1. High dynamic range imaging

2. Camera pipeline 12 bits8 bits

3. Short exposure 10 -6 10 6 10 -6 10 6 Real world radiance Picture intensity dynamic range Pixel value 0 to 255

4. Long exposure 10 -6 10 6 10 -6 10 6 Real world radiance Picture intensity dynamic range Pixel value 0 to 255

5. Varying shutter speeds

6. Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs Paul E. Debevec Jitendra Malik SIGGRAPH 1997

7. Recovering response curve 12 bits8 bits

8.  t = 1/4 sec  t = 1 sec  t = 1/8 sec  t = 2 sec Image series  t = 1/2 sec Recovering response curve 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 255

9. Idea behind the math ln2

10. Idea behind the math Each line for a scene point. The offset is essentially determined by the unknown E i

11. Idea behind the math Note that there is a shift that we can’t recover

12. Math for recovering response curve

13. Recovering response curve The solution can be only up to a scale, add a constraint Add a hat weighting function

14. Recovered response function

15. Constructing HDR radiance map combine pixels to reduce noise and obtain a more reliable estimation

16. Reconstructed radiance map

17. Gradient Domain High Dynamic Range Compression Raanan Fattal Dani Lischinski Michael Werman SIGGRAPH 2002

18. The method in 1D log derivative attenuate integrate exp

19. The method in 2D Given: a log-luminance image H(x,y) Compute an attenuation map Compute an attenuated gradient field G : Problem: G may not be integrable!

20. Solution Look for image I with gradient closest to G in the least squares sense. I minimizes the integral: Poisson equation

21. Attenuation gradient magnitude log(Luminance) attenuation map

22. Multiscale gradient attenuation interpolate interpolate X= X=

23. Bilateral [Durand et al.] Photographic [Reinhard et al.] Gradient domain [Fattal et al.] Informal comparison

24. Bilateral [Durand et al.] Photographic [Reinhard et al.] Gradient domain [Fattal et al.]

25. Bilateral [Durand et al.] Photographic [Reinhard et al.] Gradient domain [Fattal et al.] Informal comparison

26. Local Laplacian Filters : Edge-aware Image Processing with a Laplacian Pyramid Sylvain Paris Samuel W. Hasinoff Jan Kautz SIGGRAPH 2011

27. Background on Gaussian Pyramids Resolution halved at each level using Gaussian kernel level 0 level 1 level 2 level 3 (residual) 27

28. Background on Laplacian Pyramids Difference between adjacent Gaussian levels level 0 level 1 level 2 level 3 (residual) 28

29. Discontinuity Intuition for 1D Edge =++ Input signalTextureSmooth 29 Decomposition for the sake of analysis only –We do not compute it in practice

30. Discontinuity Intuition for 1D Edge =++ Input signalTextureSmooth Does not contribute to Lap. pyramid at that scale (d 2 /dx 2 =0) 30

31. Discontinuity Ideal Texture Increase Texture Keep unchanged Amplify 31

32. Our Texture Increase “Locally good” version Input signal σσ σ σ user-defined parameter σ defines texture vs. edges 32 Local nonlinearity

33. Discontinuity Unaffected Our Texture Increase =++ “Locally good” Only left side is affected Texture Left side is ok, right side is not  Smooth Does not contribute to Lap. pyramid at that scale (d 2 /dx 2 =0) 33

34. =++ Smooth Does not contribute to Lap. pyramid at that scale (d 2 /dx 2 =0) Discussion Negligible because collocated with discontinuity Negligible because Gaussian kernel ≈ 0 Discontinuity Unaffected “Locally good” Only left side is affected Texture Left side is ok, right side is not  34 Good approximation to ideal case overall (formal treatment in paper) Good approximation to ideal case overall (formal treatment in paper)

35. Texture Manipulation Input 35

36. Texture Manipulation Decrease 36

37. Texture Manipulation Small Increase 37

38. Texture Manipulation Large Increase 38

39. Texture Manipulation Input 39

40. Texture Manipulation Large Increase 40