🚀 go-pugleaf

Thanks Sebastian, but I'm aware of 'pseudo-HDR' and it's not what I'm after. There's an example here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vCf1OU4B-c&fmt=18> and it's what I suspect has been done here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiFLKAxrGZY&fmt=18>

HDR means different things to different people. It was first coined in the 1940s by Charles Wyckoff, who took detailed pictures of nuclear explosions.

Nowdays there seem to be several technical definitions. For instance, the guys who did the background plates for The Matrix call their techniques HDR.

I'm talking about the kind of stuff you get from several bracketed exposures. Like these three <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/64/HDR_example_-_exposure.jpeg/800px-HDR_example_-_exposure.jpeg> yielding this <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Ball3_1_2.jpg/800px-Ball3_1_2.jpg> Pushing the technique yields more surreal stuff <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File>:Trencin_hdr_001.jpg There's some nice animation around like <http://vimeo.com/2636529> and <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmQ_rz5lco&fmt=18> but I want to do it with live action.

I was dubious that I could actually do the little trick I've done with film, but whatever the math is, my tests have shown that IT WORKS! And it only takes one camera pass! Of course exposures have to be absolutely spot on, and the stock ASA rating has to be accurate, but those things have come a long way in recent years. And of course the subject matter and brightness range needs to be appropriate - one with a low brightness range would yield no significant result. Now the question is: how to go from stills to moving?