Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 59

Thread: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

  1. #1
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

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

    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

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    111
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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

  3. #3
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Hi Yevgeny, and welcome.

    Good to have you here as well.

    Kind regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Yevgeny NP View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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.

  5. #5
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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?

  7. #7
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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.

  8. #8
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Quote Originally Posted by asabet View Post
    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?

  10. #10
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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

  11. #11
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Quote Originally Posted by thsinar View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Hi David,

    Glad that you have solved your issue.

    Best regards,
    THierry

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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?


  15. #15
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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

  16. #16
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    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 by thsinar; 22nd May 2008 at 08:57.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    Graham,

    this thing stinks.
    ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    Do you mind uploading the new version? I would compare what else changed.
    I don't mind doing that, but I would be curious to know why you are analyzing these files so intently.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Here is a link to the Exposure v6.0.1 DNG:
    http://www.mediafire.com/?ydjq3hmz13p

  19. #19
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Addendum:

    Graham,

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

  20. #20
    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

  21. #21
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    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).
    As I have been exposed anyway as one, who are analyzing images intently, I looked at the image in question once more. Turned out, that my previous analysis was not intent enough , I have not compared the Brumbaer's and eXposure versions, except for that artificial banding.

    Now I took a second look and found, that Brumbaer's carried out a relatively strong noise removal. Although this may reflect the wish of the photographer, it is not something, which is part of everyday's DNG conversion. Furthermore, my form opinion is, that the photographers should be aware (or made aware) of the implicite adjustments the software is doing to their images.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Panopeeper, have you downloaded the Photoshop document I posted? I wish more people had as it is a lot more useful than looking at one ISO sample, imo.

    For example, when you switch between viewing the ISO 50 and ISO 400 layers at 100% you can see the change in noise and detail. From what I have seen there is none of the typical noise reduction look to the ISO 400 file, unlike some Phase samples I have seen which a few people have termed 'painterly'.

    If you say that there is some noise reduction going on, I can't confirm or deny that, but if there is, the NR is of a very benign form which does not throw away details.

    All I can suggest to everyone is download the PS document and see for yourselves

    I challenge owners of other backs to post layered ISO files like this too. IMO, it's the best way to see what's going on.

  23. #23
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Graham,

    I noticed noise reduction only on the Brumbaer converted DNG, not with eXposure.

    Noise reduction has to be done in many cases, but that should be on discretional basis. The user (photographer) should decide, if, how much and how needs to be done. NR is inherently connected to loss of detail; sometimes there is a trade-off between smoothness and detail. For example the eMotion 75 image you posted on LL is well served with the NR: the affected (dark) areas are out of focus anyway.

    Plus, the DNG conversion is followed by raw conversion anyway, and this is the task of the raw converters. I am firmly convinced, that NR can be done better together with the de-mosaicing and WB application than on its own.

    Re the PS file you posted: I prefer to compare the raw files, not the processed ones, particulary when the issue is, what the camera can deliver. There are many raw processors and many options for adjustments, but there is only one original. Moreover, the loss of details can not be judged from the converted files any more.

    Gabor

  24. #24
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Messed up the posts thoroughly

    Dear Panopeeper,

    Nobody's offended, except perhaps by the word used: "stink". That is why I intervened. If you would have said "problem" or else it would have been different.

    Why it has not been said before is simply because neither Graham nor me had noticed the bug. It is only after asked our SW techs that I got the information and explanation.

    And in the meantime I've got some more details about this bug: it was related to the integration, during the conversion process, of the white reference. Under a certain circumstance, when the WR has to be "taken"/"read" from the folder dedicated for it and located on the HD instead of read from the internal storage of the eMotion.

    This does not happen with the 6.01 version of eXposure.

    Thanks anyway for your time and best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post

    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.

    Gabor

  25. #25
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    No, Panoppeper, that isn't true.

    Brumbaer DOES NOT make any NR during conversion, believe me.

    If you do not (believe) you can contact Stefan Hess and ask him: Stefan is an open person concerning his tool.

    The Brumbaer "DNG Converter" has another integrated feature (which can be enabled or not): the "whitefile creation". This feature does apply a custom "white shading" created by the photographer in case of lens/shift or sensor fall-off. A must feature for architecture photographers (among others). This feature has an option to "Denoise" when used. What does this mean? When creating a white shading, the photographer has to take a shot under the same camera settings as for the image this WR has to be applied to (same f-stop, same shift/tilt/swing) by taking this WR through an opal glass. This opal glass does take away about 2 f-stops of light, thus has to be taken with a longer exposure time of 2 f-stops. This can have the consequence to add noise to this WR file. When later the WR is "subtracted" from the image data, to correct the lens or shift fall-off, this is creating noise in the image. The "Denoise" option is therefore used to eliminate the noise from the WR file, not from the image data itself.

    It can now happen, by inadvertently using the "wrong" WR during conversion (this can be chosen in the menu) that some noise is deducted from the image, when it should not. Or this can happen also if the wrong "white ref." file is incorporated.

    But in no way does the Brumbaer DNG Converter any NR: if all the parameters are used correctly, with the right sensor white reference, with the correct white shading, etc ..., then the DNGs created by Brumbaer and eXposure are absolutely identical concerning the noise in the image.

    I hope this gives some light on how this toll works.

    Best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    Now I took a second look and found, that Brumbaer's carried out a relatively strong noise removal. Although this may reflect the wish of the photographer, it is not something, which is part of everyday's DNG conversion. Furthermore, my form opinion is, that the photographers should be aware (or made aware) of the implicite adjustments the software is doing to their images.

  26. #26
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I agree with Graham: a wonderful document to check out what happens between the different layers.

    Would effectively be nice to see image samples from other makers here the same way as with Graham's PS document.

    But again, I wish to insist here: the Brumbaer DNG converter DOES NOT apply ANY NR.

    Best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by foto-z View Post
    Panopeeper, have you downloaded the Photoshop document I posted? I wish more people had as it is a lot more useful than looking at one ISO sample, imo.

    For example, when you switch between viewing the ISO 50 and ISO 400 layers at 100% you can see the change in noise and detail. From what I have seen there is none of the typical noise reduction look to the ISO 400 file, unlike some Phase samples I have seen which a few people have termed 'painterly'.

    If you say that there is some noise reduction going on, I can't confirm or deny that, but if there is, the NR is of a very benign form which does not throw away details.

    All I can suggest to everyone is download the PS document and see for yourselves

    I challenge owners of other backs to post layered ISO files like this too. IMO, it's the best way to see what's going on.

  27. #27
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I agree with you, what should be the NR.

    Please read what I have written: that is the very reason why there is NO noise reduction going on in Brumbaer.

    What can also have happened: when the DNG file is opened in ACR, the "color" noise reduction slider is automatically set to a 25 value, when eXposure leaves this slider at 0.

    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post

    Noise reduction has to be done in many cases, but that should be on discretional basis. The user (photographer) should decide, if, how much and how needs to be done. NR is inherently connected to loss of detail; sometimes there is a trade-off between smoothness and detail.

    Plus, the DNG conversion is followed by raw conversion anyway, and this is the task of the raw converters. I am firmly convinced, that NR can be done better together with the de-mosaicing and WB application than on its own.

    Re the PS file you posted: I prefer to compare the raw files, not the processed ones, particulary when the issue is, what the camera can deliver. There are many raw processors and many options for adjustments, but there is only one original. Moreover, the loss of details can not be judged from the converted files any more.

    Gabor

  28. #28
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Thierry,

    I am not particularly bent on discussing the difference between "noise reduction" and de-noising, and anyway I don't know the precise meaning of "white shading". Instead, I show what differences I see between the Brumbaer and eXposure converted files. If you say that this is not noise reduction, then even better, because I am less than impressed with the effect.

    First, the fine histograms; only the first 512 leves, but detailed; eXposure first, Brumbaer second. This is the typical effect of the black level correction, which is the first step of noise reduction (though the raw data of many cameras comes already "corrected"):





    Now a selection on a smooth area, again eXposure first:





    and some fine, virtually hidden details, eXposure first:




  29. #29
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Panopeeper, what point are you trying to make? My clients don't judge images with RAW analysis software.

  30. #30
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Graham,

    I am showing Thierry, what makes me think that Brumbaer applied some noise reduction (which may have been a mistake on your part, according to Thierry).

    My clients don't judge my software based on their knowledge of internals of computer operating systems, but if *I* did not have that knowledge, I could not create the software I am creating.

  31. #31
    Senior Member Graham Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London/Kiev
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Well blasting the forum with meaningless screen grabs isn't going to win you any friends.

    No-one is familiar with this software, and whether it is reliable, or your workflow.

    The screen grabs don't make much sense anyway. Example: The standard deviations for RGB channels (raw) in the 2 screen shots are identical. This would support the notion that there is no difference in noise levels, or am I missing something?

  32. #32
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    This RAW Image Analysis stuff reminds me of that age old philosophy question: If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it does it really make a noise... The analogy I'm trying to make is, if you can't see it in the image, who cares... and if you can, that's the best way to show it.

  33. #33
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I don't get you, Gabor!

    As Graham, my question is the same: what point are you trying to make?

    For me and for photographers it is the end result which counts, and those end results have proven to be quite praised concerning IQ.

    That's all which counts, not counting the pixels, not analyzing what happens with each of the 33.3 M pixels, etc ...

    I respect your "analyzer", I do respect your work, but please refrain from implying or suggesting that we do not know what we are doing. As a matter of fact, I am speaking here for Stefan Hess and Rainer Viertlböck, the 2 who have created and written the Brumbaer tool, when I have not the "right" to speak for them, since Sinar is in NO WAY responsible NOR is Sinar supporting this tool, NOR is it a Sinar application.

    Thanks for your understanding and best regards,
    Thierry

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    As one who feels that even pixel-peeping often (inappropriately) overshadows the importance of composition, understanding light, etc., to me this type of RAW file analysis is looking a bit over the top. I care most about the print. If a company is having difficulty delivering good results in the finished image then it makes sense to look for the weak link and try to fix it. On the other hand, if large prints look fantastic I don't care how we got there. That is, I don't think that dissecting algorithms of a successful solution is a good use of energy.

    Much of this seems rather academic to me, though may be enjoyable to some I suppose.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    When I decided to purchase the eMotion-75,which is now the eMotion-75LV,I compared the raws etc with the Aptus and the Phase,the eMotion had the least worked at file
    of the 3.
    Hence I went for the Sinar.

  36. #36
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    for those wishing the prove that what I said below is true (no NR in the DNG conversion), please read under the following link:

    http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...ic=25473&st=60

    post N° 61

    I think it makes it clear, after Stefan Hess' explanation about his Brumbaer tool: it is exactly what I have written and explained below, there is no NR in the Brumbaer DNG conversion, never (nor in Sinar eXposure).

    Best regards,
    Thierry

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    This type of analysis is interesting to me for a number of reasons - the least of which has any relevancy to photography especially where it matters - the finished print...

    however some people have an analytical and empirical 'bent'..the technology in a MFD back ( or any digi camera ) is fascinating in itself - yes?

    nothing wrong with an inquiring mind chaps ! Still I too would like to know what the point being made is ..and then how it links into a bigger picture that may be of relevance to more people in their decision making or approach to workflow..

  38. #38
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I have to agree with Peter and ask the question when does all this analyzing make sense to the shooter. At what point does it become relevant that i shoot a certain way or at a certain setting to squeeze every drop from the back and it's software. I understand the limits and such of these backs and I guess this begs the question how far can we stretch something until we actually fall off the cliff. Just like using USM when processing we need to know at what limit there is so it still looks good before over sharpening a file. So i understand the science of it or the analysis but at some point I need something whispered in my ear , hey Guy don't do that or you will get in trouble.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  39. #39
    brumbaer
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    As I already said on the LL forum.

    eMotionDNG does not do any dedicated sharpening or noise reduction.

    The differences in "brightness" between Sinar Software and the Brumbaer Tools are created by different approaches how to "scale" the pixel values.

    My approach is different than the XPosure/CaptureShop-approach. The reason is that my software was developed completely independent and without help from Sinar. I stress this point, because it is the single most important factor for: "why the approaches are different".
    When you get a NEF file or a CRW half of the processing that the Tools do is already done.

    Instead of proclaiming a "stink all over the world", you should have considered the case that I do something right and the other guys do something less right (does this make it left ?). Or at least that I do something different instead of cheating.


    Regards
    SH

  40. #40
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Thanks Stefan!

    I was not expecting less as an answer and it puts things definitively in the right perspective.

    Best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by brumbaer View Post
    As I already said on the LL forum.

    eMotionDNG does not do any dedicated sharpening or noise reduction.

    The differences in "brightness" between Sinar Software and the Brumbaer Tools are created by different approaches how to "scale" the pixel values.

    My approach is different than the XPosure/CaptureShop-approach. The reason is that my software was developed completely independent and without help from Sinar. I stress this point, because it is the single most important factor for: "why the approaches are different".
    When you get a NEF file or a CRW half of the processing that the Tools do is already done.

    Instead of proclaiming a "stink all over the world", you should have considered the case that I do something right and the other guys do something less right (does this make it left ?). Or at least that I do something different instead of cheating.


    Regards
    SH

  41. #41
    brumbaer
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Back to the original question. Why is the exposure, color balance and tint so far off with the Brumbaer DNGs?
    The exposure is not off it's different I will not go into details, because it has to do with the way CaptureShop and I assume XPosure as well treats pixels, and it's not up to me to talk about that.
    The important thing is that (ignoring hilight recovery) the number of distinct colors in the file is the same. Just imagine both files contain values form 0 to 6789. One spec defines 16378 as white and the other 6789. Both files contain the same amount of information, but one looks underexposed.

    The colors are not off on my system. Have you calibrated the colors with the help of a gretag card ?

    Differences between editing applications are created by different ways of treating DNG data. ACR and Lightroom give quite close results Raw Developer gives different results. Aperture gives also different results and is a special case, because it ignores the Profile data in the DNG and uses it's own profile. For that reason the gretag calibration does not influence the display in aperture.

    Regards
    SH

  42. #42
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Is there a way to embedd in the DNG a close starting point so that when opened in ACR, we don't have to move the exposure slider to lighten the image? In other words, have it open with the exposure slider alread in a good starting point.

    Robert

  43. #43
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I believe that there is certainly a way, although probably different from one DNG application to another.

    I base my belief on the fact that e.g. the Brumbaer DNG does open in ACR with the "colour noise reduction" in ACR set to a value of 25 automatically, when eXposure leaves it to 0.

    But don't ask me how to do this.

    Best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by robsteve View Post
    Is there a way to embedd in the DNG a close starting point so that when opened in ACR, we don't have to move the exposure slider to lighten the image? In other words, have it open with the exposure slider alread in a good starting point.

    Robert

  44. #44
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Quote Originally Posted by robsteve View Post
    Is there a way to embedd in the DNG a close starting point so that when opened in ACR, we don't have to move the exposure slider to lighten the image? In other words, have it open with the exposure slider alread in a good starting point.

    Robert
    Actually, there are several ways to achieve that via different DNG metadata. The raw-to-DNG converters/creators decide if, which way and how much. Generally, this depends on the camera, but different raw converters may decide for different ways and values.

    For example the Sinar e22 at ISO 400: as there is no ISO gain, the exposure has to be adjusted in raw conversion. When converting the very same image (a sample provided by Graham), Brumbauer's instructs the raw processor to add 2.8 EV, while eXposure decides for +3.31 EV.

    I guess you need to convince the makers of your favourite DNG converter, that the current setting is not good.

    Gabor

  45. #45
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Stephan,

    Good to see you on this forum. As a new Sinar back user let me add my voice to the many that have thanked you for your efforts. The rest of this discussion is way beyond my comprehension. I know a good file when I see it, the rest is academic to me.

  46. #46
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I'm afraid this particular segment of the thread has been thrown out of joint.

    First, let me make this clear: I do not need to be convinced about how good MFDBs are. I have not stated anywhere, anytime that 36mms or smaller were equals to MFDBs.

    I took exception to two claims:

    1. that a certain posted (excellent) shot was without noise removal,

    2. higher ISOs with the Sinar back.

    The first issue has no relevance whatsoever; it is only about the understanding of what is happening to the image. I come back to that in a separate post, for some members appear intimidated by technical details, and that issue is really technicality.

    However, the ISO issue is relevant IMO. Some were asking, what this has to do with photographing. Well, it has a lot.

    ISO with sensors does not mean sensitivity but gain; I guess this is common knowledge. In technical terms - sorry, so much has to be - adjusting the exposure in raw processing (a misnomer) means a multiplication of the original pixel values without adding any information. On the other hand, increasing the gain not only increases the pixel values but adds low order values to it. An example: after multiplying by two, the values 4, 5, 6 become 8, 10, 12. Nothing new, no finer shades. However, increasing the gain by one stop means, that this 4 may become 8 or 9, the 5 may become 10 or 11, etc., i.e. intermediate values, more shades are created. (If those new values are reliable or noise depends on the ISO capability of the sensor.)

    The great dynamic range of MFDBs is a substitute for higher ISOs; the clean pixels of the very low range are useful even there, where other sensors offer only noise. So, there is no problem with this. For example some of the images I have analyzed in the past two days have been underexposed by three full stops (measured from the very highest possible exposure, so that is not a truly 3 EV underexposure) and still have very clean data.

    Where I see a problem is the lack of consciousness on the photographer's part.

    What does it mean for the photographer, when the pixel data received from the sensor does not really depend on the selected ISO?

    1. Possibly avoidable underexposure. If my camera has good ISO gain at least in the lower range, let's say 200 or perhaps 400, then increasing the ISO in this range is quasy equivalent to increasing the shutter or the aperture. If the ISO setting without gain is used this way, then the underexposure is given.

    2. One-two, or with an MFDB three or more stops underexposure (from the right edge) is usually not a big issue. However, if this is coupled with a fictional ISO 400, then the 3 EV underexposure becomes 5 EV or 6 EV, and that may be too much.

    3. Nominal overexposure using no-gain ISO is usually no problem, for it does not necessarily induce factual clipping. However, due to the automatic adjustment by the raw converting/processing software, the factually immaculate exposure will appear overexposed (apparent clipping) in the raw processing. This can be countered by negative exposure compensation, but again, the user has to be aware of the situation.

    Facit: the photographer has to be very aware of this situation, understanding, that selecting higher ISO is practically the same as a negative exposure bias.

    That was my point.


    Addendum

    The question is now justified: if higher ISO is equivalent to negative exposure bias, then why higher ISO?

    The software (at least the DNG converters, but I guess Capture One too) supports this by the automatic compensation; exposure bias would not be compensated for.
    Last edited by Panopeeper; 23rd May 2008 at 21:39.

  47. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lancs, UK
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    I'm a newbie in the digital arena, so feel free to correct me, but let's see if I've got this straight:

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    ISO with sensors does not mean sensitivity but gain; I guess this is common knowledge. In technical terms - sorry, so much has to be - adjusting the exposure in raw processing (a misnomer) means a multiplication of the original pixel values without adding any information. On the other hand, increasing the gain not only increases the pixel values but adds low order values to it. An example: after multiplying by two, the values 4, 5, 6 become 8, 10, 12. Nothing new, no finer shades. However, increasing the gain by one stop means, that this 4 may become 8 or 9, the 5 may become 10 or 11, etc., i.e. intermediate values, more shades are created. (If those new values are reliable or noise depends on the ISO capability of the sensor.)
    So increasing the ISO (gain) means you get a more accurate range of tonal values (noise aside).

    2. One-two, or with an MFDB three or more stops underexposure (from the right edge) is usually not a big issue. However, if this is coupled with a fictional ISO 400, then the 3 EV underexposure becomes 5 EV or 6 EV, and that may be too much.
    We expose to the right edge to get a more gradated set of tonal values. Underexposure reduces the accuracy of these values.

    Upping the fictional ISO will result in underexposure, which would REDUCE the quality of the tonal range, but is compensated for by the increase in levels provided by upping the gain?

  48. #48
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Do the eMotion backs achieve higher ISO with hardware gain or software multiplication?

    Robert

  49. #49
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Quote Originally Posted by robsteve View Post
    Do the eMotion backs achieve higher ISO with hardware gain or software multiplication?

    Robert
    It's more like a multiplication of the gain!



    Seriously, I know little, but what I know is that I look at the (an) image and compare it with an(other) image, at 100%, not analyzing tables, graphics and values on paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    1. that a certain posted (excellent) shot was without noise removal, ...
    Panopeeper:

    - your analysis is of great value, thanks for it. I shall forward it to our engineers. May be I will get some comments/information back to share with you.

    - I still wish to repeat and emphasize the following once again, since in one of your sentences is implied again that there might be a noise reduction somewhere during the DNG conversion, by saying "I took exception to two claims: a certain posted (excellent) shot was without noise removal, ....
    and further then "The first issue has no relevance whatsoever ..."

    It has relevance to me: there is absolutely no noise reduction being applied, neither in the Brumbaer eMotion DNG Converter, nor in the Sinar eXposure. I shall repeat here my explanation to you in response to your PM to me this morning for the understanding of all, since I feel there is still a misunderstanding and that 2 issues have possibly lead to a confusion:

    There is a "denoise" OPTION in Brumbaer's DNG converter, which has NOTHING to do with a noise reduction in the image data.
    The word "denoising" is Stefan's own term. There is no intention to mislead or whatsoever with the word noise reduction. And it is very clear what "denoising" is doing, namely it takes away noise from a file (called "white shading") which is applied to the image file, by subtracting its information from the image. Why does one need and use a "white shading"? When there are vignetting issues due to the lens fall-off, or due to the shifts, tilts or swings done with the camera, or when the sensor produces those shifts in terms of (colour) uniformity. The solution is to create another file, under the exactly same shooting conditions (same f-stop, same camera setting, same focus), with an opal glass in front of the lens: this will "capture" all this light (and colour) fall-off and ONLY this, which can then be subtracted from the image data. Due to the opal glass in front, it needs to be shot with about 2 stops more light than the image data on which it shall be applied. Obviously this will create sometimes (most of the time) some additional and unwanted noise which will be added to the image (by subtraction), simply because those 2 stops more light needed for the right exposure are obtained by increasing the exposure time (f-stop cannot be changed). The result is then a noisy image, but noise created by the white shading file, not by the sensor and not in the image data shot. So it has to be taken away and therefore one has the possibility (again, free choice for the user here as well) to "denoise" this white shading file before applying it to the image data. The whole has therefore absolutely nothing to do with a NR done in the image data. And that is also the very reason (or I suppose so) why Stefan calls it "denoising", not noise reduction.

    Best regards,
    Thierry
    Last edited by thsinar; 24th May 2008 at 08:24.

  50. #50
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Clearing up confusion with Brumbaer/Sinar backs

    Upping the fictional ISO will result in underexposure, which would REDUCE the quality of the tonal range, but is compensated for by the increase in levels provided by upping the gain?
    Increasing the pixel values afterwards compensates for the lightness of the resulting image, but not for the intermediate tonal levels.

    Do the eMotion backs achieve higher ISO with hardware gain or software multiplication?
    By software multiplication. However, I think this needs to be explained in more detail.

    Many cameras substitute certain ISO steps with numerical adjustment. My camera, the Canon 40D offers 14 ISO settings: 100 to 1600 in 1/3 stop steps and 3200. However, nine out of these are numerical derivatives of the true ISO settings; they are plainly fakes.

    What is worse, this is happening in-camera (that too is software). Accordingly, ISO 3200 is roughy the doubling of the ISO 1600 values. The consequence is, that the resulting values occupy the numerical range of the sensor, effectively reducing the dynamic range by one stop without giving anything in return. One would think that this does not matter, for one uses so high ISO only when the light is low - but even in such situations there may be some bright spots, like street lights, etc. Using 3200 can cause highlight clipping. I suggest raw shooters to avoid ISO 3200, but when recording JPEG in-camera, it may be useful.

    I find the solution of Sinar better, for the compensation occurs in raw processing, i.e. the higher ISOs do not reduce the dynamic range. This compensation is the equivalent of moving the "Explosure" slider of ACR.

    Note: I wrote above, that there are different ways to instruct the raw processor to adjust the lightness of the resulting image. Though the effect is the same, it can be confusing. After loading the Brumbaer's converted ISO 400 image of a Sinar e22, ACR starts with "Exposure +2.80"; load the eXposure converted image, and the Exposure slider is at 0, even though ACR displays a much brighter image (0.4 EV difference). The reason is, that the two converters chose different ways to tell the raw processor to increate the lightness.

    This difference has almost no relevance, but one needs to be aware of it.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •