Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 06:13:37 PM 
Started by The View - Last post by BartvanderWolf

Upon further examination I must say the preview quality of CO 8 does not match the real output quality.

Reason: most likely that the preview is a heavily compressed JPEG.


At what zoom level? The previews that are created when importing the file are limited in (user defined) size, when zooming in further the Raw data is generated from the Raw itself (although only the part of the image that fits the display).

The preset sharpening of CO 8 is very aggressive, and it's easy to overshoot that way.

It's easy enough to change that to a user defined default style that is applied upon importing the files.

It's a problem that all RAW processors share and likely is put in place as our computers may not be powerful enough to do RAW processing on the fly for WYSIWYG editing.

Can you imagine the calculating power you'd need to process a 60 or 80 MP image from a mf back?

Since that wouldn't fit most displays at 100% zoom, only the part that is displayed needs to be rendered on-the-fly, and given the bandwidth of most videocard pipelines, at 8-bit/channel. Any zoom level other than 100% will be unreliable, due to resampling artifacts.


 on: Today at 06:07:09 PM 
Started by Gigi - Last post by Robert Roaldi
Working fine on my 10.10.5 as well. In fact, it's a new machine and was running 10.10.5 when I bought it and install Aperture 3.6. Did you reach the 2nd tier Pro Apps support desk (or whatever it's called)? I had to speak to 2 others before they escalated to Pro App support.

 on: Today at 06:04:34 PM 
Started by professorbalrog - Last post by hk1020
Would any of you who are smarter than me using Argyll and DCamProf on a Mac be willing to help me out with it, or point me in the right direction? I'm not at all scared of command-line utilities but I feel like I have no idea how to even get these to compile correctly. I was able to get Argyll to run the scanin command based on the instructions I found here (and after moving the chart reference files to the bin folder):

But that's about it. DCamProf's instructions say "It should also be relatively easy to build on Mac OS X". I have no idea what to do with that information :/ All I want to do is generate a profile that's roughly as accurate as what the X-rite software can create for use in ACR but one that I can use in Capture One instead (so, ICC right?). I don't need to build a custom target or anything crazy (yet) just the most basic of camera calibrations.

Help? Please?

I've been in the same boat recently.  Over on the Capture One forum they started a thread about C1's colors and using dcamprof for C1.  I tried for the first time to use dcamprof (never heard of it before) to make a profile for C1 to be used with a Sony NEX-6.  Fortunately, there is spectral data for a Nex-5 so I don't need a test target (I don't have any equipment to measure colors).  My first attempts were quite promising and improved the C1 colors a lot.  Unlike what you read in many forums the C1 colors for Sony are actually pretty bad.  Everything's got a red/brown tint so much so that I don't like to use it.  The colors from the out of camera jpegs are much better and closer to reality. I am not alone with this.  See the thread at the C1 forum here:

I asked questions there concerning dcamprof as this other 40+ page thread here in the forum and the instructions are simply inpenetrable for a newbee.

Now the bad thing is I can't get the profile I made work with real images.  The colors are much better than anything C1 otherwise produces but the brightest parts get a red tint.  Also the colors shift if I change brightness in C1.  Has anyone any ideas what might have happened?  This is the list of commands I used:

dcamprof make-target -c nex5.json -p cc24 target.ti3
dcamprof make-target -X -f linear_DSC04159_C11.tif -p target.ti3 new-target.ti3
dcamprof make-profile -c nex5.json new-target.ti3 profile.json

dcamprof tiff-tf -f linear_DSC04159_C11.tif auto_DSC04159_C11.tif tone-curve.json
dcamprof make-icc -n 'nex5' -f auto_DSC04159_C11.tif -t tone-curve.json profile.json prelim-profile.icm
cp prelim-profile.icm /c/Users/michael/AppData/Local/CaptureOne/Color\ Profiles/

The tif files I used are from some random picture I took and exported from C1 as 16bit tiff, with embedded camera profile, the "no color correction" profile in C1 and with either linear or automatic tone curve (as indicated in the names above).

I'd be grateful if someone could tell me what I did wrong.  If desired I could show examples or more verbose reports.

I'd really like to get correct colors from C1.

And considering building dcamprof: I use Windows with cygwin. There it is quite straightforward. You need to have libcms2 installed via cygwin's setup.exe first. Then you unpack the dcamporf source and remove -fopenmp in the Makefile just as the instructions say. Then simply make and you are done. Leaves a dcamprof.exe in the build directory.  Move to /usr/local/bin/ or anything in your path, just standard Unix stuff.


 on: Today at 06:01:02 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by torger
Regarding the temp/tint issue;

The problem is that the model is really unstable. If two separate design processes would lead up to almost exactly the same temp/tint estimation it would be fine, but it can be quite vast differences, ie it's almost impossible to get two different profiles agree on what temp/tint it is.

ACR should have stored RGB multipliers instead and let the temp/tint change if you alter profile, but keep the actual white balance the same. This is what happens already today when you leave the white balance at "as shot". So I think it's easy. Just let the "as shot" behavior be the behavior for all temperature settings -- just let temp/tint be a user-friendly front-end to change RGB multipliers, but store the multipliers, not temp/tint.

Temp/tint can't be trusted anyway and therefore I think there is little value in keeping them constant when changing profile. Say if you could measure a light source in a room to "5000K tint 0", and then just dial in "5000K tint 0" on any camera to match that so you have the right white balance for that room, then I would understand the value of storing temp/tint instead of RGB multipliers. However the temp/tint model is not and cannot be that stable and reliable to provide that sort of function.

This is actually not a problem with the DNG standard itself, but how Adobe have implemented it. As Adobe is so dominant their implementation will serve as a key reference, and therefore I think it's important that it's done "right" by them.

Now when it is the way it is they can't change it for existing ACR, but they could change the behavior for a future revision.

 on: Today at 05:56:15 PM 
Started by Some Guy - Last post by howardm
Thanks, SG.  The update was painless except for the forced reboot on my Mac.

You can always call up the Force Quit panel cmd/opt/esc and quit the installer before pressing the Restart button and reboot
at your leisure.

 on: Today at 05:55:30 PM 
Started by Quentin - Last post by Hans Kruse
Do you mean directly to the right of the red line? The focus one is obvious, but I can't see any aperture markings anywhere.



Did you catch the two links I sent you on Post 459?

I think he is better at the modelling shots Smiley

 on: Today at 05:52:56 PM 
Started by Some Guy - Last post by Simon Garrett
Yes thanks SG (good initials, those).

Oddly, iProfiler is the only xrite software I don't have issues with.  Prior to the i1 Display Pro I used the ColorMunki, and though the software is OK, the installer is buggy.  The software for the colour checker passport has been unable to deal with 36M pixel images for dual illumant profiles - a bug reported when the D800 was lauched three and a half years ago. 

 on: Today at 05:51:14 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Chairman Bill
So we get feedback on our portraiture too? In that case ...

 on: Today at 05:47:11 PM 
Started by Chris Kern - Last post by dpirazzi
I too love the convenience of doing panos in Lightroom, when it works. I've probably done 25 or 30 panos since upgrading to LR6, mostly on tripod, and Lightroom has worked on all but 4. On those 4, Panorama Factory successfully stitched the exported TIFFs without issue.


 on: Today at 05:41:15 PM 
Started by Mike Sellers - Last post by Paul2660
That is a great idea.


Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »