Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »
 31 
 on: May 25, 2015, 11:23:45 PM 
Started by FranciscoDisilvestro - Last post by FranciscoDisilvestro
Thanks to the work by Nikon Hackers, it is possible to get the original unprocessed raw data from selected Nikon cameras. This hack is available for the previous generation of Nikon cameras (sorry, no D810 or D7200) apparently due to a recent hardware change in the new bodies.

There are three known manipulation performed to NEF files which could not be overridden by the user:

- Black level - truncation of negative values (not performed in new bodies such as the D810)
- White Balance Preconditioning
- Hot pixel suppression (usually for speeds below 1/4 sec)

The hack bypasses those processes, storing basically a raw dump from the sensor

There are two versions of this:
1) Temporary change which stores a hack in the camera RAM and it is reset when the camera turns off, and
2) Hacked firmware

I have tried option 1, since I thought it would be safer

I took a couple of samples with and without the hack with a Nikon D800:

a) Dark frame, 30 Sec @ ISO 100
b) Intentional blow out of all channels
c) Regular exposure at 1/5 sec @ ISO 100

Here are the resulting histograms using rawdigger

Dark Frame
These two images are with the hack, note how the lower values are centered around 600 and negative (relative) values are present. The difference between the images is just the level of detail




The following set of images show the effect of the Hot pixel suppression (HPS) algorithm. Without the hack, the HPS has suppressed any value above 349, while in the hacked file there are values up to maximum (16383)




Blown channels:
In regular NEF files, the channels max out at different values, due to the WB Preconditioning, that multiplies the R and B channels. In the case of the hacked file, all channels max out at exactly the same level





WB Preconditioning
The following set shows first the effect of the WB Preconditioning, with empty slots at regular intervals in the R and B channels while in the hacked file this does not happen





Is it worth to use this? For general photography maybe not (further testing is necessary) but for scientific purposes or astrophotography it is definitely useful. The guys at Nikon Hacker have some impressive samples of astrophotograpies using these hacks.

 32 
 on: May 25, 2015, 11:21:11 PM 
Started by Eric Myrvaagnes - Last post by BobDavid
The second bluebell photo is very tasty. Nice.

 33 
 on: May 25, 2015, 11:20:20 PM 
Started by Iluvmycam - Last post by Johnny_Johnson
I did. Thought it was an interesting read.

Later,
Johnny

 34 
 on: May 25, 2015, 11:19:19 PM 
Started by RSL - Last post by BobDavid
Some storm--the scale of it. I like the way you processed this picture. It has a "look" that reminds me of 1920s-40s silver halide landscape photos.

 35 
 on: May 25, 2015, 11:06:28 PM 
Started by jrp - Last post by bassman51
Something along the lines of mylio or apple photos but with unlimited storage and an affordable price (like Amazon Photos) combined with Adobe Camera Raw editing capability is surely the way to go.

I personally don't see the need to get my editing/DAM services from the same place I get my offsite backup services.  In fact, they seem completely unrelated to me and there's no reason to think a vendor would necessarily be world-class at both.

With a non-destructive editor like LR, you only load your image files to the backup service(s) once. After that you need to backup the catalog, which LR is happy to do to any attached storage, including services like Dropbox. 

 36 
 on: May 25, 2015, 10:52:13 PM 
Started by evgeny - Last post by Joe Towner
Evgeny,

In my opinion,the issue is the amount of VRAM that you have on your system.
You have posted that you have 256mb of VRAM, the minimum suggested is below from Phocus release notes:

For a laptop choose a MacBook Pro with minimum 512MB of video RAM, I would personally recommend at least 1GB of VRAM

Phocus as well as most image editors (Photoshop, Lightroom, C1) today rely on the GPU for most of the image manipulation.

Hey Steve,

You do realize that most of the Mac's out there now don't have dedicated video cards, right?  The only new laptop with an actual video card is the top of the line Retina MBP starting at $2,500.  I would hope that the testing process for Hasselblad includes these new machines that don't have dedicated graphic resources, since the Iris/HD6000 graphics 'share' system memory.  https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204349

-Joe

 37 
 on: May 25, 2015, 10:45:05 PM 
Started by David Eckels - Last post by Royce Howland
Yes, what paper and what profile? Just taking a guess, it looks to me like a matter related to black point compensation. But it also could be a flawed profile. Or both together. Generally speaking, choice of BPC or not impacts use of the Relative Colorimetric rendering intent, but not Perceptual. Choosing not to use BPC with the RC intent is not something I would typically do; I practically always use RC + BPC. Not using BPC with RC will lead to problems in dark tones.

If the initial set of 4 images are scans made from actual prints, then besides the dark blues getting blocked up to black with RC prints, there is another problem. There's a huge chunk of black at the bottom of the green gradient in the centre left of the test pattern. It also shows up in the dark greens in the swatches of fabrics in the upper right part of the test, where there appear to be lots of patches of black that are dark green in the original image. This appears in both the RC and Perceptual versions of the test prints, both sRGB and original ProPhoto RGB.

I don't use Lightroom myself. But if I recall correctly, it doesn't provide a choice to use BPC or not in the print module; it just enables BPC all the time. If that's the case, it seems to me something is wrong with this printer profile.

What happens if you soft proof with your printer profile in Photoshop? Do you see the same blocked up regions in the dark blues and dark greens?

 38 
 on: May 25, 2015, 10:22:36 PM 
Started by Mark Ogden - Last post by Alan Klein
Kincade made a lot of money while he was alive, as does Lik.  That's more than van Gogh and a lot of other artists did and do.  And although Kincade died of alcoholism and drug addiction, which negatively effected his business, he never cut off his ear.  Of course none of that has anything to do with his work or Van Gogh's or Lik's for that matter.  My point is, judge his or anyone's work on its artistic value.    You obviously don't like it, which is fine.  But many people did and still do.  Knocking someone's work that is enjoyed by millions by declaring him mediocre and the people who admire his work as middlebrow is narrow-minded and insulting. 

 39 
 on: May 25, 2015, 09:58:31 PM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by smahn
Especially disappointing for those of us (myself at least) looking for better image quality and performance rather than nifty features. 2 years and basically nothing.

 40 
 on: May 25, 2015, 09:55:32 PM 
Started by David Eckels - Last post by hugowolf
With what paper and profile?

Brian A

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »