Maybe I have not expressed myself clearly enough, but I am not disputing any sort of consensus. I never said that HDR is good or bad, nor provided suggestion to anyone whether they should be using the feature at night times or not. I merely shared my experience and findings. My post was in regards to low contrast conditions as well as low contrast/difficult to read state plates and motion - I was pretty clear about that I think (the only accident I ever recorded and was asked to share video was in the same garage, so for me the performance in these conditions matters).
And yes I did drive by the same area with HDR off and got better, sharper result, and yes both of second shots were taken at around 45mph on the same drive with the only difference being the lane chosen and the one shot positioned less favorably had better quality regardless, but if that's also yet another point for you to pick on (the other user was picking on my word choice, where I'd think it was clear what I meant) and question my contributions - I'll pass, not going to be proving anything - this was a discussion and I thought it was about contribution and not proving points. Apparently I've voiced an unpopular observation that triggered a lot of fuss, so I'll keep clear. Interesting thing for me is you all pretty much agreeing with my findings but yet argue that I am wrong in something when I never claimed to be right in the first place - I shared my observations, not more, not less. The fact that I stated was about HDR being a 2 consecutive images blended into one, which in low contrast and during motion will result in more blur and artifacting, that was my fact - I did not claim any other facts. Hope this clears up a bit what my intentions were.
Ultimately use whatever you feel better suits your needs!
Last edited:
