Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: dalethorn on December 20, 2008, 05:15:52 pm
-
Here's something I haven't seen elsewhere that I can remember - a comparison of a RAW converted to JPEG and an image shot as JPEG.
These are not the same image - they were taken side by side a few seconds apart, with the camera first set to shoot RAW, and for the second image set to shoot JPEG only. The camera was a Panasonic FZ50, 1/1.8 CCD. The RAW image was converted to JPEG using Silkypix, with no processing other than a slight crop and reduction to the 2048 x 1536 size. Same crop and reduction with the image taken as JPEG.
I have heard (and can't verify) that the difference is the number of color bits in the RAW-to-JPEG process being more than what I got from the in-camera JPEG. I've done several tests like this with the Panasonic LX3, and could not see any difference. Of course, there's an advantage in using RAW for post processing, but that aside, it's surprising to me that I don't see a default difference in the RAW-to-JPEG conversion with the LX3 and Silkypix, using the same defaults as were used for the FZ50 images.
-
With Raw, you're controlling the rendering. Every Raw converter will produce, at least by default, a different rendering.
JPEG is rendered in camera from the Raw. You have virtually no control over this (expect for Picture styles).
Its the norm that the two don't match although the camera manufacturers and now, some 3rd party converters like ACR/LR attempt to match, at least as an initial default, the JPEG but its usually not spot on.
You might want to glance at this article:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
-
With Raw, you're controlling the rendering. Every Raw converter will produce, at least by default, a different rendering.
JPEG is rendered in camera from the Raw. You have virtually no control over this (expect for Picture styles).
Its the norm that the two don't match although the camera manufacturers and now, some 3rd party converters like ACR/LR attempt to match, at least as an initial default, the JPEG but its usually not spot on.
You might want to glance at this article:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
It's a good beginner's article, but doesn't (probably can't) say much about how different sensors record the data, what the camera manufacturer does with the sensor data before producing the RAW image, etc. I was hoping someone would remember the info I read a couple years ago about the number of bits of color space (or something like that) that are available in RAW's -vs- JPEG's, or if that's not always different, whether Panasonic, for example, is not doing as good a job with their LX3 product as they did with their FZ50.
The main reason I bring this up is I took about 7,000 RAW photos in the Bolsa Chica wetlands between 2/05 and 6/07 using the FZ50, and I have a pretty good feel for the image quality I was getting with that camera. But I'm not getting as good quality with the LX3, even though the CCD is larger, the lens is supposedly better, and the electronics much improved after two years of research. Since Panasonic made such a *big* deal about the LX3 being designed by and for photographers rather than the people who usually buy digicams, and since nearly all photo blog owners sang that chorus very loudly, I expected a lot more from the LX3, but don't see the results. Maybe I just fell for a scam, paying twice what the little gadget was worth. God help the people who buy into these promotions when the kit costs $5000 instead of $500.
-
I was hoping someone would remember the info I read a couple years ago about the number of bits of color space (or something like that) that are available in RAW's -vs- JPEG's
You need to understand, that
1. you are comparing a JPEG image with another JPEG image, thus the ultimate limitations are the same, no matter which converter created that JPEG,
2. the in-camera JPEG too has been created from the raw data, which then has been discarded.
Thus you are looking for a non-existent or negligable factor. The reason of recording raw data is, that that this way you have many options before the conversion in JPEG, and you can convert it in other, non-lossy formats as well, fore example for greater bit-depth, not only in JPEG.
See it so: creating JPEG in-camera is a blindfolded raw conversion: you decide about the adjustments before you see the shot.
-
You need to understand, that
1. you are comparing a JPEG image with another JPEG image, thus the ultimate limitations are the same, no matter which converter created that JPEG,
2. the in-camera JPEG too has been created from the raw data, which then has been discarded.
Thus you are looking for a non-existent or negligable factor. The reason of recording raw data is, that that this way you have many options before the conversion in JPEG, and you can convert it in other, non-lossy formats as well, fore example for greater bit-depth, not only in JPEG.
See it so: creating JPEG in-camera is a blindfolded raw conversion: you decide about the adjustments before you see the shot.
I either don't understand what you're saying, or you're confused. You can't possibly believe that the in-camera converter for a $500 all-in-one camera with a 1/1.8 CCD will produce a JPEG that's the same as the separate RAW converter software.
And I do distinctly remember an article saying something about in-camera JPEG's not using all of the color bits that a separate converter can apply, but then, that's a technical issue that I may have to look into elsewhere.
-
I either don't understand what you're saying, or you're confused. You can't possibly believe that the in-camera converter for a $500 all-in-one camera with a 1/1.8 CCD will produce a JPEG that's the same as the separate RAW converter software.
And I do distinctly remember an article saying something about in-camera JPEG's not using all of the color bits that a separate converter can apply, but then, that's a technical issue that I may have to look into elsewhere.
Sure it can. You said yourself that you didn't post process the shot - it was just a straight up conversion. The point of raw (and it's raw, not RAW - it's not an acronym :-) is that it allows you to do more with the image. If you're not taking advantage of that then there's every reason to expect similar results are possible. The manufacturer, after all, knows a lot about their camera specifically whereas raw conversion software is designed for many cameras.
A fair test of what you want to compare would be the JPEG from the camera compared to the best possibly processing of the raw file, rather than just the default processing.
Bear in mind, too, that a technically good shot won't suffer to the degree that a poor shot would - so if you start with sharp, correctly exposed images then the in-camera conversion will be more successful and there's less demand for raw to gain extra benefit.
As for how much of the data the in-camera conversion uses, this will vary from camera to camera. Yes, I'd expect my A700 would have more processing power than your FZ50 and if you look at JPEG files produced using the DRO enhancment it's clear that the A700 is doing more but then it costs more, so that's hardly surprising. Similarly, I'd bet that the processing in a 1DSmkIII or a D3x is also superior to the FZ50 - the accompanying price tag really demands it.
Overall, I'm not sure what you're getting at, though. Are you worried that your raw convertor isn't doing a good job or are you surprised by the capabilities of your camera? As I said, compare the best in-camera JPEG with the best post-processed raw and you'll start to see difference, particularly if the original image has some technical issues.
-
I either don't understand what you're saying, or you're confused
Well, let's try to figure out, which one.
You can't possibly believe that the in-camera converter for a $500 all-in-one camera with a 1/1.8 CCD will produce a JPEG that's the same as the separate RAW converter software
Why would this depend on the price of the camera and/or on the size of the CCD? Do you think that one or two frames per sec is something extraordinary load? Modern DSLRs are creating up to TEN images per second, larger ones than the FZ-50.
And I do distinctly remember an article saying something about in-camera JPEG's not using all of the color bits that a separate converter can apply, but then, that's a technical issue that I may have to look into elsewhere
Not to keep you from looking into that elsewhere, but as long as you don't understand even your questions, you will have difficulty understanding the answers.
The "color bits" (your term), which are not used by the in-camera converter do not represent quality but quantity. Your camera creates a raw image of 3671x2748 pixels, but you get to see only 3648x2736. This is, because Panasonic decided (with good reason) to declare a size, which is
a. a multiple of 8 pixels in both dimensions,
b. it maintains the proportion 4:3.
However, if the camera creates a raw file, then all pixels are there and the raw converter could create a somewhat larger image. LR/ACR will create the "standard" size (as Panasonic declared it), but I can imagine, that for example Raw Shooter Premium 2007 created a larger image (they messed up my files too with funny sizes).
-
Sure it can. You said yourself that you didn't post process the shot - it was just a straight up conversion. The point of raw (and it's raw, not RAW - it's not an acronym :-) is that it allows you to do more with the image. If you're not taking advantage of that then there's every reason to expect similar results are possible. The manufacturer, after all, knows a lot about their camera specifically whereas raw conversion software is designed for many cameras.
A fair test of what you want to compare would be the JPEG from the camera compared to the best possibly processing of the raw file, rather than just the default processing.
Bear in mind, too, that a technically good shot won't suffer to the degree that a poor shot would - so if you start with sharp, correctly exposed images then the in-camera conversion will be more successful and there's less demand for raw to gain extra benefit.
As for how much of the data the in-camera conversion uses, this will vary from camera to camera. Yes, I'd expect my A700 would have more processing power than your FZ50 and if you look at JPEG files produced using the DRO enhancment it's clear that the A700 is doing more but then it costs more, so that's hardly surprising. Similarly, I'd bet that the processing in a 1DSmkIII or a D3x is also superior to the FZ50 - the accompanying price tag really demands it.
Overall, I'm not sure what you're getting at, though. Are you worried that your raw convertor isn't doing a good job or are you surprised by the capabilities of your camera? As I said, compare the best in-camera JPEG with the best post-processed raw and you'll start to see difference, particularly if the original image has some technical issues.
Well, the best post processing issue is another subject I wasn't interested in here. The photos I posted *did* show a substantial difference even though they were shot side by side with the same camera and settings, seconds apart. That seems to contradict what you said. I'm suspecting that the reason the LX3 JPEG's don't look different from the RAW's is some bad design by Panasonic, *not* doing the best RAW that they can (RW2 actually, where the FZ50 was RAW).
-
As for how much of the data the in-camera conversion uses, this will vary from camera to camera
LOL, a blind leader of the blind.
-
LOL, a blind leader of the blind.
Well, that's really observant (not). You still have blindly (your term) missed the point - that the FZ50 images are very different and the LX3 images (not posted here for reasons stated) are not.
-
You still have blindly (your term) missed the point - that the FZ50 images are very different and the LX3 images (not posted here for reasons stated) are not.
There is no "point" until you upload the full size JPEGs created in-camera and by Silkipix, as well as the raw file. THEN we can talk about the differences.
-
There is no "point" until you upload the full size JPEGs created in-camera and by Silkipix, as well as the raw file. THEN we can talk about the differences.
You need to learn to read. I did not post the RAW file because there was no point to it. After all, it *is* my point, not yours.
-
LOL, a blind leader of the blind.
How so, Gabor? Different cameras will process the data internally to bake a JPEG. Without having the manufacturer's specifications I couldn't tell you what those differences are, but do you know for sure that all the cameras make use of the full bit-depth and how they do it when producing a raw? Do all 14bit capture cameras use all 14bits to render and then convert to 8bit or do they discard to 8bit first?
My point stands that the question of how much data is used will vary from camera to camera. You can make snide remarks all you like, but that's an (obvious) fact.
-
Different cameras will process the data internally to bake a JPEG
Certainly; however, the subject is the processing of the raw data.
do you know for sure that all the cameras make use of the full bit-depth and how they do it when producing a raw? Do all 14bit capture cameras use all 14bits to render and then convert to 8bit or do they discard to 8bit first?
There are some problems in this workflow. This is not a question of bit depth; the raw data has to be "developed" through several stages, and the result will not become an 8bit JPEG by way of ignoring four or six bits.
(Btw, the Panasonic FZ-50 creates 12bit data.)
I am confident, that the camera firmware uses all available data for the demosaicing, noise reduction, white balance, saturation, contrast, ...
It is important to realize, that the greater bit depth does not play much (or any) role in direct JPEG creation, because the increased bit depth is needed when making "strong" adjustments in post processing. Still, I don't think raw data will be ignored, simply because that would be more difficult than taking the pixel values as they are.
The 8bit JPEG is the result of a complex process at the very end of this procedure. That is the stage, when huge differences can arise, namely from the JPEG "quality" setting. Dalethorn posted above
The RAW image was converted to JPEG using Silkypix, with no processing other than a slight crop and reduction to the 2048 x 1536 size
However, the JPEG quality is not among the factors one can equalize, and that can account for lots of differences.
-
Certainly; however, the subject is the processing of the raw data.
There are some problems in this workflow. This is not a question of bit depth; the raw data has to be "developed" through several stages, and the result will not become an 8bit JPEG by way of ignoring four or six bits.
(Btw, the Panasonic FZ-50 creates 12bit data.)
I am confident, that the camera firmware uses all available data for the demosaicing, noise reduction, white balance, saturation, contrast, ...
It is important to realize, that the greater bit depth does not play much (or any) role in direct JPEG creation, because the increased bit depth is needed when making "strong" adjustments in post processing. Still, I don't think raw data will be ignored, simply because that would be more difficult than taking the pixel values as they are.
The 8bit JPEG is the result of a complex process at the very end of this procedure. That is the stage, when huge differences can arise, namely from the JPEG "quality" setting. Dalethorn posted above
The RAW image was converted to JPEG using Silkypix, with no processing other than a slight crop and reduction to the 2048 x 1536 size
However, the JPEG quality is not among the factors one can equalize, and that can account for lots of differences.
Thank you - this is a good reply. If I'm wrong and someone explains it to me, then I learn something. In this case, it has extended my understanding, so thank you again.
And, FWIW, I mentioned 14bit just as an example, not to claim that the FZ50 was 14bit :-)
Regarding bit depth, I would have thought that a camera that had limited processing power (so probably not current DSLRs) would consider reducing to 8bit from their native capture earlier in the process to reduce processer overhead. Your suggestion is otherwise, and does make sense. Some cameras that capture in JPEG have a faster capture rate than their raw equivelant. Is this just write speed or does processing time come into it, I wonder?
-
Some cameras that capture in JPEG have a faster capture rate than their raw equivelant. Is this just write speed or does processing time come into it, I wonder?
I am not sure if this can be answered generally. However, at least some cameras can create dozens of JPEGs or dozens of raw continuously, but less raws than JPEG, even though creating the raw file of compressed raw data is less computing intensive than creating the JPEG files. Apparently the buffer is the limit, i.e. the limit ultimately is write speed.
It is not useful to think about the raw processing and JPEG conversion in terms of general computers, like PCs. Though the camera can not host an equivalent computing power, it has a huge advantage: the specialized task. Without knowing any details for example of the DIGICs, I am sure that these processors are specialized for image processing. That means, that they have special instructions for complex tasks; this way they can easily surpass the rate of desktop computers.
For example the "customary" JPEG encoding method (the one used in the JPEG images) is very, but VERY computing intensive. Even the JPEG encoding of Canon and Nikon and many other raw data (which consists of part of the "complete" JPEG encoding) is so computing intensive, that processing (reading and displaying) an uncompressed raw file takes much less time on a PC than the same with a compressed file, even though the amount of data to read is hugely different. This can be tested by ACR, via converting a raw in compressed and uncompressed DNG (the DNG compression is the same as the one in CR2 and in NEF, etc.). I know that this is surprizing; I have seen several times posting the "natural" assumption, that processing of the compressed files ought to be faster than that of the uncompressed files, due to the difference of data to read from disk.
However, a processor, which carries out a chunk of bit fiddling and cosine calculations, etc. can turn around the proportions. Therefor it is not so surprizing, that the camera can surpass commercial computers by a large factor in image processing.
-
.....Though the camera can not host an equivalent computing power, it has a huge advantage: the specialized task. Without knowing any details for example of the DIGICs, I am sure that these processors are specialized for image processing. That means, that they have special instructions for complex tasks; this way they can easily surpass the rate of desktop computers.....
.....However, a processor, which carries out a chunk of bit fiddling and cosine calculations, etc. can turn around the proportions. Therefor it is not so surprizing, that the camera can surpass commercial computers by a large factor in image processing.
Where I come from a processor is hardware, and I find it hard to believe that Nikon etc. are making processors with floating point hardware superior to any of the many PC numeric chips. Algorithms in software are another matter, but again, it doesn't make sense that camera software for rendering JPEG's would be much better than PC software. So for the specialized camera chip - who would be fabricating the actual chips for all cameras, and how could all of those designs have escaped the various PC chip makers? A whole different set of hardware chip mfr's, just for cameras? Note I said mfr's.
-
Dale,
You've come to ask a question and then when you get some answers (from knowledgeable people) you argue with them.
It's clear that you don't understand the fundamentals of of raw image processing and jpg conversion, so my suggestion is that you keep asking questions, keep reading, but don't be belligerent when you get answers that you have trouble with.
Finally, have you ever heard of ASICs? Application Specific IC's?
These are semiconductors that are specifically designed to do one things really well and really fast. That's what's in a digital cameras to convert raw data into JPGs. They can, as has been pointed out, do as many as 10 images a second, and then are held back by buffer size more than anything else. Even a fast desktop PC with the fastest general purpose CPU would be hard pressed to match this.
Hope this partially answers your question.
Michael
-
It's a good beginner's article, but doesn't (probably can't) say much about how different sensors record the data, what the camera manufacturer does with the sensor data before producing the RAW image, etc. I was hoping someone would remember the info I read a couple years ago about the number of bits of color space (or something like that) that are available in RAW's -vs- JPEG's, or if that's not always different, whether Panasonic, for example, is not doing as good a job with their LX3 product as they did with their FZ50.
Most digital cameras encode the raw data in a linear fashion (gamma = 1.0), where the output data number is proportional to the luminance, and use a bit depth of 12 or 14 bits. JPEGs are usually 8 bits per channel with a gamma of 2.2. Twelve, fourteen, and 8 bits correspond to 4096, 16384, and 256 levels respectively. When converting from a gamma of 1.0 to 2.2, levels are lost as can be demonstrated by Bruce Lilndbloom's (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/) levels calculator. As Norman Koren (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) explains, an 8 bit image at a gamma of 2.2 can usually encode the dynamic range of a typical photograph, but just barely. If your exposure or tone curve is less than optimal, your image will suffer when you edit it. However, if you are shooting raw at 12 or 14 bits, you may still have enough levels to get a good image. Although white balance can be adjusted in JPEGs, it is best done with the raw data where you have more levels to work with.
In view of the above, if your exposure, white balance, and tone curve are perfect, a JPEG may be fine; however, if these parameters are less than perfect, a raw file gives you much more flexibility.
Color gamut is also a consideration. Most digital cameras offer only aRGB or sRGB with JPEG output. Modern digital cameras can capture a considerably higher range of colors than these spaces can accommodate, and modern inkjet printers can print some of these colors. To take advantage of the capabilities of your camera, it is best to shoot raw and render into 16 bit ProPhotoRGB or a similar wide gamut space. This option is not available in JPEGs.
Finally, sharpening and noise reduction are important considerations and these parameters are baked into a JPEG conversion. The camera applies a global unsharp mask to the image, whereas modern sharpening techniques use masks and blending options to produce better results.
Bill
-
I find it hard to believe that Nikon etc. are making processors with floating point hardware superior to any of the many PC numeric chips
Not "superior" but "specialized".
Algorithms in software are another matter, but again, it doesn't make sense that camera software for rendering JPEG's would be much better than PC software
What I tried to explain unsuccessfully is, that the advantage of special purpose processors is not in a faster hardware nor in better algorythm (there are no secrets in these algorythms) but in the implementation of the algorythms in hardware. Although even individual processor inctructions can be made faster in special purpose processors than in the generic ones, that's not the point.
Both processing of the raw image, i.e. converting it in an RGB one, and the conversion of that in JPEG involve complex algorythms operating on a group of pixels (on up to 1024 pixels in the JPEG conversion). Carrying out these steps requires thousands of processor level instructions in loops. Implementing these algorythms in hardware can shorten the processsing time to a fraction. The same is true regarding the Huffman encoding of the raw data if it is involved at all.
So for the specialized camera chip - who would be fabricating the actual chips for all cameras
This is irrelevant regarding the topic, but I think Canon manufacturer their own processors (like the DIGICs, I don't know what is in the smaller cameras). I guess so does Sony. Some have to buy it from specialized chip manufacturers. Who is making the chips for cell phones, computerized toys, washing machines, GPS, cars, etc.?
-
Dale,
You've come to ask a question and then when you get some answers (from knowledgeable people) you argue with them.
It's clear that you don't understand the fundamentals of of raw image processing and jpg conversion, so my suggestion is that you keep asking questions, keep reading, but don't be belligerent when you get answers that you have trouble with.
Finally, have you ever heard of ASICs? Application Specific IC's?
These are semiconductors that are specifically designed to do one things really well and really fast. That's what's in a digital cameras to convert raw data into JPGs. They can, as has been pointed out, do as many as 10 images a second, and then are held back by buffer size more than anything else. Even a fast desktop PC with the fastest general purpose CPU would be hard pressed to match this.
Hope this partially answers your question.
Michael
I've been programming computers for 34 years, and have achieved things that are rare in the field, so when I argue with someone who has provided "answers", I do so for what I feel is a good reason. As I recall, the belligerence began with the other person who made insulting remarks, not with me. Finally, my actual question as to why the FZ50 RAW-to-JPEG images were clearly superior to the in-camera JPEG's, while the same didn't occur with the LX3, was not answered as far as I could see. I realize that my matter-of-fact approach to a lot of these things, sans the social grooming that many people practice, is seen by some people as arrogance or whatever. It's not. I'm just not a social groomer.
-
BTW, I am well aware of ASICS as used by NSA for crypto work. It's an interesting topic for cameras as well.
-
BTW #2, I just spent about 3 hours cruising Internet postings on JPEG -vs- RAW, and JPEG quality as massaged by the cameras in general. No new info I could find in 3 hours - a lot of guessing and so forth about what the cameras are doing to produce the often spotty results they do. And of course RAW isn't quite as literal as some would have you believe. There was one site that mentioned a new JPEG standard (possible standard?) as of February 2008, but nothing about it since then that I found.
-
BTW #2, I just spent about 3 hours cruising Internet postings on JPEG -vs- RAW, and JPEG quality as massaged by the cameras in general. No new info I could find in 3 hours - a lot of guessing and so forth about what the cameras are doing to produce the often spotty results they do. And of course RAW isn't quite as literal as some would have you believe. There was one site that mentioned a new JPEG standard (possible standard?) as of February 2008, but nothing about it since then that I found.
Read this:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf)
-
Read this:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf)
Great article. Actually, for those who've been over this topic many times, as well as newcomers, the clincher is right there on the first page:
"Camera manufacturers have applied years of research and development to the unique algorithms inside each camera. Given a scene, each camera will arrive at a different result."
Now the tricky part: Given *one* camera, arriving at a different result just by changing the file type (I know, there's more to it....), instead of a "photographic" parameter such as sharpness or contrast is disconcerting. Then to have another camera of the same brand and only slightly different specs not produce a different output with a different file type, what is that supposed to mean? I'm very close to saying that "there are no rules", despite what seems obvious to photo buffs, i.e. always process the RAW image.
Actually, I flop RAW's over to JPEG's with defaults with one camera, and shoot just JPEG's with the other, and in both cases, I'm getting photos that are equal to or better than what I got with my Leica M4-2 and M6 with fixed 35 and 90 mm lenses. In the B&W lab, I never did a "dodge and burn", which other photo mavens seem to have loved to do. I just decided never to do it. I still don't see any pressing reason to hand-process RAW's, unless I can automate the process to a large extent by getting default settings that are "really good" for 95 percent of the stuff I convert.
Most people here really minimize the effort they put in on their lab work. It's not just hand-processing a RAW, it's taking the photo, loading onto the computer, backing up, saving versions of the image, translating the RAW, making adjustments, and many other steps. Like Tom Hanks said in the movie, "what's fun about that?" And by that I don't mean doing all of that once, I mean repeating all of those steps thousands of times over, and over, and over.
-
Sure it can. You said yourself that you didn't post process the shot - it was just a straight up conversion. The point of raw (and it's raw, not RAW - it's not an acronym :-) is that it allows you to do more with the image. If you're not taking advantage of that then there's every reason to expect similar results are possible. The manufacturer, after all, knows a lot about their camera specifically whereas raw conversion software is designed for many cameras.
This is an argument that has more to do with camera manufacturers hawking their proprietary (and generally crappy) software more than the camera makers being able to consistently build RAW converters that do a better job than ACR, C1, etc. Most of the differences between the default settings of various RAW converters can be minimized or eliminated by simply not using the default conversion settings. Most comparisons touting one converter over another don't bother to optimize the settings for each converter to the image(s) used in the comparison, and the use of third-party tools for sharpening and detail maximization are generally totally ignored. As a result, such comparisons are generally about as useful as DVD rewinders.
If you happen to like the rendering of a particular manufacturer's raw converter over one of the mainstream raw converters, great. But if you need to color-match shots taken by several cameras of different brands, or duplicate the default "look" of one manufacturer's RAW converter with shots from a camera from another manufacturer, ACR or C1 are your best options, since they accept custom profiles. And you just might discover that you can match or exceed your results from the proprietary converters if you experiment a bit.
-
This is an argument that has more to do with camera manufacturers hawking their proprietary (and generally crappy) software more than the camera makers being able to consistently build RAW converters that do a better job than ACR, C1, etc. Most of the differences between the default settings of various RAW converters can be minimized or eliminated by simply not using the default conversion settings. Most comparisons touting one converter over another don't bother to optimize the settings for each converter to the image(s) used in the comparison, and the use of third-party tools for sharpening and detail maximization are generally totally ignored. As a result, such comparisons are generally about as useful as DVD rewinders.
If you happen to like the rendering of a particular manufacturer's raw converter over one of the mainstream raw converters, great. But if you need to color-match shots taken by several cameras of different brands, or duplicate the default "look" of one manufacturer's RAW converter with shots from a camera from another manufacturer, ACR or C1 are your best options, since they accept custom profiles. And you just might discover that you can match or exceed your results from the proprietary converters if you experiment a bit.
Certainly spot on true. Next time I start one of these, I will explain in advance that I understood the RAW and other editing technology, so it doesn't descend into lectures about image processing theory. The link to the Adobe article was still good to have as a guideline. I would still at some point like to read about someone setting up a mostly-automated workflow that can set defaults for a wide variety of RAW images more or less automatically, in a manner analogous to the "intelligent auto" feature on some digicams. To name another analogy, I have automated my file management to a high degree with zero failure, allowing copy both directions (newer writing over older, or older writing over newer in some cases), but I see in this forum that file management is a horrific task for some people, particularly when that file management is part of some editing software rather than a separate program. So I don't want to get into the kind of RAW workflow that's analogous to the horrific file management I described. Too much work, too much grief.
-
I would still at some point like to read about someone setting up a mostly-automated workflow that can set defaults for a wide variety of RAW images more or less automatically, in a manner analogous to the "intelligent auto" feature on some digicams.
You can do this today with virtually all decent Raw processors. They range from "auto" correction functions, presets one can load to groups, image specific "look" and input profiles etc. Like any "auto" setting, its hit or miss.
Copy and paste parametric editing is a way cool feature (its fast and non destructive).
-
Who is making the chips for cell phones, computerized toys, washing machines, GPS, cars, etc.?
ARM in the UK for one (unless that was a rhetorical question...)
-
ARM in the UK for one (unless that was a rhetorical question...)
Not at all. Some of the chips like those used in MP3 players for sound are so highly evolved, offering as good of sound as nearly anyone needs, that a few large mfr's can cover the field. But camera specialized processors would be impractical to make for anyone without a chip facility (anyone who isn't BIG), so the question is how do you get a chip made safely and cheaply if you're not that big. I can design the software for example, but how do I design a chip, or do I let "them" do it for me. And am I protected against leaks?
-
I would still at some point like to read about someone setting up a mostly-automated workflow that can set defaults for a wide variety of RAW images more or less automatically, in a manner analogous to the "intelligent auto" feature on some digicams.
Then you might want to delve into the user guides for Bridge or Lightroom just a bit. Setting the white balance and exposure defaults to "auto", and setting tone curve, color calibration, and other parameters to your preference instead of the defaults will go a long way toward being reasonably automated with good results. Combine that with custom WB and other tweaks applied to many images at once, and you can have several hundred wedding shots ready for a web gallery with a minimum of manual tweaking.
It really isn't that hard.
-
BTW, I am well aware of ASICS as used by NSA for crypto work. It's an interesting topic for cameras as well.
It's a bit strange that you then didn't consider the possibility that digital cameras might make use of ASICs or FPGAs.
Not at all. Some of the chips like those used in MP3 players for sound are so highly evolved, offering as good of sound as nearly anyone needs, that a few large mfr's can cover the field. But camera specialized processors would be impractical to make for anyone without a chip facility (anyone who isn't BIG), so the question is how do you get a chip made safely and cheaply if you're not that big. I can design the software for example, but how do I design a chip, or do I let "them" do it for me. And am I protected against leaks?
Here's an example of a JPEG-E core (http://www.cast-inc.com/cores/jpeg-e/index.shtml). It shows how small and simple a partially programmable JPEG core can really be (in terms of transistors). Pretty standard fare, in other words.
As for existing such processors, see Nikon's EXPEED system, Canon's DIGIC (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02091601canontech.asp), Nethra's NI-2065/66 (http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/15778/mobile-phone-image-processor/) mobile phone imager with built-in JPEG conversion, Sony's Real Imaging Processor, and so on.
It's so relatively uncomplicated that I'd expect most independent camera manufacturers to have their own, custom ASIC, FPGA, or (V)LSI for it.
-
It's a bit strange that you then didn't consider the possibility that digital cameras might make use of ASICs or FPGAs.
Here's an example of a JPEG-E core (http://www.cast-inc.com/cores/jpeg-e/index.shtml). It shows how small and simple a partially programmable JPEG core can really be (in terms of transistors). Pretty standard fare, in other words.
As for existing such processors, see Nikon's EXPEED system, Canon's DIGIC (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02091601canontech.asp), Nethra's NI-2065/66 (http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/15778/mobile-phone-image-processor/) mobile phone imager with built-in JPEG conversion, Sony's Real Imaging Processor, and so on.
It's so relatively uncomplicated that I'd expect most independent camera manufacturers to have their own, custom ASIC, FPGA, or (V)LSI for it.
Didn't consider? Sure, I've considered every thing you said years ago. Too bad I didn't have the time to explain in detail (these forums consume too much time already). For example, I knew I could have written much better autofocus routines for digicams than the folks Nikon and others were employing. If you were a good programmer you probably could too. The Mac became popular because people ("users") got tired of being the commander of their computers and decided they'd rather be users. Now since nearly everyone has that attitude, good programmers (software "engineers" hee hee) are getting harder to find. I seriously doubt that the "chips" being programmed/produced by every mom and pop camera vendor hold a candle to the chips NSA makes.
-
In the B&W lab, I never did a "dodge and burn", which other photo mavens seem to have loved to do. I just decided never to do it.
And your pictures were never as good as they could be. The different a bit of dodging or burning can make is often the difference between an OK shot and a great shot.
I still don't see any pressing reason to hand-process RAW's, unless I can automate the process to a large extent by getting default settings that are "really good" for 95 percent of the stuff I convert.
As has already been said, read the operting intructions.
Besides unless you shoot under very limited circumstances or do very repititive studio/catalogue work different imges will require different tweaking. And as you seem happy with OKish images, then why not leave everything on automatic?
Most people here really minimize the effort they put in on their lab work. It's not just hand-processing a RAW, it's taking the photo, loading onto the computer, backing up, saving versions of the image, translating the RAW, making adjustments, and many other steps. Like Tom Hanks said in the movie, "what's fun about that?" And by that I don't mean doing all of that once, I mean repeating all of those steps thousands of times over, and over, and over.
The beauty of Software like Lightroom, ACR etc is that you can adjust a lot images at once, rename a lot of images at once...etc. But the usual difference between good and great work is the time and effort spent on creating the image, whether it's waiting for the right moment, spending ages lighting the shot, years of study and practice, finishing it off in the darkroom/lightroom....etc
-
Too bad I didn't have the time to explain in detail (these forums consume too much time already). For example, I knew I could have written much better autofocus routines for digicams than the folks Nikon and others were employing.
So why don't/haven't you?
-
So why don't/haven't you?
That's just a useless comment. If you could do x number of things better than Nikon, Canon, HP, Sony, and a thousand other mfr's, does it make sense to go do all those things? For one, you wouldn't have the time in your lifetime. I made the comment for good reason - those routines could be greatly improved, if the mfr's cared at all, which they do very little. Ever read Dilbert? Do you have any doubt about the corporate myopia Scott illustrates there? I already make my corporate contribution many times over, and I have good cause to diss them, even if you idolize them so much.
-
And your pictures were never as good as they could be. The different a bit of dodging or burning can make is often the difference between an OK shot and a great shot.
As has already been said, read the operting intructions.
Besides unless you shoot under very limited circumstances or do very repititive studio/catalogue work different imges will require different tweaking. And as you seem happy with OKish images, then why not leave everything on automatic?
The beauty of Software like Lightroom, ACR etc is that you can adjust a lot images at once, rename a lot of images at once...etc. But the usual difference between good and great work is the time and effort spent on creating the image, whether it's waiting for the right moment, spending ages lighting the shot, years of study and practice, finishing it off in the darkroom/lightroom....etc
Well, I don't think I missed anything important in my 40 years of editing. And which of the 100,000 photos I didn't improve should I be worried about? I do something very different than most people here - when I do a client job (not often), it gets archived and likely never seen again, by me anyway. But the stuff I do for myself is different. I keep a working pool of about 3,000 images, which I carry everywhere I go, and use for illustration, education, etc. From time to time I add to the pool, and delete the lesser stuff from it. I have run into very few photographers out in public who can pull out a sample of their work and show it off, since I suppose they have better things to do. But I see what I do not only as snapping photos, or editing them at home, but carrying them around and creating influence that's fairly unique from what I can see. So being concerned about a dodge-and-burn or a perfectionist edit on x number of images, just doesn't compute. Maybe some day we'll run into each other at the zoo, the farmer's market, or one of my other favorite places to go, and I'll show you a few processed photos. But I wonder what you'll be able to show me.
-
That's just a useless comment. If you could do x number of things better than Nikon, Canon, HP, Sony, and a thousand other mfr's, does it make sense to go do all those things? For one, you wouldn't have the time in your lifetime. I made the comment for good reason - those routines could be greatly improved, if the mfr's cared at all, which they do very little. Ever read Dilbert? Do you have any doubt about the corporate myopia Scott illustrates there? I already make my corporate contribution many times over, and I have good cause to diss them, even if you idolize them so much.
For someone who claims to know so much you make a lot of foolish assumptions. I certainly do not idolise Canon/Nikon etc, they irritate me a lot of the time if truth be told. though I do respect Jim Jannard and his clean sheet approach to camera/video gear.
My comment wasn't useless, you made grand claims about your ability to fix one thing, not thousands of things, I am curious as to why you haven't done what claim is so easy and why Canikony haven't recognised your amazing talents? And why they employ such stupid and less talented people, instead of you?
So what other amazing feats have you being busy doing, rather than improve the output of the world's leading companies?
-
Well, I don't think I missed anything important in my 40 years of editing. And which of the 100,000 photos I didn't improve should I be worried about?
Should we be impressed by the amount of images taken or something?
I do something very different than most people here - when I do a client job (not often), it gets archived and likely never seen again, by me anyway.
Wow that is truely radical!! I'm in awe!
But the stuff I do for myself is different. I keep a working pool of about 3,000 images, which I carry everywhere I go, and use for illustration, education, etc. From time to time I add to the pool, and delete the lesser stuff from it. I have run into very few photographers out in public who can pull out a sample of their work and show it off, since I suppose they have better things to do.
...like bury their photography in secret nuclear bunkers in case people see it and employ them?
But I see what I do not only as snapping photos, or editing them at home, but carrying them around and creating influence that's fairly unique from what I can see. So being concerned about a dodge-and-burn or a perfectionist edit on x number of images, just doesn't compute.
Showing people your photos that you cannot be bothered to spend time improving is unique?! Somehow I doubt it. maybe the influence you are creating is people thinking - "I can do better than that! Where's my RAW processor?" Besides when does making your images look their best, preclude one from showing others your work? What odd logic. Michael, our host spends a lot of time doing all the things you disdain and a lot more, yet manages to show his images to people online, in books, magazines and at his gallery in Toronto. And I think he also has a great deal of genuine influence to boot.
Maybe some day we'll run into each other at the zoo, the farmer's market, or one of my other favorite places to go, and I'll show you a few processed photos. But I wonder what you'll be able to show me.
Well as I always have a selection of my work on me, I can show you some very nice photos.
My next phone is being chosen with the ability to display images from my portfolio as it's main priority, which means I can carry less stuff with me and my business card is a mini folio in itself, so when ever people ask what sort of photography I do, I can simply show them. So any more silly assumptions?
-
Should we be impressed by the amount of images taken or something?
Wow that is truely radical!! I'm in awe!
...like bury their photography in secret nuclear bunkers in case people see it and employ them?
Showing people your photos that you cannot be bothered to spend time improving is unique?! Somehow I doubt it. maybe the influence you are creating is people thinking - "I can do better than that! Where's my RAW processor?" Besides when does making your images look their best, preclude one from showing others your work? What odd logic. Michael, our host spends a lot of time doing all the things you disdain and a lot more, yet manages to show his images to people online, in books, magazines and at his gallery in Toronto. And I think he also has a great deal of genuine influence to boot.
Well as I always have a selection of my work on me, I can show you some very nice photos.
My next phone is being chosen with the ability to display images from my portfolio as it's main priority, which means I can carry less stuff with me and my business card is a mini folio in itself, so when ever people ask what sort of photography I do, I can simply show them. So any more silly assumptions?
It's good you posted this tripe, er, rant. I think it speaks well of you.
-
It's good you posted this tripe, er, rant. I think it speaks well of you.
No, ranting on my part. Some mockery of your pompous and very silly claims, which is quite different and a straight answer to your innacurate assumptions.
Though people who are poor at debating, often tend to claim ranting as a get out clause to avoid the points they cannot refute or argue against.
-
No, ranting on my part. Some mockery of your pompous and very silly claims, which is quite different and a straight answer to your innacurate assumptions.
Though people who are poor at debating, often tend to claim ranting as a get out clause to avoid the points they cannot refute or argue against.
What I would claim is that you have a serious personality problem I can't help you with. This forum should not have to host diatribes like you posted here, and eventually it will not I suppose, unless you have a special pass. In the meantime, I'm not your friend, real or potential, so I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. You'll just have to live with the fact that I don't have any respect for you. And I'm also sorry that you're jealous of my skills and accomplishments, but just be patient, you'll grow up and get over it.
-
What I would claim is that you have a serious personality problem I can't help you with. This forum should not have to host diatribes like you posted here, and eventually it will not I suppose, unless you have a special pass. In the meantime, I'm not your friend, real or potential, so I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. You'll just have to live with the fact that I don't have any respect for you. And I'm also sorry that you're jealous of my skills and accomplishments, but just be patient, you'll grow up and get over it.
Gosh, you do make me laugh. Diatribes indeed, laughing at your daft claims is not exactly a diatribe and why on Earth would you even think would I want to be friends with someone as bonkers as you?
I don't even know what your skills or accomplishments are, so why would I be jealous? Not that I'm the jealous type anyway, I simply admire talented people.
You claim to be so amazingly talented and influencial, yet you post some rather poor snapshots photos on LL, you have a website that looked like it was designed in the 90s and then forgotten about as there is no content apart from some poor photos of someone else's paintings. And if you software skills are anything like as bad, I doubt Nikon will be begging you for advice on improving their focusing either. So go on and back up your bluster with some substance as to why I or anyone else should be so very envious of you, rather than more hot air and desperate avoiding of points mentioned. Again this not a diatribe, simply a description of what I've see.
-
Gosh, you do make me laugh. Diatribes indeed, laughing at your daft claims is not exactly a diatribe and why on Earth would you even think would I want to be friends with someone as bonkers as you?
I don't even know what your skills or accomplishments are, so why would I be jealous? Not that I'm the jealous type anyway, I simply admire talented people.
You claim to be so amazingly talented and influencial, yet you post some rather poor snapshots photos on LL, you have a website that looked like it was designed in the 90s and then forgotten about as there is no content apart from some poor photos of someone else's paintings. And if you software skills are anything like as bad, I doubt Nikon will be begging you for advice on improving their focusing either. So go on and back up your bluster with some substance as to why I or anyone else should be so very envious of you, rather than more hot air and desperate avoiding of points mentioned. Again this not a diatribe, simply a description of what I've see.
As sick as you are, you do manage to type a lot, which I hope is theraputic. Since Dale Thorn has been on the Web with PC tools for MANY years, and you haven't been able to grasp that, you should continue your therapy and leave the tasks requiring intelligence to me.
-
As sick as you are, you do manage to type a lot, which I hope is theraputic. Since Dale Thorn has been on the Web with PC tools for MANY years, and you haven't been able to grasp that, you should continue your therapy and leave the tasks requiring intelligence to me.
Still avoiding the questions and now being patronising to boot. Don't think that's progress somehow.
Can you breath OK up there in the rarefied atmosphere you inhabit?
Now if you had a smidgen of the intelligence you profess, you wouldn't dodge questions and ignore answers that show your assumptions for the nonsense they are. And you are at it again with the dumb assumptions that people would know who you are and how brilliant you are. All I had to go on was your dreadful website with near zero content and some awful photographs you'd posted on LL and that even you didn't seem to like - which is a bit odd.
I don't think I've even heard of PC Tools and why should I have, it's just one of many thousands of software websites? You're a legend in your own mind it would appear.
I just had a look back at the earlier part of thread to refresh myself of how we ended up here and you claim not to bother with 'social grooming' as you unfortunately call it. 'Grooming' is what peadophiles do with children they want to entrap, so I would advise against that phrase. Anyway, seeing as you have no interest in learning, debating or being pleasant to others, you can go on the ignore list.
-
Still avoiding the questions and now being patronising to boot. Don't think that's progress somehow.
Can you breath OK up there in the rarefied atmosphere you inhabit?
Now if you had a smidgen of the intelligence you profess, you wouldn't dodge questions and ignore answers that show your assumptions for the nonsense they are. And you are at it again with the dumb assumptions that people would know who you are and how brilliant you are. All I had to go on was your dreadful website with near zero content and some awful photographs you'd posted on LL and that even you didn't seem to like - which is a bit odd.
I don't think I've even heard of PC Tools and why should I have, it's just one of many thousands of software websites? You're a legend in your own mind it would appear.
I just had a look back at the earlier part of thread to refresh myself of how we ended up here and you claim not to bother with 'social grooming' as you unfortunately call it. 'Grooming' is what peadophiles do with children they want to entrap, so I would advise against that phrase. Anyway, seeing as you have no interest in learning, debating or being pleasant to others, you can go on the ignore list.
1. Thank you so much for ignoring. There must be a God after all. Thank you.
2. I don't like children any more than I like you, so you don't have to worry about that 'pedo' thing.
3. To get info on Dale Thorn, you type "dale thorn" into google. It's that simple, and lots to see there. I can hardly believe you didn't know, er, scratch that, yes I can believe.