Photomatix was able to remove some of the ghosting but there's still a lot. I knew there would be when I was shooting it but it looks cool anyway so I just kept it up.

Let me know what you think!

KC to the Bay on Vimeo

Were you shooting 3 bracketed images per frame, or just 1? HDR is fun!

3 bracketed images. Results in some ghosting but it looks so cool.

I am totally addicted to HDR right now and having a lot of fun!

Hey Graham,

That is some cool stuff... thanks for sharing.

Looks great.

The compression on Vimeo was much more unfortunate than any ghosting. I can only imagine how great this must look with a less aggressive codec. :)

Let me know what you think!

Usually I don't care much for HDR, but this is quite nice (and the sound track plays perfectly with the footage). Good job. The only thing that bothers me is the bumped sharpening(?) -- it's a bit too plastic video look for my taste. Yet, it's a very nice piece.

-- peer

Yea, the Vimeo compression is brutal on this piece. I originally uploaded an H.264 720 @ 10Mbps. I just replaced it with XDCAM EX 1080 @ 35Mbps and I think it helped a little. It's the compression on Vimeo's end that kills it. I think it's a difficult one to encode well at lower bit rates because of the wide dynamic range and dramatic differences from frame to frame.

Yeah, it's the combination of high contrast and motion that rips the compression up.

You should submit the raw footage to the Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG). Seriously. It's quite the test!

I did a quick search on this and didn't turn anything up. How do I submit and what is the purpose? I'm guessing it's for research as they develop new standards.

Very nice! It looks amazing. Don't really care if it's not 100% on the technical side... And the music really makes it a nice whole!

I know some people who are members of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29. I'll forward the link and see what they think. I'll let them know that you would make the original footage available.

Moving Picture Experts Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Picture_Experts_Group)

It's possible that your encoder is poor. The way that codec standards work is that they specify exactly how the decoder shall work. The encoder implementation has lots of freedom. As long as the decoder can properly decode the output, the encoder is compliant. Some encoders implement amazing advanced features like sub-pixel motion vectors and variable block sizes. Other encoders slap the output together quickly with no extra features and put a bow on it. It's a tradeoff as few of us want our computers to crunch video for hours on end to produce a single minute of compressed video.

So, it's possible that my colleagues will blame the encoder. But if you make the original available, maybe they will see if they can do better. :)

Nice work!

It's a bit confusing to me. So are you saying it's a software thing more so than a codec thing?

I rendered my photo sequences out of AE as ProRes LT. Is that the footage they would want or would it be better to rerender to a better codec like ProRes HQ or 4444 or uncompressed?

And the work they might do, would it make the vimeo version any better? With my 5GB limit I could upload a version at 330Mbps. But wouldn't vimeo still make a mess of it?

I'm not a Mac guy, so I don't know about the relative quality of their encoding options.

In any case, Vimeo ships out h.264, whether you encoded it directly or if they transcoded it. And the encoder used on your video might not have been the highest quality option. In fact, Vimeo has to crunch a ton of videos. I'd bet that their encoders are rudimentary for economic reasons.

Simply put, all decoders must do exactly the same thing. Encoders, on the other hand, vary in quality and complexity - even when encoding to the same format and bitrate.

I recommend encoding h.264 at 5,000 bps for 720p yourself for delivery to Vimeo. I believe that they don't have to re-compress if you deliver at that level.

For audio, use AAC, 320 kbps, 44.100 kHz.

Compression guidelines on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/help/compression)

This is a very cool look that I'm rally not familiar with but I have seen it before......Can someone direct me to an HDR workflow? Is the workflow the same for stills and video? Thanks in advance.

It's a bit confusing to me. So are you saying it's a software thing more so than a codec thing?

I rendered my photo sequences out of AE as ProRes LT. Is that the footage they would want or would it be better to rerender to a better codec like ProRes HQ or 4444 or uncompressed?

And the work they might do, would it make the vimeo version any better? With my 5GB limit I could upload a version at 330Mbps. But wouldn't vimeo still make a mess of it?


There's NOTHING to be gained by rendering out to anything beyond ProResLT IF you have the camera in live view video mode. That imposes a limit of 100 mbps to enable CF card recording of live video rates.

If, however, you're shooting still frames and assembling them into video output later, using a higher quality transcoding schemes should definitely preserve more quality - but at a big price in storage and editing horsepower at some point. Sooner or later you're going to have to transcode into SOMETHING that you can edit with - AND that the common user can view.

So the choice is GOING to come about when to "dumb down" the stream and how much "dumb" is required by YOUR system in order to maintain footage quality that you can store, manage and edit.

Good luck.