So I just read about Exposing to the Right as a way to compensate for the way the dynamic range bracketing works - http://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/

This basically does a rough re-mapping of intensity values, such that there are more "shades" of shadows that are captured and somewhat less "shades" of highlights.

But if a camera uses a LUT to essentially spread the captured information more evenly onto the 8/10/12/etc -bit space, then basically a similar effect is achieved - albeit for LUTs, the resulting image, when viewed without being post-processed, has a very specific look, with reduced contrast and range peaking around the mid-tones (unless I'm mistaking).

I guess the ETTR would yield a (pre-post-processing) reduced-contrast image with histogram peaking closer to the highlights. But in this sense the two would achieve similar effects, and are employed for similar purposes, it's just the transformation function that is essentially the same (if I understand it right).

However, I'm curious to hear two things:

1. advantages and disadvantages of using one over the other
2. whether there is a way to employ both and whether it makes sense (e.g. shoot with an HDR camera that can do a log-based LUT recording and expose the video to the right somehow), such that a bigger benefit is obtained over using just one approach

My intuition says that the disadvantage comes from the non-logarithmic(?) nature of ETTR, the advantage of ETTR is clearly it being a technique that can be easily employed even on cameras without HDR/LUT capabilities and that combining the two would not help in any way (assuming an idealised scenario, e.g. one where we're not overexposing to compensate for lack of light, etc.).

I just read about Exposing to the Right as a way to compensate for the way the dynamic range bracketing works. This roughly re-maps intensity values so that more "shades" of shadows are captured, but somewhat less "shades" of highlights.

But if a camera uses a LUT to spread the captured information more evenly onto the 8/10/12/etc -bit space, then a similar effect should be achieved - albeit for LUTs, the resulting image, when viewed without being post-processed, has a very specific look, with reduced contrast and range peaking around the mid-tones (unless I'm mistaken).

I guess ETTR would yield a (pre-post-processing) reduced-contrast image with histogram peaking closer to the highlights. But in this sense the two would achieve similar effects, and are employed for similar purposes. It's just the transformation function that is essentially the same (if I understand it right).

However, I'm curious about two things:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using one over the other?

2. Is there a way to use both techniques to obtain a greater benefit over using just one approach?  (For example, shooting with an HDR camera that can do a log-based LUT recording and expose the image to the right somehow.)

My intuition says that the disadvantage comes from the non-logarithmic  (?) nature of ETTR. The advantage of ETTR is its being a technique that can be easily employed on cameras without HDR/LUT capabilities. Combining the two would not help in any way (assuming an idealised scenario; e.g., one where we're not overexposing to compensate for lack of light).