Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer  (Read 9020 times)

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2017, 11:56:11 PM »

so far 3 main disappointments

1) inability to use SSF data instead of raw files with targets
2) inability to use CGATS data (for example prepared with RawDigger or elsewhere) instead of raw files with targets
3) inability to take over dcamprof prepared data at some stage to continue further in LPD


Logged

Alexey.Danilchenko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2017, 04:58:48 AM »

so far 3 main disappointments

1) inability to use SSF data instead of raw files with targets
2) inability to use CGATS data (for example prepared with RawDigger or elsewhere) instead of raw files with targets

I have not tried it yet (still cannot get enough time to give it a go) but if that is so it's quite disappointing. Would add my vote to have these two added
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2017, 08:07:30 AM »

so far 3 main disappointments

1) inability to use SSF data instead of raw files with targets
2) inability to use CGATS data (for example prepared with RawDigger or elsewhere) instead of raw files with targets
3) inability to take over dcamprof prepared data at some stage to continue further in LPD

SSF data is not supported at this time, as there are extremely few users, the problem being that it's very expensive or advanced DYI/ebay project to actually shoot SSF. I think SSF is better suited in DCamProf which is more academic/research, while Lumariver Profile Designer is more commercial. That said I may add SSF later "just for fun".

Again the reason I don't have DCamProf import is that Lumariver Profile Designer is intended as a commercial stand-alone product, while DCamProf is more slanted towards academic/research. I don't see many users will use them both simultaneously.

CGATS can be imported as custom reference file, it's a central feature. What you can't do though, which I assume is the feature you want, is importing a finished measurement (the raw values too, not just reference XYZ/Lab/spectra) made with Argyll scanin or RawDigger. The reason this is not the case is because Lumariver Profile Designer has the scan functionality built-in.

These features may very well end up in the software eventually, but there will for LRPD more than for DCamProf be a focus on features with more commercial value. Users want all sorts of features, and I'd love to satisfy everyone, but I can't spend hours and hours on features that only one or two users will find useful. With DCamProf I could do that if I found an academic interest in it (in the end I knew of only two people that actually did SSF profiles, it's you and Alexey, and then myself for making theoretical research on the effect of color filter shapes...), but here there will be decisions made more on a commercial basis.

But in any case, two votes registered for these features :-)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 08:14:00 AM by torger »
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2017, 09:01:35 AM »

SSF data is not supported at this time, as there are extremely few users, the problem being that it's very expensive or advanced DYI/ebay project to actually shoot SSF. I think SSF is better suited in DCamProf which is more academic/research, while Lumariver Profile Designer is more commercial. That said I may add SSF later "just for fun".

Again the reason I don't have DCamProf import is that Lumariver Profile Designer is intended as a commercial stand-alone product, while DCamProf is more slanted towards academic/research. I don't see many users will use them both simultaneously.

why not ? what I ideally want is a something like color editor in C1 where I can prepare the data as I want (just like I can bring camera profile compatible with C1 into C1 itself) and then I fancy to do some LUT tweaking while having more or less real time visual feedback (and numbers too on the same screen) even looking @ the actual photo of something ...


CGATS can be imported as custom reference file, it's a central feature. What you can't do though, which I assume is the feature you want, is importing a finished measurement (the raw values too, not just reference XYZ/Lab/spectra) made with Argyll scanin or RawDigger. The reason this is not the case is because Lumariver Profile Designer has the scan functionality built-in.

yes, I am talking about raw data in CGATS because I might want to do a lot of averaging and other manipulations, etc - so I can use other existing tools for that - but I still want to be able to take in such CGATS file...


These features may very well end up in the software eventually, but there will for LRPD more than for DCamProf be a focus on features with more commercial value. Users want all sorts of features, and I'd love to satisfy everyone, but I can't spend hours and hours on features that only one or two users will find useful. With DCamProf I could do that if I found an academic interest in it (in the end I knew of only two people that actually did SSF profiles, it's you and Alexey, and then myself for making theoretical research on the effect of color filter shapes...), but here there will be decisions made more on a commercial basis.

But in any case, two votes registered for these features :-)

with GUI products the main pain for a single parent developer is ... GUI itself ... not things like opening couple of text files (SSF and raw data CGATS)... I  mean you for sure use the ~~~same codebase to do actual relevant calculations between dcamprof and LPD... $0.02 from the crowd

PS: it is not something that needs to be done ASAP - there are other errors to fix first, but like with rawdigger top tier edition I think top tier edition of LPD shall have such options still... may be for v2.0 (unless the code hopefully allows to plug these sooner)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 09:11:13 AM by scyth »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2017, 01:31:23 PM »

Could you send me the .lrpd file that complains on invalid json data? You could pm me or send an email to not clutter the thread too much.

Find and fixed that bug, was due to that vsnprintf() is not C99 compliant on Windows :-\ . Hopefully I will make a patch release this weekend to fix that. I want to fix it quickly because it basically means that you can't save multi-target projects on Windows (works on Mac as it's better at being C99 compliant) unless your filenames are short :), so it's a serious issue.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 01:36:41 PM by torger »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2017, 01:38:32 PM »

with GUI products the main pain for a single parent developer is ... GUI itself ... not things like opening couple of text files (SSF and raw data CGATS)... I  mean you for sure use the ~~~same codebase to do actual relevant calculations between dcamprof and LPD... $0.02 from the crowd

I'll look into it at some point. But it's not as easy as it seems, almost everything affects the GUI in some way, it's not like adding it to a command line tool.
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2017, 02:27:02 PM »

I'll look into it at some point. But it's not as easy as it seems, almost everything affects the GUI in some way, it's not like adding it to a command line tool.

at least with the raw data CGATS' one can do the following = once GUI detects that you picked a text CGATS one, generate some dummy DNG file based on raw channel data from it and open it (DNG) in GUI to proceed to work as normal, as if that DNG was from the camera... quick and dirty plug

Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2017, 04:43:08 PM »

Find and fixed that bug, was due to that vsnprintf() is not C99 compliant on Windows :-\ . Hopefully I will make a patch release this weekend to fix that. I want to fix it quickly because it basically means that you can't save multi-target projects on Windows (works on Mac as it's better at being C99 compliant) unless your filenames are short :), so it's a serious issue.

Released version 1.0.1:

    New: Added CMP Digital Target 8, glossy and matte versions.
    New: Added HutchColor HCT target.
    New: Command-W on MacOS will close project window.
    Fixed: wrong sub-target image shown in some situations.
    Fixed: crash when opening huge TIFF files.
    Fixed: broken file format on save (usually when using multi-target), windows-only bug.
Logged

Hening Bettermann

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
    • landshape.net
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2017, 05:27:24 PM »

@ post # 22:
> (in the end I knew of only two people that actually did SSF profiles,

+1 ;-)
That is for the Canon 5D2, where SSF Data are available.

So obviously, the gui version does not entirely replace the command line tool. Good that one has learned at least a little command line... :-)

Brad P

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2017, 02:07:28 AM »

Hi - this looks fantastic!

I just bought into the Hasselblad X1D system and their color profiles I find are already very good (compared to other camera manufactures anyway).  Having said that, for many years for my last few camera/lens systems, I have prepared camera profiles for different lighting conditions with the Colorchecker Passport.  That experience has already convinced me that camera profiles will meaningfully improve even Hasselblad's (apparently dual illuminate tungsten/daylight) hardwired profile even without yet testing that hypothesis (never mind the effects of polarizers, neutral density filters, day, night, shade and different lenses which I also profile).  Several questions:

1. What is the best target, quality-wise, to profile with Lumariver currently?  HutchColor, Passport, Digital SG, another?

2. Would your recommendation be the same for landscape shooters?  (Sunlight and shade are many of our primary lighting conditions). 

As a number of us will be, I am willing and actually want to spend up to a week or so to create profiles for my new camera under different lighting/lens/filter conditions.   In my view, these profiles are one of the best camera investments to be made in photography since God created the lens.  A printer or computer might win out too ... a close call. 


« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 02:13:06 AM by Brad P »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2017, 05:12:41 AM »

@ post # 22:
> (in the end I knew of only two people that actually did SSF profiles,

+1 ;-)
That is for the Canon 5D2, where SSF Data are available.

So obviously, the gui version does not entirely replace the command line tool. Good that one has learned at least a little command line... :-)

I'm going to do a "middle way", the next patch release will have an extra "Custom Target with Raw Values". You will still need to load a target image (where the profile is applied, camera model and baseline exposure is taken if DNG), but the image doesn't need to contain a target. That way you can import CGATS with pre-scanned values, and you can use DCamProf to make CGATS with raw values derived from SSF, or scan with RawDigger if you prefer that. With the ability to load pre-scanned values I think it's overkill to make SSF support directly inside.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2017, 05:21:14 AM »

Hi - this looks fantastic!

I just bought into the Hasselblad X1D system and their color profiles I find are already very good (compared to other camera manufactures anyway).  Having said that, for many years for my last few camera/lens systems, I have prepared camera profiles for different lighting conditions with the Colorchecker Passport.  That experience has already convinced me that camera profiles will meaningfully improve even Hasselblad's (apparently dual illuminate tungsten/daylight) hardwired profile even without yet testing that hypothesis (never mind the effects of polarizers, neutral density filters, day, night, shade and different lenses which I also profile).  Several questions:

1. What is the best target, quality-wise, to profile with Lumariver currently?  HutchColor, Passport, Digital SG, another?

2. Would your recommendation be the same for landscape shooters?  (Sunlight and shade are many of our primary lighting conditions). 

As a number of us will be, I am willing and actually want to spend up to a week or so to create profiles for my new camera under different lighting/lens/filter conditions.   In my view, these profiles are one of the best camera investments to be made in photography since God created the lens.  A printer or computer might win out too ... a close call.

For reflective targets my current opinion is that the X-Rite targets have the best quality, good finish and smooth varied spectral shapes. The Digital SG is very good, but semi-glossy and just as any glossy target I wouldn't recommend shooting it in anything but excellent setups where every precaution is made to minimize glare. The colorchecker passport or classic 24 is a good matte target, and as it's matte is more robust for non-optimal target shots.

A general recommendation is that if you're making reproduction profiles you should have a target with broad coverage, like the Digital SG or maybe even one of the huge targets (those generally have less than perfect spectral qualities though), while for general-purpose when you''re more likely to hand-tune and adjust looks a smaller target like the CC24 is better suited.

If you're making a scanner profile (which you aren't) using scanner-specific targets made of the same media as the media that will be scanned is the way to go.

Shooting target outdoors -- matte targets for sure as glare will be a problem, and concerning matte targets it's really hard to improve on the CC24.

Note that for Hasselblad there is a small quirk, as Lightroom is using proprietary Phocus profiles (AFAIK) rather than DNG profiles there are no "Adobe Standard" profiles to get the ACR Matrices from, so you can't use that feature with Hassy. It's not a big deal, the only thing it means is that you might get a small WB shift when switching between embedded profiles and your own custom profiles when the WB isn't "As Shot".
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 05:25:24 AM by torger »
Logged

ario

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2017, 12:32:01 PM »

Pls apologize for this very basic question.
Is there any real benefit in using well designed profiles vs fine tone/color tuning in LR/CO (or others) starting from the canned profiles? I have already purchased the Lumariver Profile Designer and I am trying to get the best out of it.
TIA
Ario
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2017, 02:03:08 PM »

Pls apologize for this very basic question.
Is there any real benefit in using well designed profiles vs fine tone/color tuning in LR/CO (or others) starting from the canned profiles? I have already purchased the Lumariver Profile Designer and I am trying to get the best out of it.

I think there are many more or less subtle benefits that adds up. I think most photographers are quite hard to convince of the meaning of profiling your camera, and that's why camera profiling has stayed a niche mostly related to reproduction work. There's this idea that no matter which colors the camera start out with you can with post-processing adjustments in the raw converter get the colors to where you want, combined with that many do so heavy post-processing that there's not much left of the original color.

I don't think that it's that easy, the original color will shine through in one way or another. But even if you don't think it does there's the argument that why not start off with something you like, and something that's not way different between cameras and raw converters. Quite useful if you have more than one camera to be able to match them so you can carry your own look between different cameras more easily. I still see today that many switch from say LR to CO because of the colors, and well, you can fix that with a profile, you don't need to change raw converter... And why not start off with something that's actually neutral and realistic so you have a sane baseline. To me that's very important, I don't want a distorted starting point which someone else have designed, I actually want to know how my post-processing modify colors. I just don't get it why a modern camera shouldn't produce natural colors (and those working with product, architecture and other color-critical applications often say the same).

Say 10 years ago, camera sensor color filters responses differed a lot more than they do today. The hardware was often more saturated natively (with limited signal-to-noise ratio that was a wise design choice) and harder for a profile to control. Today camera hardware is more similar and matters less while profiles can control more of the final outcome. Knowing that you have the tools to control the color regardless of camera brand or model or raw converter at least I think is valuable.

Others may like it that their brand makes the look, a view not the least common in medium format community where there's a lot of prestige in the way colors are rendered and it's almost an insult if you claim you can improve on that :). There's string quite strong mythology around colors of certain brands. But actually, it's not so much about improving a look, it's about being in control of the color and make profiles that are aligned with your own taste, rather than adapting the taste to someone else. That said, it's not easy to make any crazy look with Lumariver Profile Designer, it's anchored in neutrality and realism and you work from there. So it helps if one at least has some interest in maintaining some of that.

To all this you can say -- "I don't care, I'm happy with canned looks the manufacturers and raw converters provide", and many do, and I'm fine with that. I'm not trying to convince everyone.

I see quite different approaches using Lumariver Profile Designer too. You have one group that runs the auto mode and are happy with the default neutral & realistic profile it produces, and you have another group that spends hours and hours fine-tuning and creating their look of their own, and come up with things that are very different from how I design my profiles, and I love to see that the software is not locking in people in "my" preferred look either. For those that spend time with the software and tuning profiles for different cameras there's the added benefit that you gain a feel and understanding of how colors work, what you like and not, how cameras differ (they do a little still) etc.

So there's some sort of answer. If my company actually had any marketing people they would have stopped this project before it started :) , there really isn't a one-liner slogan that everyone will understand and appreciate. Or maybe there is... if so I haven't figured it out.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 02:27:01 PM by torger »
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2017, 02:31:09 PM »

I'm going to do a "middle way", the next patch release will have an extra "Custom Target with Raw Values". You will still need to load a target image (where the profile is applied, camera model and baseline exposure is taken if DNG), but the image doesn't need to contain a target. That way you can import CGATS with pre-scanned values, and you can use DCamProf to make CGATS with raw values derived from SSF, or scan with RawDigger if you prefer that. With the ability to load pre-scanned values I think it's overkill to make SSF support directly inside.

does it mean that I can use dcamprof to generate some artificial target using SSF data ("dcamprof make-target") and then load this file ("The file format is Argyll’s .ti3, with some DCamProf extensions. ") ? if so a nice point to take over dcamprof under the circumstances ...
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2017, 02:39:47 PM »

baseline exposure is taken if DNG

do you override this with the control in GUI or the value dialied in GUI is added to the value from DNG ?
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 593
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2017, 02:44:24 PM »

for DCP (two tabs for targets/illuminants) can we have in each tab a button saying something like "copy all settings from the other tab" ?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 02:48:21 PM by scyth »
Logged

parhelic14

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2017, 12:57:02 AM »

I try to build a profile for DXO optics pro.
From the menu, I choose "export image for ICC profile" and "export as realistic color rendering"
Here is what I got.

Obviously, it's not linear.
How do I extract the curve? Any tools?
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2017, 04:59:05 AM »

does it mean that I can use dcamprof to generate some artificial target using SSF data ("dcamprof make-target") and then load this file ("The file format is Argyll’s .ti3, with some DCamProf extensions. ") ? if so a nice point to take over dcamprof under the circumstances ...

Yes, that will work, actually using that as a test case. I'll try to release it quite soon.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3242
Re: New profile making software: Lumariver Profile Designer
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2017, 05:18:20 AM »

I try to build a profile for DXO optics pro.
From the menu, I choose "export image for ICC profile" and "export as realistic color rendering"
Here is what I got.

Obviously, it's not linear.
How do I extract the curve? Any tools?

The way I make DxO Optics profiles is to export "Linear RAW" instead of "realistic color rendering" so you get a linear image. Actually I'm not sure what the "realistic color rendering" mode does. Looking at the image it seems like it has done a normal rendering with its own ICC profiles and exported it to a TIFF with AdobeRGB profile. That could suit a really old-school workflow when you add an extra ICC profile on top of the normal export. However the best way for Lumariver Profile Designer would be to use the export "Linear RAW" so it gets to work directly on the camera's (white balanced) raw data.

LRPD will in any case auto-detect the embedded AdobeRGB profile and from that understand how to linearize the data, so it should be possible to make an ICC profile from that image too, not sure how you apply it later though (I have only tried the Linear RAW mode). You can open the tone curve dialog and change the template to "Target TF" to see what transfer function that has been detected.

Note that the CCSG shots from Imaging Resource like you seem to be using here normally suffers quite a lot of glare, so often it helps using the (experimental) glare compensation checkbox when using these shots.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Up