I have also tried SNS-HDR and I liked it, but wouldn't say it is better than Enfuse/TuFuse exposure blending algorithm, it is just different (in Photomatix or Easy HDR etc.. I am not even interested).
I made a comparision between TuFuse
with default parameters vs SNS-HDR Lite for HDR tone mapping.
To capture the entire dynamic range of the scene I used 5 shots 2EV apart:
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
Just the central 3 shots could have been used. The outdoor highlights would have got blown a bit and the deep shadows would have become a bit less noisefree, but the final result would have been almost as good.
The RAW files were optimally fused using Zero Noise. The gray tones in the following blending map indicate the source RAW used for every image area:
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
The resulting image histogram reveals about 13,5EV of dynamic range (the highlights peak corresponds to the tungsten lamps and their reflections):
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
Now to do the automated tone mapping, several replicas of the ZN image were fed into TuFuse and SNS-HDR Lite. The resulting image with default parameters was finished with a standard contrast curve:
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
Both programs respected the colours of the initial image (which is good), SNS-HDR saturating a bit. However regarding local contrast TuFuse produced a more natural result while SNS-HDR obtained more texture where available, resulting a bit more unreal (I was there and I can say the floor tiles looked like those in the TuFuse image, even if one could prefer the more spectacular SNS-HDR's). In both lighting was kept reasonably natural, without producing visible inconsistencies like those usually found on Photomatix tone mapped images.
In conclusion I would say SNS-HDR provides a more finished and texturized image. If this is what you are looking for then it's OK. If you prefer an image in an earlier stage so that you can choose final contrast parameters or local processing, then I would prefer TuFuse.
Finally just a proof of the need of doing several shots to cover the entire dynamic range, showing the noise comparision between the most exposed shot that preserved the highlights and the final fused image:
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' |
Regards
