Ideas…

For a reason that I didn’t really understand clearly, I’m now one of the administrator of the Luminance HDR Project.
Let’s start from the beginning: a few weeks ago I was trying Luminance HDR 2.0.0. It has been released in July so I though it was interesting to give it a go. It was even more interesting because I had to compile the code from scratch¬†using my Mac OS X.
I have to say: it wasn’t as hard as I imagined. Using MacPorts and a bit of patience, I had my working copy of Luminance HDR.
My first question was: why is it a newer software worse than the previous older one!? I know, I lot of people out there had the same thought and I agree with them, Luminance HDR is worse than QTpfsgui for these reasons:

  • The tonemapping process does not produce the same result of QTpfsgui;
  • The UI interface is somewhat not-coherent, because probably it has been touched but too many people with different ideas about how it should be and how it should be changed;
  • Luminance HDR crashes for unknown reasons, expecially using Mantiuk 06.

I am still learning the code and trying to find out where the sources of these problems are, but I’m confident that I will eventually come out with something interesting. So, if anybody wants to collaborate, just let me know.

14 Responses to “Ideas…”


  • Great Job with the website, and good luck mate!

  • First, I tried Qtpfsgui on Windows and Linux and enjoyed the lovable results but I became increasingly frustrated by these unexpected terminations.
    I then swapped over to the original pfstools+pfstmo+pfshddrcalibration which is more stable and comfortable because it runs in terminal. Unfortunately the results were worlds apart compared to Qtpsgui’s. Especially I’m missing certain features in pfs*, such as different weighting functions or more options to the tone mappers (saturation, detail factor).

    I will either extend pfs* or create a stable command line version of Qtpfsgui (which is what I need). Probably it will then make sense to separate the GUI from the integrated pfs* implementation, and focus the future development of Qtpfsgui on its usability.

    Thanks to Davide and all those who will leave their ideas here…

    • I think the original developers had a different idea about qtpfsgui: they were working on the UI because the pfs* team said they wanted to release a whole library. Unfortunately, nothing happened and pfs* is still a set of function and command line tools. For this reason, now QTpfsgui/Luminance is a different thing and it is trying to integrate the pfs* framework inside the UI in a much coherent way. I don’t think a command line version of qtpfsgui will never exist (it wouldn’t make much sense, I think), but we can try to submit our patches to the pfs* team and see if their feedback is positive or not. In that case, stuff like detail factor and saturation can be natively supported by the pfs* framework.

  • I’m an avid user of Qtpfsgui 1.9.3 on Mac OS X (and have been a user for a couple of years, through several versions). I introduced my father to it, and he upgraded to the latest version of Luminance HDR on Windows, and now he’s mad because he paid for the new version and it is worse than the free version he had before… The possible explanations adduced above (too many hands, different ideas of where to take it, etc.) all sound plausible. Whatever the reasons may be, please do fix it!

  • This is MEHJG’s father. I was very upset to find that the new paid version was so bad. Obviously, I’m not alone. If you can fix it and make it better than QTPFSGUI, it will be a fantastic program. For all its shortcomings, qtpfsgui has been a fun program to use and produces interesting results. I am glad to hear that you are working on it. Thank you in advance for the great program that you are going produce. (Think Positive!)

  • Interesting! I used qtpfsgui which I liked, and a few weeks ago compiled luminance from the svn sources – which worked but was driven mad by strange windowing and nagging messages when using fattal. So I hacked at the code to get rid of it. Seems I’m not alone when I thought it had gone backward.

Comments are currently closed.