture?
- vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That original is quite craptastic.
The preview looks awesome though. - shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Agreed. Awesome subject, but terrible, terrible picture.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed - flattened by HDR, bad color, ***** lens with CA and major vignetting.... this sucks pretty bad.
- vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That original is quite craptastic.
- Decon89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Too bad with the raindrops. Could have been a much better picture without those :/
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Blade Runner.
- Oldschoolhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Enlarge.... beep, skttah, skttah, skttah, skttah, skttah.
Deckard was totally awesome. - FlyboyP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First thing that popped into my head too. All it needs is flying police cars.
- Oldschoolhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Enlarge.... beep, skttah, skttah, skttah, skttah, skttah.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12looks like crap if you ask me.
- lozadaj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have to agree. Too many people us HDR when they should just use a long shutter speed. Most of the time HDR lots far from real.
- synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Ah Roppongi...where the skeezers are skeeziest, the clap is plentiful and the beer and vomit flows in the streets like the sea itself.
- tarmithius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ahh so true, I would rather go to Harajuku, or maybe the back streets of Shibuya.
- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3How is this HDR? I'm guessing the photographer used multiple exposures and then merged them? Where is the HDR file then?
And does that even matter for looking at it on my computer screen? No. Last I checked, I only had 8bits per channel.- Jake2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@slothlovechunk: HDR vs non-HDR below.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=163571010&size=l - slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4yes, i know what hdr is. The resulting image you showed me is a low-dynamic range image that was tone-mapped from other low-dynamic range images. A HDR image has all of the data from the LDR images in it, and can't be displayed properly on current display hardware, as we only have 8 bits per channel in our monitors, and most video cards (as many do floating point textures these days--which are sometimes tonemapped before displaying)
- Daz_Genetic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Though this image, and the one Jake2 showed as an example, is a product of a High Dynamic Range image, the correct term for this type of processing is "tone mapping" or "exposure blending". Tone mapping uses algorithms to create the final image, while exposure blending is just a case of manually blending and overlaying multiple exposures. Both methods are used to increase the viewable dynamic range in a Low Dynamic Range image.
- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They both require tone mapping.
You have to tone map something when you have more "tones" than you are allowed to display. If you have a bunch of exposures of the same image, you have more data than will fit into your 8-bits per channel, you need to "map" your data into this smaller range.
Tone-mapping is any function which maps the colors of an image to another set of colors for the same image. It's just a general image-processing term. Gamma correction could even be considered tone-mapping. - plotinuus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0slothlovechunk and Daz_Genetic are right and I dont know why they keep getting dugg down. The name HDR seems to of been hijacked by thes type of tone mapped images- which have a normal dynamic range, but are derived from a HDR image.
- Jake2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21@slothlovechunk: HDR vs non-HDR below.
- KevinWhite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Amazing, Pentax D-SLRs are seriously underrated
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1This is my new desktop
- jesterspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Looks like a scene from Ghost in the Shell, awesome...
- dirtdrawz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Nope, this is not an HDR image; it's an LDR image, likely generated by some tonemapping algorithm from an HDR image, which itself was probably generated from a set of LDR images taken at different exposures.
But very cool. - TitoJackson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3HDR is meant to expose the subtle details lost in the dark areas of an over exposed area, while exposing the subtle bright details in the over exposed areas. To this end, HDR images should look natural and pleasing to the eye. It's a technique to more accurately represent the image the eye sees rather than the image the camera sees.
That having been said, most images that are so called "HDR" are compiled by no talent assclowns that take 12 exposures and merge them with Photoshop or Photomatix using default settings and make unrealistic, cartoon like crap that has a nearly linearly flat level graph and is hardly "dynamic" at all. Call it processed. Call it merged. You can like it if you want, but don't call it HDR, it's exactly the opposite.
Good HDR: http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/lucas/tm.html
Bad HDR: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramonduran/244887266/- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Neither of those are HDR. They use HDR methods to improve (or worsen in your second example) the detail in an image, or produce images that a single exposure would not allow.
If I see an HDR image link, I want to see a file that is actually an HDR file. I want to be able to change the exposure myself, tone-map it myself, whatever, it needs to be in an HDR file format, not an 8-bit per channel jpg.
buried as inaccurate. - joel8x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're both coming off a little elitist. Just because you don't agree with the technique (or think its cheating) in that 2nd link doesn't make it awful. I love looking at those kinds of images because they look unreal - they make ordinary things look interesting. There is something appealing to me as a non-photographer in those manipulative shots.
- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Neither of those are HDR. They use HDR methods to improve (or worsen in your second example) the detail in an image, or produce images that a single exposure would not allow.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is called tone Mapping. HDR by default means optimizing your display media for the brightness spectrum. Camera sensors cannot, simultaneously, meter for bright and dark areas. Hence you take multiple pictures of different exposures, layer them on top of each other, mask off areas you don't want to reveal. That is HDR. A variant of HDR - Tone mapping involves a more complicated algorithm that results in THIS, as is evident with the splotchy sky.
- nfollmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ooooooo....ok, so basically you just use the different exposures to "highlight" your darks and lights instead of your cameras short of mixture of light?
- nfollmer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I dont really understand the reasoning behind HDRI (besides why I use them, for 3d lighting), but how is it an advantage to photos?
- thedonga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3damn...the full size quality sucks.
dude can't really take a very good photo... - EvolvedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I get lost in NYC where all the blocks are a series of rectangles, using a simple street/avenue numbering system, how in the world would I find my way around Tokyo in THAT mess? o_O;
- dawtips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I spent a week in Tokyo last month and had the whole city/area pretty much down. It was pretty easy and I can't speak/read any Japanese. Also, a picture cannot describe the absolute beauty that is Tokyo, especially at night. This picture comes close, but you really have to be there and be encompassed by it to get an idea of what I am talking about.
- kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2man - this is just so awesomely blade runner.
all its missing are some flying cars. - Bobalobabingbon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1enough pollution?
- estacado, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2After a while, you get tired of stories that start with the word "Amazing".
- Sharkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/322152193_f1ab23b927_o.jpg
Full size - yunfat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Buried cause it uses the word "amazing". Digg is not a photography site people, if it wants to be, then put a photo tab at the top. These photos are crap, and diggers wouldn't know a good photo from a hole in the wall.
- DevinOlsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, simply amazing... HDR image FTW =)
- aweblogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks good, i wonder how New York will look like in HDR.
More HDR's :
http://flickrville.com/category/hdr/ - tisfl37, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude's got some wicked cool photos out on Flicker. I liked the shot, even liked the blur from the rain. Great sunsets of Tokyo, and pix of Mt. Fuji in his album. Check 'em out.
- Holyfool19, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Small penises can accomplish really grand things.
- CrushThemTorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Argh! The artifacting is just brutal. Still kinda neat though.
- Cypres0099, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Impressive, but it's a shame that most HDR images these days have a cartoon look. I'm sure that will change soon.
- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3THEY AREN'T HDR IMAGES!!!
HDR images have a bigger dynamic range than 8-bits per channel.
- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3THEY AREN'T HDR IMAGES!!!
- bigswinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@aweblogs: Some of my NYC HDR shots: http://flickr.com/photos/zhulick/sets/72157594396890962/
- StickWST, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You guys are criticizing this photo too much, its still better than what many of you (I said many, not ALL) could do yourselves.
- mykyi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice pic, i mean OMG the HDR and ISO and stuff,
- letterten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's nice at first glance, but once you look at the original, it's out of focus and the horizon isn't even level...and, I agree with some of the posters -- this isn't an HDR image.
- coonzel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oooh yeah...
/background - nekitip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is sooo "neuromancer".
- yaddayadda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is unrealistic, in addition to looking butt-ugly. Yay!
- ChocoMidget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Alright this is my first post on Digg but I had to speak up and comment on this image. I am a professional photographer, I photograph cars and architecture. I have to say a few things. First everyone above you are right this is an 8bit image and can't be displayed on a monitor yatta yatta, there is one that can do it, its made by Brightside but it costs like 10K and will burn your eyes cause its soo damn bright. I believe its 16bit.
Next I swear will you people take your hand away from the sharpening tool, please!!!!!!!!!
I know you use it for dramatic effect and you think its cool, but images look so much better when they have been sharpened to complete limits of the file. You want that look run it through high pass on soft light please please please!!!!!
Next never use CS2 for HDRI, its crap, everyone knows it, I don't know a single professional that does use it. I use photomatix which is quite good.
Next HDRs are not supposed to look anything like this. A good HDR image is one where you cant tell it was ever done. An HDR is all about recreating how our eyes view the environment in which we live. The human eye sees approx. 20 stops of light. Negative film around 5. Transparency around 6. A print only contains 4 to 4 1/2 stops of info. Digital is now moving into being able to capture 12 stops and even 18 stops in one go. So the whole goal is to reach the 20 stops of how our eyes see to make things like looking into the sun but still being able to see into the shadows possible.
Again back off on the sharpening, if you think your photos are that blurry, remove the little anti-mosaic filter they put in front of the sensor and you'll see how sharp digital really is.
If you ever attempt anything like this, have patience, get a cable release and do a long exposure at 50 iso, it will turn out 10x better. - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for calling this an "Image", everytime I see one of these digital illustrations called a "Photograph" it makes my cry.
- Mossman85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sim City with next gen graphics
- M1THR4ND1R, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Awesome pic IMO.. That's about the image i have in my head when I think Tokyo at night.
- DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's with the craigdanielosbourne guy? Does his ego somehow prevent him from adding his comment in the comments section like the grown-ups do, why would you add a tag over the whole image that blocks the author's original tags?
- blackgrape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People, you're missing the point. Technical details are not the point.
The point of photography is to enlighten. I've been to Tokyo, and that picture captures the feel of Tokyo. Superbly.
It's like dismissing the Mona Lisa because the paint is old. - ChocoMidget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually technical details are very much the point. This image while conceptually is pretty good loses so much ground due to poor execution. Don't get me wrong I think the soul is there, the blood and guts of the image, but not the refined finish look that this image could obtain. The photographer really needs to go back with a tripod on a day without rain, level his camera and do multiple versions of this image.
It is the case that sometimes snapshots are great images, but this one could benefit from more patience and discpline. - buildmorerobots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's TRON outside the box.
- yoshitx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not a decent raman-ya in sight.
- diggapleeeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Would hate to pay that electric bill.
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't trust anything with word "Amazing" in the title...
- wooties, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1holy crap flickr is flick'n slow.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
