Sources at the bottom are included.
The same photo: DNG - CR2HDR, and dng - MLVApp, in which the photo was transcoded
in mlv, ticked in front of Dual ISO and saved due to the preset "CinemaDNG Uncompressed".
Photoshop only saw the difference that after CR2HDR the result is brighter, but the photos are more or less similar for comparison.
I downloaded the processed Dual ISO DNG frames from the included link, I imported them to MLVApp via "Transcode and import" and adjusted the exposure until they became identical, results:
-
IMG_8014:
Processed with MLVApp Dual ISO algorithm: Processed with CR2HDR Dual ISO algorithm:
-
IMG_8016:
Processed with MLVApp Dual ISO algorithm: Processed with CR2HDR Dual ISO algorithm:
-
Results:
Both CR2HDR and MLVApp Dual ISO algorithms produce
identical noise level (overall identical image output), if the output was darker in MLVApp Dual ISO processing algorithm --> that's completely normal and it
doesn't mean that you will get more noise, it won't affect noise in anyway, just increase the exposure until it looks normal and you will be fine.
Regarding the cat shots, you are clearly
underexposing in first place, you will get same noise level if clip was processed in either CR2HDR or MLVApp, that's not MLVApp fault.
You are misusing Dual ISO, you need to
expose to highlights and to the right, then if you had dark shadows and if there was usable ISO range left (like 100/800) --> at this moment you should consider to use Dual ISO.
In your case (cat shots), there is no need to use Dual-ISO (it won't make a difference), it's better to use single ISO like 800 or 1600.
-
Example:
-ISO 100 (No Dual-ISO): -Processed Dual-ISO 100/1600:
-ISO 100 (No Dual-ISO) Exposure +1, Shadows +50: -Processed Dual-ISO 100/1600 Exposure +1, Shadows +50:
-Exposure +4:
-Original MLV files:
Download.
-
Notes:
-In ISO 100 clip, I exposed the shot to highlights, if I increased the exposure more in camera I will start blowing highlights, at this case I can consider using Dual ISO:
If my intention was to recover shadows in post, and get clean shadows.
If there was still usable ISO range like 100/400, 100/800, 100/1600, 200/800, 200/1600. and not like 1600/6400.
-
MLVApp and Dual-ISO:
The only downside here is flickering
in some cases, and that's normal because the algorithm isn't designed for video in first place in both cr2hdr and MLVApp, but that doesn't mean it's not useable, cr2hdr can have flickering too in some cases. other than that MLVApp and Dual ISO works fine.
-MLVApp
can handle 12/11/10/9/8-bit lossless Dual-ISO processing while cr2hdr
can't do that currently.
-Beside MLVApp can also handle at least -to some point- focus pixels fix in Dual ISO clips while there is no other tool can do that iirc (didn't try MLVFS in this case).
-Also MLVApp can handle stretched Dual ISO DNGs (like when using 1x3 mode), cr2hdr gives error, you need to process squeezed 1x3 DNG files then apply the stretch.
cr2hdr has I think two tweaks for fixing flicker, one of them is
this, the other one
here, But I am not sure if these only used in cr2hdr, they could be also there in MLVApp, we need to check.
If they are not there in MLVApp, we might want to check the possibility of implementing them.
-
Lastly:
If there other issues with MLVApp and Dual-ISO other than flickering, feel free to make an argument which says cr2hdr is better
(don't forget to mention the issue
)
I am still looking for reported issues in this thread, will make a reply if I found one.
