The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

Graham Mitchell

New member
It seems that there is some confusion about DNG files processed using Brumbaer tools looking underexposed. :talk028:

However, the same image processed into a DNG using Exposure looks properly exposed. I have a hunch that the downward shift of values from Brumbaer is to accommodate highlight recovery.

For those who are not familiar, Brumbaer is an *alternative* workflow for the Sinar eMotion backs. I have not used it until recently, and found it to be better than Exposure at higher ISOs. However, I generally use base ISO in my work so this is just about getting to know my gear better.

Anyway, to put everyone's minds at rest, here is a link to a ISO 400 DNG file created by Exposure, followed by the same exposure but created in Brumbaer. Open them both and you will see a large apparent difference in exposure.

Exposure:
http://www.mediafire.com/?hdqdytvdadr

Brumbaer:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?vf0tnjd8yzm

Despite this, they are both ISO 400 captures! I hope this clears things up
 
I am new poster here and a Sinarback eMotion 54LV user from Moscow, Russia. I have been using eMotion backs for more than 3 years. I started when only Jenoptik CapturePro was available and now Brumbaer DNG Konverter is my main RAW processor.

Graham is 100% right. Brumbaer is able to recover highlights better than any other converter, eXposure included. It was explained on the other forum that the Brumbaer conversions look darker on the screen because of the Highlight Recovery employed by Mr. Hess. IMHO the Brumbaer DNG allows the overexposure of +1f with some subjects easily. And Overexposure blinking on eMotion backs is too conservative IMO; the Brumbaer is able to recover details in the clouds even when the back blinks red over all the sky.
Yevgeny
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Hi Yevgeny, and welcome.

Good to have you here as well.

Kind regards,
Thierry

I am new poster here and a Sinarback eMotion 54LV user from Moscow, Russia. I have been using eMotion backs for more than 3 years. I started when only Jenoptik CapturePro was available and now Brumbaer DNG Konverter is my main RAW processor.

Graham is 100% right. Brumbaer is able to recover highlights better than any other converter, eXposure included. It was explained on the other forum that the Brumbaer conversions look darker on the screen because of the Highlight Recovery employed by Mr. Hess. IMHO the Brumbaer DNG allows the overexposure of +1f with some subjects easily. And Overexposure blinking on eMotion backs is too conservative IMO; the Brumbaer is able to recover details in the clouds even when the back blinks red over all the sky.
Yevgeny
 

David K

Workshop Member
DNG's processed with Brumbaer certainly appear at least one stop underexposed relative to the same file as shown in eXposure. I can't speak about how the processed files look as I haven't yet figured out how to get eXposure to do that.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
David,

Can you explain what you mean exactly with "how the processed files look, as I haven't figured out how to do it"?

The files are automatically and instantly converted into DNG files, as soon as you download them from your eMotion (either from the internal memory or from a CF card): there is nothing more to be done. This gives you the DNGs, saved in the folder of your choice. From there, you have the choice to either take these DNGs into any DNG compatible application (LR, ACR, Raw Developer, Aperture, C1, etc ....) OR to convert these same DNG files
in eXposure itself into TIFs or JPGs.

Is there anything else you mean with "process"?

Best regards,
Thierry

DNG's processed with Brumbaer certainly appear at least one stop underexposed relative to the same file as shown in eXposure. I can't speak about how the processed files look as I haven't yet figured out how to get eXposure to do that.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Graham, I'm still confused. If I take the Brumbaer-processed file Thierry posted in the other thread and convert it to JPEG using C1 v4, Raw Developer, or Lightroom without +EV, I get a somewhat underexposed JPEG. Is that somewhat underexposed JPEG an ISO 800 JPEG, or is it only ISO 800 equivalent after pushing the exposure prior to conversion?
 

David K

Workshop Member
Thierry,

What I mean to say is that I can't seem to get eXposure to convert the files to DNG, either from the CF card or from the camera while tethered. I get an error message (see below) despite having chosen a different folder (on desktop) to receive the converted images. Perhaps something simple but not yet figured out by me.

David


Wed May 14 15:20:31 2008
Gallery is write protected and cannot be used for image acquisition. Last used gallery - /Users/David - was choosen.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Graham, Thierry,
Have you modified the default parameters in Brumbaer... my images are being converted several stops below what they should be. Should I be loading my own parameters... if so, how.
 

Graham Mitchell

New member
Graham, I'm still confused. If I take the Brumbaer-processed file Thierry posted in the other thread and convert it to JPEG using C1 v4, Raw Developer, or Lightroom without +EV, I get a somewhat underexposed JPEG. Is that somewhat underexposed JPEG an ISO 800 JPEG, or is it only ISO 800 equivalent after pushing the exposure prior to conversion?
When you capture a properly exposed ISO 800 image, and process the camera raw file into DNG using Brumbaer, then you may need to adjust the exposure by a stop or more to restore the correct appearance. It is always an ISO 800 image, before and after the compensation.

The darkened JPEG is just that - same as any ISO 800 image which has had some darkening curve applied.

Does that make sense now?
 
A

asabet

Guest
That does clear it up. It also means that I unintentionally made some misleading comments in that other thread when referring to ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 equivalents. Still was an impressive performance for ISO 800-1600 equivalent (I say ISO 1600 equivalent because I pushed the file about one stop past the correct appearance). Thanks for the explanation Graham. Regards, Amin
 

David K

Workshop Member
David,

Can you explain what you mean exactly with "how the processed files look, as I haven't figured out how to do it"?

The files are automatically and instantly converted into DNG files, as soon as you download them from your eMotion (either from the internal memory or from a CF card): there is nothing more to be done. This gives you the DNGs, saved in the folder of your choice. From there, you have the choice to either take these DNGs into any DNG compatible application (LR, ACR, Raw Developer, Aperture, C1, etc ....) OR to convert these same DNG files
in eXposure itself into TIFs or JPGs.

Is there anything else you mean with "process"?

Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry,

I have finally resolved this issue with some help from Steve Hendrix. For me it was not intuitive that the way to process the images in eXposure was to select them and drag to the folder of my choice. I assumed, incorrectly, that once the images were selected they were "in" the program. Once imported the files can be processed within that program or, my preference, opened in Aperture (or Lightroom) to perform that function.
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Hi David,

Glad that you have solved your issue.

Best regards,
THierry

Thierry,

I have finally resolved this issue with some help from Steve Hendrix. For me it was not intuitive that the way to process the images in eXposure was to select them and drag to the folder of my choice. I assumed, incorrectly, that once the images were selected they were "in" the program. Once imported the files can be processed within that program or, my preference, opened in Aperture (or Lightroom) to perform that function.
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Strange effect with Exposure

I compared the two images (one with Brumbaer's and the other with Exposure) and found a strange phenomenon in the Exposure version: strong banding from the top of the image downwards, ending at the pixel 3060 in a sharp rectengle.

My first thought was, that the sensor is faulty, but the Brumbaer's images from this camera do not show any sign of the banding.

The following capture grossly exaggerates the effect. It is non-demosaiced, raw pixel by raw pixel, therefor very green. A special mapping is applied to increase the contrast.

The banding appears horizontally, for the shot is in landscape orientation (and this way more of it fits in the capture).

Screen capture

I have not seen any other file created by Exposure, so I can not say if it is a "standard feature", but it is very clearly visible even without the exaggeration.
 

Graham Mitchell

New member
Hi Panopeeper, you are quite right, there was something in the file. I re-processed it using Exposure v6.0.1 and none of the streaks were apparent. Perhaps this was an issue with v6.0?

 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Graham,

this thing stinks. My understanding is, that Brumbear's and Exposure are converting the raw file in DNG format, not repairing, nor ruining it.

Now the question comes up: does Brumbear's remove the banding, or does Exposure create it? Both options appear quite absurd to me.

Do you mind uploading the new version? I would compare what else changed.

I suspect Brumbear's and Exposure are doing more than plain file conversion. If you upload the original raw file, I convert it with Adobe's DNG converter and compare the results on raw level (i.e. before demosaicing and white balancing).

Gabor
 
T

thsinar

Guest
Dear Panopeeper,

with my due respect: in what does this "thing" stink, if I can ask?

Brumbaer and eXposure do nothing else then converting and interpolating a RAW image, with applying the CCD's reference files or applying a white shading (if wished), like ANY other back manufacturer are doing (if/when converting to DNG).

What is so disturbing for you, respectively what is the real purpose of your quest or what do you want to demonstrate?

To come back to Graham's file: it has been analyzed by our tech people and a bug in eXposure was discovered in certain circumstances. This bug is corrected with version 6.01. Period.

Doesn't the end result count eventually?

Best regards,
Thierry

edited for addendum: and I forgot to mention that the DNG conversion does also integrate the black reference file produced by the back.

Graham,

this thing stinks. My understanding is, that Brumbear's and Exposure are converting the raw file in DNG format, not repairing, nor ruining it.

Now the question comes up: does Brumbear's remove the banding, or does Exposure create it? Both options appear quite absurd to me.

Do you mind uploading the new version? I would compare what else changed.

I suspect Brumbear's and Exposure are doing more than plain file conversion. If you upload the original raw file, I convert it with Adobe's DNG converter and compare the results on raw level (i.e. before demosaicing and white balancing).

Gabor
 
Last edited:
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Addendum:

Graham,

I have not seen your post with the new DNG before posting my own message.
 
P

Panopeeper

Guest
Messed up the posts thoroughly

I posted this message first, then the addendum, and somehow it appeared, that I posted one too many, so I deleted that one. Then it turned out, that there was not too many, so I deleted one, which I intended to keep.

Sorry for the mess.

To come back to Graham's file: it has been analyzed by our tech people and a bug in eXposure was discovered in certain circumstances
Well, this explains all, but it has not been said before here. Graham's Perhaps this was an issue with v6.0? did not indicate to me, that the problem has been analyzed already.

Re the "stink": obviously that was correct, but belated. After further analysis probably I would have suggested, that eXposure makes an error there.

I would be curious to know why you are analyzing these files so intently
I am helping on different places to analyze problems, as part of my own continuing education in understanding the characteristics of raw camera data. I developed Rawnalyze, which makes it possible to analyze the raw images on a level, which is not attainable by raw processors. By analyzing different images sometimes I recognize the need for enhancements in Rawnalyze.

However, MFDBs are not on my radar. Rawnalyze does not support any native raw files of MFDBs (except Leica's DNGs), and I don't plan to make any effort in that direction.

It is only by chance, that I came here and noticed some issues. Anyway, I find it really strange, that anyone would be offended by my offering information on certain issues. The generally low level of the understanding of their equipments by MSDB owners indicates, that there is a large gap there.

Anyway, be assured that I am not trying to force anyone to make use of my offers.

Gabor
 
Top