Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Posts
    400
    Post Thanks / Like

    Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Hi, everyone,

    I'm using Sinar eXposure to convert my files to .DNG, and it has the unfortunate tendency to rename my files.

    My CF card has the images and looks like this:
    ./00250020.EMO:
    E2D6DD80.WR
    214FEA0C.BR
    214FEA01.IA
    214FEA63.IA
    214FEB49.BR
    214FEB3D.IA
    ...

    Using eXposure, I drag the .IA files onto the desired destination folder, and I get:
    ./Brad's Latest Shoot
    712.dng
    713.dng
    714.dng
    ...

    Much friendlier to be sure, but now it is no longer simple to associate the original .IA with the derivative .DNG.

    Brumbaer renames both (that would solve my problem as well), but given that both have roughly equivalent image quality, eXposure is actively in development and eXposure puts more of the shoot metadata into the file, I would prefer to use eXposure.

    Any thoughts on how to get eXposure not to rename the files? I'd like to have something like:

    ./Brad's Latest Shoot
    214FEA01.dng
    214FEA63.dng
    214FEB3D.dng
    ...

    Thanks,
    Brad

  2. #2
    Senior Member EH21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Brad,
    Sorry can't help you with any information but as you know I'm looking at the Hy6 and am curious about the Sinar backs. Is that really true that exposure and Brumbaer have similar output?
    Eric

  3. #3
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    As Brad mentioned the Exposure conversions have more metadata than Brumbaer. Both seem to do an excellent job but the Brumbaer files look darker. I think Graham has explained this in an earlier post but maybe he can expand on this a bit. If I were trying to protect highlights I'd probably choose Brumbaer. Exposure does a lot more than Brumbaer but strictly for conversions you can't go wrong with either one. BTW, Brad, I can't answer your question either but if nobody here knows i can get you an answer tomorrow.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Posts
    400
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Thanks, guys.

    David, I've stayed up late and written myself a little utility to do the magic deed. It would still be nice to be able to do it directly from eXposure, but it is not urgent, now that I have a solution.

    Eric, yes, Brumbaer and eXposure give quite different exposure results for the very same raw file conversion.--I have no way of knowing who is changing the data and who isn't. My guess is both of them may be in some way, but I haven't done any research.

    Bottom line for me is whose conversion looks better? After adjustment, I can't tell who's who. Some folks like the darker starting point (protects the highlights); some folks like the brighter starting point (better SNR in the shadows)... Given that both are starting from the same digital data, I don't think there's really an advantage either way. (Anyone who can shed some light on this?)

    More to come... Stay tuned...
    -Brad

  5. #5
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    hi Brad,

    Let me first answer your "naming" question in eXposure.

    It is possible to rename the files in eXposure, by going to "Menu" ---> "Edit" --->"Rename Image(s)" (see screenshots). However, this gives the possibility to put your own naming to all files selected and eXposure will numerate them from this name, e.g. "MySession1.dng", "MySession2.dng", etc ...
    So no way at this stage to keep the numeration of the RAWs.
    However, there are effectively numerous little applications enabling to do and you have apparently created your own.

    As for your remark about how the DNG is displayed in a DNG application (ACR, LR, Aperture, etc ..): it is effectively not important, and only a starting point, in those applications.

    Best regards,
    Thierry



    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyGibson View Post
    Thanks, guys.

    David, I've stayed up late and written myself a little utility to do the magic deed. It would still be nice to be able to do it directly from eXposure, but it is not urgent, now that I have a solution.

    Eric, yes, Brumbaer and eXposure give quite different exposure results for the very same raw file conversion.--I have no way of knowing who is changing the data and who isn't. My guess is both of them may be in some way, but I haven't done any research.

    Bottom line for me is whose conversion looks better? After adjustment, I can't tell who's who. Some folks like the darker starting point (protects the highlights); some folks like the brighter starting point (better SNR in the shadows)... Given that both are starting from the same digital data, I don't think there's really an advantage either way. (Anyone who can shed some light on this?)

    More to come... Stay tuned...
    -Brad

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Posts
    400
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Hi, Thierry,

    You'll notice that the filenames on the card are numbered in hexadecimal. I don't know a way to do that from the eXposure software... But even if I could, as I mentioned, the goal is to keep the resulting .dng with same name as the original .IA file. I don't see how the rename box will help with that.

    Keeping the original filenames would meet all my needs--is there no way to do this?

    Thanks,
    Brad

  7. #7
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    hi Brad,

    no, that's what I am saying, no way currently to keep the same name. The RAWs (.IA = Image Archive, .BR = Black Reference, .WR = White Reference) from the eMotion backs are showing the "year"/"Month"/"Day"/"Hours"/"Minutes"/"Seconds".
    That way the right WR and the right BR can be applied to the image data.

    But there is no way at the moment to keep the same naming for the DNGs i eXposure.

    Best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyGibson View Post
    Hi, Thierry,

    You'll notice that the filenames on the card are numbered in hexadecimal. I don't know a way to do that from the eXposure software... But even if I could, as I mentioned, the goal is to keep the resulting .dng with same name as the original .IA file. I don't see how the rename box will help with that.

    Keeping the original filenames would meet all my needs--is there no way to do this?

    Thanks,
    Brad

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Posts
    400
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Ah, OK, thanks for confirming that. It's always good to know when to stop looking for something that isn't there!

    I didn't know what the hex numbers were encoding for--thank you--that may be a help as well as I refine the tool I'm building to import.

    While we're on the subject, would you happen to know if it's possible to perform these .DNG conversions programatically with eXposure? I'd like my script to pass all the files to convert to eXposure and have eXposure do its thing without my having to drag and drop files manually.

    Thanks, Thierry,
    Brad
    Last edited by BradleyGibson; 16th June 2008 at 09:21.

  9. #9
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyGibson View Post
    eXposure puts more of the shoot metadata into the file, I would prefer to use eXposure
    I wonder specifically which metadata you miss from the Brumbaer version. Do you mean the XMP data?

  10. #10
    rainer-v
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyGibson View Post
    Thanks, guys.



    Bottom line for me is whose conversion looks better? After adjustment, I can't tell who's who. Some folks like the darker starting point (protects the highlights); some folks like the brighter starting point (better SNR in the shadows)... Given that both are starting from the same digital data, I don't think there's really an advantage either way. (Anyone who can shed some light on this?)

    More to come... Stay tuned...
    -Brad
    if the files seem to be darker or brighter has nothing to do with more or less noise in the shadows.


    very important for the brightness is how the highlight recoverys works, which determines later the visual brightness in ACR or other aplications.
    the raw data (ia+br) is not "changed" more or less by the two programs,
    but it has to be interpretated by both.
    otherwise the data would not become readable by konverters as photoshop.

    with all cameras/backs has to be done this step, normally you just dont have access to the real raw data in the backs/ cameras, because this step is done already in the camera itself or during the transfer from the camera to the computer. .

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

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Quote Originally Posted by rainer-v View Post
    the raw data (ia+br) is not "changed" more or less by the two programs,
    It seems to me that if the DNG files created by the two programs (which are the only programs that convert the Sinar files) contain the same raw data then the only reason to keep the original ia+br files is for future improvements in software which might give better conversion results than those available today (or alternative conversions using different parameters in today's software). This seems to me an important consideration in deciding whether to keep the original unconverted files which would effectively double one's storage requirements. If one decides that these are not sufficient reasons to retain the original ia+br files then the issue of renaming them in such a fashion that they can be associated with the unconverted files becomes moot. Or am I missing something...

  12. #12
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    David,

    you are basically right.

    One can consider the RAWs, understand the ".IA"/".BR" files as a negative or transparency which is not processed, still only a latent image.

    To keep it allows processing at any stage, with different processing parameters and at a later stage, if one wishes to change something (e.g. apply another "white shading"; process with another colour balance/matrix, etc ...) or effectively if the conversion process into DNG in the converter has changed.

    Consider the DNG as a processed negative/transparency on which you can't have any processing influence anymore, since it is not longer "latent" and already "fixed".

    Best regards,
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    It seems to me that if the DNG files created by the two programs (which are the only programs that convert the Sinar files) contain the same raw data then the only reason to keep the original ia+br files is for future improvements in software which might give better conversion results than those available today (or alternative conversions using different parameters in today's software). This seems to me an important consideration in deciding whether to keep the original unconverted files which would effectively double one's storage requirements. If one decides that these are not sufficient reasons to retain the original ia+br files then the issue of renaming them in such a fashion that they can be associated with the unconverted files becomes moot. Or am I missing something...

  13. #13
    rainer-v
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    It seems to me that if the DNG files created by the two programs (which are the only programs that convert the Sinar files) contain the same raw data then the only reason to keep the original ia+br files is for future improvements in software which might give better conversion results than those available today (or alternative conversions using different parameters in today's software). This seems to me an important consideration in deciding whether to keep the original unconverted files which would effectively double one's storage requirements. If one decides that these are not sufficient reasons to retain the original ia+br files then the issue of renaming them in such a fashion that they can be associated with the unconverted files becomes moot. Or am I missing something...
    certainly right.
    in any case, at least from brumbar is not to expect that the qualiy will improve in future, cause unfortunately stephan stopped his work on it. anyway, hard to imagine that there is much improvement possible in terms of dng konversion quality, which will be reflected in the finished tifs as well after editing the files,- although i store my IA and BR data also.

  14. #14
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Quote Originally Posted by David K View Post
    This seems to me an important consideration in deciding whether to keep the original unconverted files which would effectively double one's storage requirements
    David,

    it would be foolish to throw away the originals; the conversion can be repeated any time, but you can not go back from the DNG to the original data to make a different conversion in the future.

    At the moment you need to archive the DNG as well, if you want to preserve your adjustments made in ACR, but that may change. Anyway, after you have adjusted the DNG in ACR, the updated DNG will be less than half size of the one created by Brumbaer or eXposure because of compression.

  15. #15
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter, Fla.
    Posts
    1,967
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Based on the comments here I've decided to retain the original RAW folders. I haven't timed it but the conversion seems quite a bit faster when the original folder is on the hard drive. Here's my daughter, Natasha, who agreed to sit still for me on condition she's allowed to stay out late for a party This was with the 110 f/2, wide open or close to it. Probably missed focus by a bit but I love the bokeh this lens generates.

  16. #16
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    David,

    if you make the DNG file read-only, then ACR saves the adjustments in XMP sidecar-files, like it does with native raw files. This means, that you can archive the native raw file and the adjustments (the XMP files are tiny), and you can repeat the conversion and adjustment any time later. No need to archive the DNG at all.

    I don't know if the native raw files are compressed; for example the Phase One files are compressed, the Mamiya not. If not compressed, you may apply a conventional compression, like ZIP, to make the files smaller before archivation.

  17. #17
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    No, the native raw files (.IA and .BR) are not compressed, unless one uses the compression mode feature in the eMotion menu.

    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    I don't know if the native raw files are compressed; for example the Phase One files are compressed, the Mamiya not. If not compressed, you may apply a conventional compression, like ZIP, to make the files smaller before archivation.

  18. #18
    Panopeeper
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    Quote Originally Posted by thsinar View Post
    No, the native raw files (.IA and .BR) are not compressed, unless one uses the compression mode feature in the eMotion menu.
    Why would one NOT use this feature? Does it reduce the frame rate?

  19. #19
    thsinar
    Guest

    Re: Getting Sinar eXposure NOT to rename?

    No special reason not to use it. It does not reduce frame rate.

    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Panopeeper View Post
    Why would one NOT use this feature? Does it reduce the frame rate?

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
  •