Why I love HDR...

[stu-52]

I have seen arguments against doing a lot of post-processing because it is not "the shot that was taken". This article presents some of those points: http://brianleon.com/journal/2009/08...ing-the-image/

I have been looking at many examples of HDR photography and, while some are over the top in terms of the processing, many are very fine images (for example look at http://stuckincustoms.com).

If seeing is believing, then I have seen that post-processing with HDR software is good.

Take the following before and after shots as examples:





I think you'll agree that the processed image is much more appealing.

The second image was made by taking one RAW image in GIMP and making five TIFF images of differing exposures (0, -.5, -1.0, -1.5 & -2.0). These five images were then combined in Photomatix and tonemapped. Finally, the resulting image was processed by Noiseware to smooth it out. I also removed the construction cranes that you can see on either side of the river in the original image.

[BlueRob]

As everything in this world is a matter of taste. I have seen really unique an appealing HDRs and on the other hand many of them are way to over processed. If you know the right spot of and HDR you´ll get a very punchy image.

[Frog]

I'm not a fan of over processed hdr but I am a fan of using it in the right situation to get the exposure needed or wanted in the photo.

[SmartWombat]

Since the 5 images were made out of one raw, then it should be possible to get the same effect out of processing the original.

[Greg McCary]

A good ND grad filter will work instead of the HDR technique. I am a little old fashion and lazy to try and combine several images. Not to mention the extra HD space to store the pictures and picking out the right ones to combine. When I am in the field I don't like taking four or five shots of every angle I choose. I think it is much simpler to use the filter than taking so many pictures. Getting it right in the field takes less time and effort for me. I also don't like the over the top HDR look either.

[stu-52]

I think that the discussion in this thread shows that the debate of whether the creativity begins or ends when you take the shot is alive and well.

Right now, I'm looking at HDR as just another step in post-processing. I like to tweak the photo to produce a pleasing image. Since I'm new to HDR, a lot of what I'm doing with Photomatix is experimenting with what works and what doesn't. So far out of the 1000 or so photos that I took on my trip to Italy only about 20 have benefitted from the process and you can see some of them in my gallery.

Currently all my stuff is done by processing a single RAW image as I didn't want to use up precious space on my memory cards during my trip. As it turns out, I could have done it since I ended up using less than one of the two 8GB cards that I had with me. As for disk space, nowadays disk is cheap. I figure that I can use some of my primary disk space doing the experimenting. When I'm done, I'll move it off to a backup drive or DVD's.

My next bit of experimenting will be to try out actual exposure bracketing to input into Photomatix.

By the way, does anyone think that my processed HDR image is "over the top" or would you say it was right on?

[stu-52]

Since the 5 images were made out of one raw, then it should be possible to get the same effect out of processing the original.

Yes, sometimes this will work just as well. But, in this case I got better results from the method that I described.

[OldClicker]

Few comments:

They’re not level.

"...RAW image in GIMP and making five TIFF images of differing exposures (0, -.5, -1.0, -1.5 & -2.0)." Why would you do that? Just take the single RAW into Photomatix and it will use all the dynamic range available.

Looks to me like you could have better exposed the first one when you shot it. Also, if you used the same non-HDR processing on it, it would look as good (not the same maybe, but as good).

“…does anyone think that my processed HDR image is "over the top"…” What’s ‘over the top’? It doesn’t look bad, but I don’t think that I could go to that spot with my eyes and ever see an image that looks like that.

I lot of objection from many of those opposing some type of post processing (not just HDR) is because, “It doesn’t look real.” But I find that they have defined ‘real’ as ‘what film looked like.’ For instance, you can do some very heavy saturation and it’s all right because there was high saturation film. But extend the dynamic range beyond what film could do and it’s over processed.

TF

[stu-52]

Few comments:

They’re not level.

OK....good catch. Easy enough to fix.

"...RAW image in GIMP and making five TIFF images of differing exposures (0, -.5, -1.0, -1.5 & -2.0)." Why would you do that? Just take the single RAW into Photomatix and it will use all the dynamic range available.

I have tried that with other shots and found that it seemed to work better by making separate TIFF files. I didn't try the single RAW into Photomatix this time because of other attempts that didn't give as good results.

Looks to me like you could have better exposed the first one when you shot it. Also, if you used the same non-HDR processing on it, it would look as good (not the same maybe, but as good).

I'm not sure what you mean by "the same non-HDR processing on it". If by that you mean just work on the color levels and exposure in GIMP or PS, then maybe, yeah....but Photomatix does a good bit of the work for you. Maybe I haven't worked with GIMP enough on it's own yet. I have found that by working with the RAW image file I can change the exposure and white balance so if I'm off by a half stop or two either way, then I can make it better in post-processing.

So, could it have been better exposed in the first place....I suppose so. But can I fix that in post-processing? Yes.

I wasn't bracketing my exposures...after seeing how much memory card space I had left after my trip, I will make sure that I do that when I am taking most of my shots.

“…does anyone think that my processed HDR image is "over the top"…” What’s ‘over the top’? It doesn’t look bad, but I don’t think that I could go to that spot with my eyes and ever see an image that looks like that.

I lot of objection from many of those opposing some type of post processing (not just HDR) is because, “It doesn’t look real.” But I find that they have defined ‘real’ as ‘what film looked like.’ For instance, you can do some very heavy saturation and it’s all right because there was high saturation film. But extend the dynamic range beyond what film could do and it’s over processed.

TF

Just a thought, but would that same attitude apply to any piece of scenic art be it a photograph, a painting or whatever kind of medium?

[Medley]

OK, this is a bit of a sticking point with me, and I've tried very hard to bite my tongue up to now.

An image blended from a single image, weather done in Photomatix or not, is NOT an HDR image. It is, to be technical, a tone-mapped image. The difference is subtle, but important. In HDR, you are actually adding detail to the final image. In tone-mapping, you are simply taking the available detail and redistributing it.

I came to photography from a digital background, and once believed- as it seems that you do now- that pp can result in an image that's just as good as something straight out of the camera. Do enough research however, and you'll come to understand that it's just not possible. Most of the edits done in pp have the effect of discarding information. The global edits, such as Levels and Curves, discard the most information. And in a digital image, information is detail. I can only think of one or two specific instances where discarding detail from a digital image results in a better image overall.

I also used to believe that edits done in the Raw editor are lossless. After all, that's what we're taught, right? That's only half true, but I'll leave that for another time.

Stu, I understand where you're coming from, and agree that Photomatix makes many tasks easier. However, where the single-image technique is concerned, TF is right, you can get just as good results without Photomatix. In fact, you can often get better results. Once you come to the realization that pp discards detail, the goal of pp changes to getting as much information as possible to the final result. Where pp is concerned, less becomes more. That means getting as much as possible right in the camera, and carefully controlling information loss in pp.

In that respect, I strongly advise you to look into learning how to do tone-mapping manually. Along the way, you'll learn how to tweak the image to your liking, and minimize data loss. Automation is a wonderful thing, but no automation can cover every problem, and the fixes offered by automation are not always the optimal solution.

- Joe U.

[Medley]

I lot of objection from many of those opposing some type of post processing (not just HDR) is because, “It doesn’t look real.” But I find that they have defined ‘real’ as ‘what film looked like.’

TF, in a very real way, that is an accurate comparison. The human eye and film "see" light the same way. A digital sensor does not. If we were to put a 25 watt light bulb in a large room, the eye would see a gradual progrssion from the lightest part of the scene into the darkest. Film would capture that scene exactly the same way, very closely approximating what the eye saw. But a digital sensor 'sees' (and captures) it as a series of half-lives: 50% of the total available information is contained in the brightest stop. 25 % in the second brightest stop, and so on. So in a typical digital image with a 6 stop dynamic range, while you and I see something like this:



The digital sensor records something much closer to this:



As you can see, in the digital image, there is more detail in the brightest stop, but every other stop has less information. This is what makes HDR work well for digital images- by varying the exposure and creating an separate images for each individual stop, you can place that first 50% in EACH range of the image, giving the capability of much more information than is possible even in film.

Now, if one was to do that, then systematically remove information from each successive brightness range, it would be possible to take "reconstruct" the gradual transition from light into dark that film captures.

So, it stands to reason then that it IS possible to take an HDR image and use it to create something that is more "realistic". That is, you can create an image that is closer to what the human eye perceives. The problem is, most of us don't. We don't remove that information, and the result is that over-processed look. Way too much information to be realistic.

- Joe U.

[stu-52]

Joe,

I understand what you are saying about the "stops" that the digital image records vs what the human eye sees. It's much the same as what you hear in analog vs digital recordings. But in the case of a digital recording, it's all about the sampling rate. You showed your grayscale 6-stop as really large blocks. However, when we talk about digital images we are talking megapixels and at some point, the mind will blend things together just as it does with digital recording and it's individual sound blocks.

I'm still very much a beginner when it comes to digital photography and I certainly don't claim to know everything about all of this. In fact, I think that you state a very interesting distinction between HDR and tonemapping. I know that true HDR would require exposure bracketing and so I'm misleading myself when I call the posted example HDR. It's probably closer to W(ide)DR instead since I made it from a single RAW image.

I'd love to see a step-by-step for doing the same kind of tonemapping within PS or GIMP. That way I can better understand what's going on behind the scenes in a program like Photomatix. But, at the end of the day, once I understand it, I think I'll go with Photomatix because it can save me time and the results are pleasing.

[OldClicker]

TF, in a very real way, that is an accurate comparison. The human eye and film "see" light the same way. A digital sensor does not. If we were to put a 25 watt light bulb in a large room, the eye would see a gradual progrssion from the lightest part of the scene into the darkest. Film would capture that scene exactly the same way, very closely approximating what the eye saw. But a digital sensor 'sees' (and captures) it as a series of half-lives: 50% of the total available information is contained in the brightest stop. 25 % in the second brightest stop, and so on. So in a typical digital image with a 6 stop dynamic range, while you and I see something like this:



The digital sensor records something much closer to this:



As you can see, in the digital image, there is more detail in the brightest stop, but every other stop has less information. This is what makes HDR work well for digital images- by varying the exposure and creating an separate images for each individual stop, you can place that first 50% in EACH range of the image, giving the capability of much more information than is possible even in film.

Now, if one was to do that, then systematically remove information from each successive brightness range, it would be possible to take "reconstruct" the gradual transition from light into dark that film captures.

So, it stands to reason then that it IS possible to take an HDR image and use it to create something that is more "realistic". That is, you can create an image that is closer to what the human eye perceives. The problem is, most of us don't. We don't remove that information, and the result is that over-processed look. Way too much information to be realistic.

- Joe U.

The sensor doesn’t break up the image into stops (or ½ lives). It records a nice linear graduation of about 16000 intensities from its minimum sensitivity to its maximum. Stops are an arbitrary unit we us to measure light intensity because our sensors (eyes/brain) are not linear.

Also, HDR does more than just record more detail in the 6 stop range; it provides detail throughout the entire dynamic range no matter how many stops. It is the entire dynamic range (not just the detail within) that is limited by the film (or by the sensor). It then can ‘compress’ the entire range so that it fits within the dynamic range of the print or monitor (since these are the limiters, not the film or the sensor). The result can look more like what we would see standing where the shot was taken – more realistic.

But my real point is that some photographers who have been looking at images printed from film for 10, 20, 30+ years see that dynamic range as natural. Some will then look at an image with a higher dynamic range and call it a lesser image – ‘post processed’ – even if it is more realistic. And HDR is just the current hot PP topic. Pick anything that doesn’t look like it did pre-PP and I see the same attitude.

Btw – I AM NOT saying that this attitude is prevalent on this forum, only that it seems too exist out here in my ‘photographic world’ by many who dislike PP.

TF

[OldClicker]

"The difference is subtle, but important. In HDR, you are actually adding detail to the final image. In tone-mapping, you are simply taking the available detail and redistributing it."

I don't understand the difference. If I take a single RAW file and do HDR post processing, I will have detail in areas that would have been blown out or black if I had simply rendered it. - TF

[stu-52]

TF, thank you....I was trying to say something very similar. You did a better job of it.

[BlueRob]

Here is some info on the subject Medley brought up about the amount of info according to its place on a histogram.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml

[Medley]

If I take a single RAW file and do HDR post processing, I will have detail in areas that would have been blown out or black if I had simply rendered it. - TF

Really? So at what point did you add detail that wasn't captured by the camera's sensor? You didn't. You may have made the detail more readily noticeable, but you haven't ADDED anything.

If however, you reshoot the same scene at, say +2 ev (essentially exposing for shadows), then that area of the image will have more detail, due precisely to the sensor's non-linear nature. Yes, the lighter parts of the image may be blown out, but that doesn't matter, because you're going to substitute those shadows for the shadows in the original image, and discard the blown out areas. By doing so, you've increased the amount of detail in the resulting composite image. It now has more detail than the sensor was able to capture in the original image. You have ADDED detail to the original image.

But I'm not done. I now have to take my image that's exposed for shadow detail, and give those shadows the same approximate color and luminance of the shadows in the original image. In essence, I have to turn them back into shadows. THAT"S tone mapping, and it's an integral part of the HDR process.

But if you're not taking advantage of the non-linear nature of a digital sensor by shooting multiple exposures and blending them, then you're not adding any information, any detail, to the image. You're not doing HDR, you're just tone mapping.

TF, I understand and agree with what you're saying about the limitations of the sensor and output devices. And in that respect, no displayed or printed image is truly going to have a higher dynamic range. Our differences seem to come in how we overcome that problem. In tone mapping, you widen the dynamic range and redistribute the available information to make the image seem more realistic. In HDR, you add vast quantities of information that wasn't there before, than make strategic decisions on how and where to pare that information to fit within the dynamic range of the output device. The difference is that you can do so and still end up with an image that has more information than the camera's digital sensor is capable of recording in any single exposure.

As I said, the difference is subtle, but important.

- Joe U.

[stu-52]

Really? So at what point did you add detail that wasn't captured by the camera's sensor? You didn't. You may have made the detail more readily noticeable, but you haven't ADDED anything.
....
But I'm not done. I now have to take my image that's exposed for shadow detail, and give those shadows the same approximate color and luminance of the shadows in the original image. In essence, I have to turn them back into shadows. THAT"S tone mapping, and it's an integral part of the HDR process.

But if you're not taking advantage of the non-linear nature of a digital sensor by shooting multiple exposures and blending them, then you're not adding any information, any detail, to the image. You're not doing HDR, you're just tone mapping.
....
As I said, the difference is subtle, but important.

- Joe U.

OK....so maybe I should have titled this thread "Why I love Tone-Mapping"
or
"Why I love using Photomatix"
or even
"Why I love post-processing".

In any case, the discussion has been very educational thanks to Joe. I will keep these points in mind as I go forward. It's all part of the on-going education process.

My original point was that some have debated that you should do everything you can up to the point where you press the shutter on your camera to get the best image prossible and what comes out of the camera is the final result. Others believe that once you have the recorded image, that's just the beginning and that's where post-processing comes in. (I'm sure it's a combination of the two because if you don't have something good to start with, the post-processing will only make it slightly better or in some cases worse.)

I still like the "true" HDR that I've seen on sites like Stuck in Customs (thank you Joe for the distinction) and I'd love to be able to achieve those results through my work.

[OldClicker]

Really? So at what point did you add detail that wasn't captured by the camera's sensor? You didn't. You may have made the detail more readily noticeable, but you haven't ADDED anything.

If however, you reshoot the same scene at, say +2 ev (essentially exposing for shadows), then that area of the image will have more detail, due precisely to the sensor's non-linear nature. Yes, the lighter parts of the image may be blown out, but that doesn't matter, because you're going to substitute those shadows for the shadows in the original image, and discard the blown out areas. By doing so, you've increased the amount of detail in the resulting composite image. It now has more detail than the sensor was able to capture in the original image. You have ADDED detail to the original image.

But I'm not done. I now have to take my image that's exposed for shadow detail, and give those shadows the same approximate color and luminance of the shadows in the original image. In essence, I have to turn them back into shadows. THAT"S tone mapping, and it's an integral part of the HDR process.

But if you're not taking advantage of the non-linear nature of a digital sensor by shooting multiple exposures and blending them, then you're not adding any information, any detail, to the image. You're not doing HDR, you're just tone mapping.

TF, I understand and agree with what you're saying about the limitations of the sensor and output devices. And in that respect, no displayed or printed image is truly going to have a higher dynamic range. Our differences seem to come in how we overcome that problem. In tone mapping, you widen the dynamic range and redistribute the available information to make the image seem more realistic. In HDR, you add vast quantities of information that wasn't there before, than make strategic decisions on how and where to pare that information to fit within the dynamic range of the output device. The difference is that you can do so and still end up with an image that has more information than the camera's digital sensor is capable of recording in any single exposure.

As I said, the difference is subtle, but important.

- Joe U.

If it provides detail to areas that would have been blown out or black in the final image, I'm willing to let it be called HDR. I have seen others who insist single shot be called EDR - Extended Dynamic Range. ???

HDR IS a type of tone mapping. Now I understand that you are saying that all HDR (multi-shot) is doing is adding detail within the existing dynamic range. The primary purpose of HDR is to extend the dynamic range above and below the existing – information that would have previously been off the left or right of the histogram. It’s NOT due to “…the [linear] nature of a digital sensor…” (“non-linear” was a typo, correct?), it is providing information that was below the minimum sensitivity and/or above the maximum intensity range of the sensor. ‘Exposing to the right’ (see BlueRob’s post) provides more detail within the existing range, but that’s not HDR.

TF

[OldClicker]

"Shooting to the right" works quite well if the scene (or all you want from the scene) has a limited dynamic range. I very seldom see a histogram like the one shown. - TF

[BlueRob]

"Shooting to the right" works quite well if the scene (or all you want from the scene) has a limited dynamic range. I very seldom see a histogram like the one shown. - TF

I see your point OC and yes varies from shot to shot (light condition), but I guess the main subject which I consider good to know is the amount of info according to is position.

[Medley]

Now I understand that you are saying that all HDR (multi-shot) is doing is adding detail within the existing dynamic range.
TF

Close. Dynamic range is a term used frequently in numerous fields to describe the ratio between the smallest and largest possible values of a changeable quantity. As it applies to photography, it describes the difference between white and black.

I know that's something of an simplification, but the point I'm making is that the ends never change. White is still white, and black is still black. What changes is the number of steps between them. So I'm not saying that "all HDR (multi-shot) is doing is adding detail within the existing dynamic range" I'm saying that all HDR (multi-shot) is doing is adding detail between white and black- the two absolutes.

Now, most output devices have a dynamic range of 1:255 (8 bits). My dinosaur Rebel XT, shooting in Raw mode has the ability to capture 12 bits, or 1:4095. But, it presents the Raw image in a dynamic range of 16 bits, or 1:65535. So even within the 16 bit dynamic range, I have a LOT of room to maneuver. For every one of the 4096 tonal values that my Raw image is capable of recording, in 16 bit mode Photoshop can define 16 separate values. Using tone mapping, I can map those 4096 tonal values to the 1:65535 dynamic range capable in 16 bit mode. I can even use Photoshop to spread them out a bit. But so long as I'm working with a single digital image, all I'm really doing is redistributing the amount of information to fit the extended dynamic range.

EDR imaging involves extending the dynamic range of the image, using Photoshop to improve the contrast of the image, then using tone mapping to reduce the dynamic range of the image (to fit within the parameters of the display) while maintaining the localized contrast between pixels.

HDR imaging involves extending the dynamic range of the image, using multiple exposures to add image detail and improve overall contrast of the image, then using tone mapping to reduce the dynamic range of the image (again, to fit within the parameters of the display) while maintaining localized contrast between the pixels.

And I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up really. I was simply trying to reach an agreement on terms so that we could have a conversation on the topic.

- Joe U.

[armando_m]

I like HDR, and for some images I find the results really outstanding.

I have done tone mapping from a single raw file and got good results, but in general, when using a single file I can get better results playing with dynamic light in Capture nx2, by giving additional light to selected areas. I mean better in terms of sharpness, noise (specially in the dark areas) , and less problems with color saturation.

In my experience better results are obtained from multiple exposures, keeping the camera still is absolutely critical for good sharpness. The steps described in the webpage stuckincustoms used to blend multiple image layers is something I have not done , but appear to be essential to remove the ghosts of moving objects between the pictures.
While taking multiple photos it is important to watch the histograms and make sure you have covered a wide range, I have taken multiple images all charged to one extreme of the histogram and obtained crappy results.

As I practice more and more I realize it does take a lot of work to create a quality HDR, having quality photos is the base, but there is a lot work afterwards.

A couple of comments on your photo, the processed image lacks the sharpness of the original, and I would have used less saturation. Also there are a few marks where the crane was on the left.

[drg]

There are few more pieces to this DR/EDR/HDR/XDR puzzle that haven't been discussed much!

One that is basic is that not all scenes are going to benefit from or even really have a very wide dynamic range. Just because a scene and the resulting photo go from light to dark doesn't mean that there is much illumination range at all. Snow, fog, or predominantly one color (this is the tonal range issue!) subject photos probably have a very narrow range and will only be degraded by trying to improve them!

Night scenes are going to lack a lot of range as a rule.

Scenes with a light source in the photo, such as the sun or a very bright light shining at the camera will be the highest DR with very few exceptions if any other object or objects are in the composition.

Another component to this is, can you provide a significant portion of 32 bits of data image to the HDR engine? Adobe Photoshop and Photomatix both work in a 32 bit wide space to combine the images. Then they compress, if needed, to the appropriate output. If you provide a 'standard' range to an HDR engine it may try to 'create' data or spread out the date over an unrealistic range and then those nasty color shifts and chromatic interferences happen.

What are you really going to do with that ultra wide data field image? The multi thousand dollar EIZO monitors that are just about the cream of the crop today, won't display all the data! The best printing technology available in one pass can't print but a tiny portion of that image! Yes, you can improve your potential output but how often is it just going to look, well strange.

When should you shoot an HDR series of bracketed photos? There's a simple rule of thumb:

If no matter what exposure you set the histogram on the camera clips on one end or the other...You might want to consider setting up the tripod and bracketing 4-6 images.

Just be sure you go from all black clip to all white clip or as nearly as is reasonable. In other words the histogram is bunched way to the left of the display for the first image to be included in the HDR composite, to the histogram being bunched up on the right! If your camera displays clipping on the image itself, look for most of the image to display the blue(often the color for black clip) overlay for the first low range data Image. The last or high end of the Dynamic Range should go to red(often the color for the white clip) for most of the Image.

A final note:

The Expose to the Right rule is coming under fire as the assumption was originally that all histogram displays show the same thing. They don't! Chances are that your reasonably new camera has two or more representations (color, intensity, average exposure, etc.) of the image data displayable with the histogram chart. Some of these should not be set to the right! Ever!

Another problem is that some manufacturers bias the display so that a properly exposed photo will show up in the middle of the screen, i.e. they 'curve fit the data'. Predominance of a particular color or intensity in a scene can alter how the data is represented in less sophisticated modes. Just when we thought we had it figured out they got better tools and everything changed.

Finally not all compositions should be exposed to the right as they are dark or have a lot of edge detail (think Ansel Adams El Capitan photographs or every photo you will ever see of the Eiffel Tower) and setting your exposure that way will kill contrast and detail in crucial areas that cannot be recovered.

HDR isn't for every photograph.

I am going to include a link to One HDR photo that I have posted. It is rendered as a black and white. Look at the histogram in the software tool of your choice. It display all those little overlapping peaks where the separate pieces were included in the very wide data set. The color version which I posted somewhere in a forum post and I can't find is riotous, not what you want, but for the B/W final version it worked better. Just one image as an example of expanding (and then compressing again) light and dark!

A HDR Sample:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...=drg&mcats=all

[Medley]

Yep, by and large I would agree with you drg, though lately I've been experimenting with pushing the edge of the "HDR isn't for every photograph" envelope.

Clearly, there are instances where HDR doesn't work. But my current theory goes something like this: At the end of the day, an HDR image- isn't. You've got to tone map it back down to an 8 bit image to post/print. So it seems to me that the greatest benefit from HDR can be gained in the adding of detail.

It is generally accepted (I hope...) that one can give an image increased depth by giving it a mid-level contrast boost. In other words, sharpening the midtones. But in pp, sharpening is a misnomer. Sharpness is defined as the amount of detail at the high-contrast edges of an image. In most cases, adding detail isn't an option, one must simply increase the contrast to provide the illusion of sharpening. But HDR allows you to actually add detail. You can add sharpness to the digital image.

Here are two examples. In both instances, the top image is an HDR composite of 5 blended images, and the bottom image is the center image used to create the HDR. The only sharpening added to either image was a result of downsizing the image to post here. All images were shot with a Canon Drebel XT, ISO 100, f13





Now, I'm NOT saying that this is the only use for HDR, just that it's the one I'm currently exploring. TF, I hope that this explains what I was talking about.

- Joe U.