Streetshooter
Subscriber Member
Jono,
So what is the best solution at the moment.
The Oly software is, well....
Any ideas......
Don
So what is the best solution at the moment.
The Oly software is, well....
Any ideas......
Don
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
HI DonJono,
So what is the best solution at the moment.
The Oly software is, well....
Any ideas......
Don
HI BobBut then there are the non-standard parts of dng files, the "maker notes" section.
Picking apart the dng standard and low and behold it has at least one area that requires specific camera by camera support.
The next issue is what revision of dng?
The latest supports all sorts of lens correction goodies, but as far as I know, is not yet implemented by any camera manufacturer or raw processor for that matter.
-bob
Camera Raw/DNG Converter v5.4 and Lightroom v2.4 are both supporting DNG Specification v1.3 right now. ...But then there are the non-standard parts of dng files, the "maker notes" section.
Picking apart the dng standard and low and behold it has at least one area that requires specific camera by camera support.
The next issue is what revision of dng?
The latest supports all sorts of lens correction goodies, but as far as I know, is not yet implemented by any camera manufacturer or raw processor for that matter.
Which, needless to say really, I completely disagree with.Thanks Robert - but they always do such a bad job with 4/3 sensors (this is just my humble opinion).
Pentax has done so since the K10D also.I just wish that all these companies would use dng files (As Leica did with the M8 ricoh do) then we wouldn't have to have this struggle each time there's a new camera.
Be my guest . . . as long as you don't know where I live I'll be okay :ROTFL:Jono,
That appears to be the solution for the moment.
Thanks for the advice....if I start to hate the IQ,
now I can blame you......
Hmm - is that meant to be a compliment - if so, thank you , I'm afraid some people are finding them irritatingYour other post are stimulating to say the least.
Thanks again..... Don
Of course :ROTFL:Which, needless to say really, I completely disagree with.
There ARE lots of tempting things about Pentax aren't there - the K7 is a nice looking camera.Pentax has done so since the K10D also.
So what you're saying is that in your opinion Adobe's demosaic algorithm is deficient?As far as I understand it (Godfrey might correct me here ), the answer is:
1. If they are linear DNG then Adobe is doing the demosaic, so YES (they will still be bad)
At its base, DNG is simply an alternative and standardized way for the RAW data file to be structured and written to disk. It is a container format, specialized from TIFF. Any application that knows how to read the data it contains will be able to process the data with any algorithm that is preferred, up to the limit of the application's support for the types of data that are contained.2. If they are not linear DNG then Adobe isn't so the answer is NO. (they will be as good as the other converter).
The trouble is that every month there is a new iteration of one of the major raw converters, and each time that happens things change.I've tested every RAW processor with every camera I use and I find I get the same or very similar results out of all of them with suitable understanding and skill applied. My results are shown in the photos I post, that's the evidence supporting my opinion.
.
In my opinion, constantly worrying about using only the best RAW converter is a notion of a nature similar to constantly worrying about having the best lens or the best body or the best camera bag, ad nauseam. It does more to get in the way of doing photography than it helps. No camera is perfect. No lens is perfect. No software is perfect. Nothing is perfect.The trouble is that every month there is a new iteration of one of the major raw converters, and each time that happens things change. ...
You may indeed be right that it isn't the de-mosaicing which is at fault - it could be some other part of the process - I'm not sure how it's possible to separate the functions. Maybe I was using the term too loosely, for which I apologise (like perhaps the term application code?).So what you're saying is that in your opinion Adobe's demosaic algorithm is deficient?
How do you tell this? What measurement methodology are you using?
In my opinion, having evaluated ten or twelve different RAW converters over the past several years, while all demosaic algorithms are not equal the range of variation is indeed pretty small in practical terms. Other parts of the rendering process end up making a bigger difference in the quality of the final image.
I think we know this don't we? However, as I understand it, with linear DNG files the demosaicing is already done, and cannot therefore be able to be processed again (unless, of course, the original file is also embedded in the container). If I'm wrong about this, please correct me. Mind you, I think it's rather beside the point as I don't think there is any conceivable reason for using a huge and unweildy linear DNG file now that the latest version of DNG converter will create normal ones. I'll put a note by someone else in the next message which you can comment on:At its base, DNG is simply an alternative and standardized way for the RAW data file to be structured and written to disk. It is a container format, specialized from TIFF. Any application that knows how to read the data it contains will be able to process the data with any algorithm that is preferred, up to the limit of the application's support for the types of data that are contained.
HI ThereI hope nobody here considers it rude. But, I'd be super grateful if some of the RAW energy here could be channeled into the thread re: problems I've been having with DNG conversions following the upgrade to the most recent version of aperture http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=120358#post120358 . Even if it's just to say bad luck, and that you're not seeing anything similar :thumbdown: .
Cheers. I'm running out of options here
Last word from . . .At its base, DNG is simply an alternative and standardized way for the RAW data file to be structured and written to disk. It is a container format, specialized from TIFF. Any application that knows how to read the data it contains will be able to process the data with any algorithm that is preferred, up to the limit of the application's support for the types of data that are contained.
The article as presented includes an inserted editor's note:reported that Adobe's DNG converter application "allows you to either keep the DNG in the un-demosaiced form or to demosaic the file and convert to a linear file. Generally, you'll want to keep the file in its un-demosaiced form as there is a space savings. Linear DNGs have already been converted to RGB files and therefore are larger."
I'm sorry for that interjection Sizifo - It's not my words, but I think it closes the conversation with respect to comments on linear / 'normal' dng."[Digital imaging expert] Bruce Fraser sent the following comment regarding Linear DNG: 'The only reason to use Linear DNG is to feed the file to a DNG reader that can't understand the particular flavor of DNG that DNG Converter creates for the specific camera, or to act as an interchange format—e.g., lens correx with DxO can write out a linear DNG that ACR can read. This is typically NOT an option people want, not because of size considerations, but because it's no longer really raw—it's half-baked. All the operations that take place during demosaicing are set in stone and can't be redone.'"
In my opinion, constantly worrying about using only the best RAW converter is a notion of a nature similar to constantly worrying about having the best lens or the best body or the best camera bag, ad nauseam. It does more to get in the way of doing photography than it helps. No camera is perfect. No lens is perfect. No software is perfect. Nothing is perfect.
That said, LOTS of cameras, equipment, software are good enough. Pick a setup and work with it, learn to exploit it to do what you want. It will never be perfect, no matter how much change or improvement happens. The art lives in making what you have chosen produce what you imagine. Else you live forever on The Hamster Wheel of Progress.
I was not posing my 'evidence' formally. One of the reasons I don't post my intermediate test results is that they will all look the same since the processing quality differences are so small. I pick what I work with based on other criteria (usability and workflow integration, mostly).
I keep a K20D as spare and it has a wonderful user interface and a great 300mm lens. It's more fun to use than a 5DII. It's files aren't very good though. :-(Of course :ROTFL:
There ARE lots of tempting things about Pentax aren't there - the K7 is a nice looking camera.
I guess that begs the question, "compared to what?"I keep a K20D as spare and it has a wonderful user interface and a great 300mm lens. It's more fun to use than a 5DII. It's files aren't very good though. :-(
It goes without saying that if you can't compare results between processes in a way that clearly separates the criteria you are trying to judge, making a useful assessment is impossible.You may indeed be right that it isn't the de-mosaicing which is at fault - it could be some other part of the process - I'm not sure how it's possible to separate the functions. Maybe I was using the term too loosely, for which I apologise (like perhaps the term application code?).
As I've not found anything I use that can read linear DNG files except Adobe I have no way of comparing the results.
My methodology is to make a set of representative reference exposures, saving to RAW+JPEG so that I have both the RAW data and the in-camera rendered JPEG data (with the JPEG data set to maximum rez and minimum compression) that I will do testing with. I then spend time with each RAW converter ... typically up to a week's time depending on how much time I have and my level of interest ... learning how to get the most out of each converter application's capabilities.As for my methodology:
I take a number of photos of different types and process them in whatever converters I'm looking at. I then use my eyes - because that's the measuring equipment I use to analyse all parts of my pictures - both on screen, and particularly in print. Numbers are more scientific, but, IMHO have less to do with real life situations.
The DNG files from the G1, when lens correction metadata was in the file, had to be represented as a demosaicked linear form with the lens corrections embedded in order that the intent of the DNG format was met (that all DNG compatible applications would be able to read the data) as well as Panasonic's intent (lens correction injected by the lens applied to the RAW data during demosaic time). It was obviously not what Adobe wanted to do but this form of metadata to be applied at RAW conversion time was a new thing. They acted speedily to update the DNG spec in order to enable both saving disk space and the ability to retain the original mosaic data form with the DNG converted files, without losing the LC metadata, for all applications that are DNG capable. I applaud their efforts....However, as I understand it, with linear DNG files the demosaicing is already done, and cannot therefore be able to be processed again (unless, of course, the original file is also embedded in the container). If I'm wrong about this, please correct me. Mind you, I think it's rather beside the point as I don't think there is any conceivable reason for using a huge and unweildy linear DNG file now that the latest version of DNG converter will create normal ones. I'll put a note by someone else in the next message which you can comment on:
Couldn't agree more . . . . erm, except that lenses really do matter, and I guess that the Leica 50mm f1.4 'lux and the 75 'cron are as close to perfect as one is likely to get. I fixed on Aperture a couple of years ago as my software of choice, and imperfect though it may be I've seen nothing to make me change my mind.In my opinion, constantly worrying about using only the best RAW converter is a notion of a nature similar to constantly worrying about having the best lens or the best body or the best camera bag, ad nauseam. It does more to get in the way of doing photography than it helps. No camera is perfect. No lens is perfect. No software is perfect. Nothing is perfect.
But if you're spending weeks testing RAW conversion software, and, as you say, they're almost identical, it sounds like you aren't taking your own advice - sounds like ad nauseam to me.My methodology is to make a set of representative reference exposures, saving to RAW+JPEG so that I have both the RAW data and the in-camera rendered JPEG data (with the JPEG data set to maximum rez and minimum compression) that I will do testing with. I then spend time with each RAW converter ... typically up to a week's time depending on how much time I have and my level of interest ... learning how to get the most out of each converter application's capabilities.