Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?  (Read 8587 times)

kwalsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« on: October 05, 2009, 01:24:49 pm »

Does anyone know of any tools, probably DNG related I'd guess, that would allow me to extract RAW sensor data and then after modifying it write it back to the same RAW format?  I'm trying to do a variety of pre-demosaic exposure merges on RAW files.

I see that I can extract RAW unmolested sensor data to TIFF with dcraw, but I have no way to write data back to a RAW file with that tool.

Yes, I'm aware there is a DNG SDK, but I'm not looking to do a C++ development.  Hoping for command line tools if they exist.  Perhaps there is a clever way to use some TIFF based tools to both extract and write back the RAW sensor data from a DNG file (since DNG is based on the TIFF spec)?

Help, please, anybody?!?!?  It seems like with nigh on a decade of the existence of RAW data that something like this would exist!

Thanks,

   Ken
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2009, 03:49:07 pm »

Quote from: kwalsh
Does anyone know of any tools, probably DNG related I'd guess, that would allow me to extract RAW sensor data and then after modifying it write it back to the same RAW format?  I'm trying to do a variety of pre-demosaic exposure merges on RAW files.

One word of advice: Don't. There are several reasons why this is a very bad idea, which is why no one has bothered to do it already.

First off, RAW is your original, unprocessed, virgin negative. Don't alter it. Save altered image files as something else, like the demosaiced 16-bit linear RGB flavor of DNG.

Second, if you're merging multiple images, whether for HDR, focus stacking, pano stitching, or anything else, you're going to have to demosaic the image data. Any merging or stacking has to be able to correct for some degree of misalignment between images, which means the Bayer patterns in the RAWs aren't going to align when the images are aligned. If your processing requires perfect pixel-level registration of all frames, it's useless in most real-world shooting situations except perhaps studio still lifes of static subject matter. And even then, you couldn't do anything that involved adjusting focus between exposures. So you have to interpolate to RGB and process the images as RGB. Once you've done that, converting back to Bayer-pattern would be totally retarded, because then you'd have to re-interpolate back to RGB, and the image quality hit you'd suffer as a result would offset any benefits you might gain from whatever merge processing you're trying to do.

Instead of altering your original RAW file with potentially disastrous consequences, output to the linear RGB flavor of DNG. You can process images from a wide variety of cameras in a common file format (meaning much less work for you) and still process the images with most of the advantages of working with the original RAWs.
Logged

kwalsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2009, 10:51:34 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
First off, RAW is your original, unprocessed, virgin negative. Don't alter it. Save altered image files as something else, like the demosaiced 16-bit linear RGB flavor of DNG.

Well, naturally I'm not stupid enough to overwrite my original RAW file (at least I hope I'm not)!

Quote
Second, if you're merging multiple images, whether for HDR, focus stacking, pano stitching, or anything else, you're going to have to demosaic the image data.

This guy did it with great success entirely in the pre-demosaiced domain (yes, tripod mounted, but all my shots are always tripod mounted):

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/virt...aw/index_en.htm

He even noted some advantages to having done it pre-demosaiced as opposed to the standard post-demosaic approach.  However, he had a software developer friend write the code that wrote the modified RAW data to DNG.  

I do disagree with your assertion that alignment is always necessary.  I've done enough HDR to know that in many of my properly tripod mounted and hands-off exposed HDR brackets the alignment step often degrades the image rather than improves it.  With a stable platform and a static scene exposure alignment is not necessary and sometimes is detrimental.

Quote
Instead of altering your original RAW file with potentially disastrous consequences, output to the linear RGB flavor of DNG. You can process images from a wide variety of cameras in a common file format (meaning much less work for you) and still process the images with most of the advantages of working with the original RAWs.

This won't work for what I'm trying to do.  I'm trying to create a master RAW file for B&W conversions made from two or three exposures, each optimized for ETTR on a single color channel.  The big suck in B&W conversion is that most landscapes are best with a heavy red conversion.  Unfortunately the R channel is almost always significantly underexposed in daylight with most sensors, often by more than a stop.  You can't just crank the exposure and clip the green channel because that is where the bulk of the luminance channel is.  Options include a magenta filter, standard HDR, or this approach I'm trying to explore.  In the end the magenta filter or the standard HDR may prove to be as good or superior, but I won't know until I try.  Hence the question.

Anyway, I appreciate your advice and input, thanks for replying!

Ken
Logged

EduPerez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 700
    • Edu Pérez
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2009, 02:33:47 am »

By your own description, aren't you trying to do exactly what Guillermo did with Zero Noise?
Logged

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2009, 07:04:04 am »

Wouldn't it be better to use a magenta filter so you can balance the green and red channels?
Logged
Eric Chan

ejmartin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2009, 08:14:01 am »

There are all sorts of RAW processing techniques that it would be fun to try (particularly with regard to noise processing), and then be able to use one's favorite RAW software to do a conversion, but currently this is not possible that I am aware.  Currently, the only software that allows editing of RAW comes from the astrophotography community (e.g. IRIS) but these are clumsy workflow tools for conventional photography.  I would very much like a RAW program which allows one to edit the RAW data and then output to undemosaiced DNG.  It need only be something that extracts the RAW to an output file which can be edited, then in the other direction takes the edited RAW data file and the original RAW file as inputs, substitutes the edited RAW data file for the original RAW data and outputs to undemosaiced DNG (with all the rest of the metadata from the original RAW file) that can be interpreted by any converter.
Logged
emil

kwalsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2009, 08:52:16 am »

Quote from: EduPerez
By your own description, aren't you trying to do exactly what Guillermo did with Zero Noise?

Well, close but not the same.  Guillermo uses a spatial mapping to pick data from either exposure 1 or exposure 2.  What I was thinking of doing was taking say three exposures - one exposed to the right for the red channel, one exposed to the right for the green channel, and one exposed to the right for the blue channel.  Then just combine the three channels into a single RAW file for B&W processing.  Now, it could very well be that what Guillermo has already done might prove superior to what I was thinking of trying.  I was thinking if it was something I could try with command line tools and a few hours of effort why not - but it appears there aren't such tools.

Quote from: madmanchan
Wouldn't it be better to use a magenta filter so you can balance the green and red channels?

Yes, this is in many ways an excellent approach as you can do it with a single exposure and no tripod.  But finding a good multi-coated magenta filter is troublesome (though for the camera I was going to use it appears a Hoya FL-W filter gets close and is available multi-coated), when combined with a polarizer is a lot of glass, and some lenses (my ultra-wide) don't accept filters.

Quote from: ejmartin
There are all sorts of RAW processing techniques that it would be fun to try (particularly with regard to noise processing), and then be able to use one's favorite RAW software to do a conversion, but currently this is not possible that I am aware.  Currently, the only software that allows editing of RAW comes from the astrophotography community (e.g. IRIS) but these are clumsy workflow tools for conventional photography.

Yep, you and I are on the same page.  I'm not sure my one exposure per channel idea is really worth the trouble, but if a simple RAW data extract/RAW data insert software were available it would be really easy to try.  And I'd love to try some other things too.  dcraw will let you extract the RAW CFA data to a TIFF, what is missing is a tool that would take that same TIFF CFA data and shove it back into the RAW file.  Clearly the DNG SDK could be used to do this, and I suspect since really you don't care about all the metadata and only the CFA data that even a TIFF library would do the job.  I did find code to import DNG into Matlab, but again nothing to put it back.  Thanks for the pointer to IRIS, a lot of neat features, but like you said a painful workflow and it doesn't appear to write RAW files readable by any normal RAW converter.

Well thanks everyone, it sounds like I haven't somehow overlooked the magic software I was looking for in all my google searches.  Maybe one day I'll try out the DNG SDK - but at the moment this particular idea I'm exploring probably has too low a probability of being worthwhile for me to want to take the effort.

Thanks again,

  Ken
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2009, 09:20:09 am »

Quote from: kwalsh
Well, naturally I'm not stupid enough to overwrite my original RAW file (at least I hope I'm not)!



This guy did it with great success entirely in the pre-demosaiced domain (yes, tripod mounted, but all my shots are always tripod mounted):

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/virt...aw/index_en.htm

He even noted some advantages to having done it pre-demosaiced as opposed to the standard post-demosaic approach.  However, he had a software developer friend write the code that wrote the modified RAW data to DNG.

You're looking at an old version of the project that required pixel-perfect alignment of the source images to work properly. The newer version is working with demosaiced RGB data and doing alignment corrections, but leaving the demosaiced data in linear RGB form to do the blending. Then it exports to 16-bit linear RGB DNG. Read this thread in its entirety to see how the final version (not released yet) works.

A pixel or so of misalignment is actually a good thing when blending Bayer-pattern RAWs, as it gives one actual uninterpolated data from more than one color channel for each output pixel. For example, if you have two images that are misaligned by one pixel horizontally, each output channel will contain an either measured values for the red and green channels and an interpolated value for the blue channel, or measured values for the green and blue channels and an interpolated value for the red channel. It may be that one of the measured values is noisy or clipped, but in no case is there any disadvantage to the misalignment; having an extra channel of real uninterpolated data more than offsets the disadvantage of potential sharpness loss due to alignment.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2009, 02:42:14 pm »

There's another reason writing back to the RAW format is stupid: unless you're shooting with a digital back, the RAW format is limited to 12 or 14 bits. If you're exposure blending to increase captured DR, limiting yourself to 12 bits is going to leave you with quantization noise problems in the shadows 4 stops sooner than a 16-bit format. Why go through the hassle of shooting and blending multiple exposures, and then waste the effort by saving the results in a format that isn't designed to handle it?
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2009, 03:26:15 pm »

1. Using a magenta filter does not increase the DR more than 0.5 EV.

2. There is an easy way to achieve to manipulate the raw data, if it is not lossy:

a. convert the raw file in uncompressed DNG,

b. extract the raw data (it is in a single block),

c. load it in Photoshop as RAW (you need to specify the pixel dimensions and bit depth),

d. do with it whatever you want to,

e. create another DNG file; the part before and after the raw data needs to be copied around the updated raw data. This is the easiest step, it can be cone in MS command mode by COPY.

However, difficulties may arise:

a. with raw data, whoch does not start from 0 (Canon, Sony, Olympus),

b. if the pixel value range increases by the modification (the WhiteLevel value needs to be adjusted).
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 03:28:27 pm by Panopeeper »
Logged
Gabor

EduPerez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 700
    • Edu Pérez
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2009, 04:46:24 pm »

Quote from: kwalsh
Guillermo uses a spatial mapping to pick data from either exposure 1 or exposure 2.  What I was thinking of doing was taking say three exposures - one exposed to the right for the red channel, one exposed to the right for the green channel, and one exposed to the right for the blue channel.  Then just combine the three channels into a single RAW file for B&W processing.  Now, it could very well be that what Guillermo has already done might prove superior to what I was thinking of trying.  I was thinking if it was something I could try with command line tools and a few hours of effort why not - but it appears there aren't such tools.
[...]
I see... no, you are not doing exactly the same as Guillermo. I would try the following approach:
  • Take three exposures, each one properly exposed for each channel.
  • Use a raw converter to generate 3 TIFF files; but when converting each file, use the channel mixer to nullify all channels but the channel which is properly exposed in that file.
  • Load the 3 TIFF files as layers and play with them.
You will be doing weird things with the demosaicing algorithms, but I think it is worth a try.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 04:48:34 pm by EduPerez »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2009, 06:02:28 pm »

Quote from: EduPerez
You will be doing weird things with the demosaicing algorithms, but I think it is worth a try.

I disagree. The maximum increase in captured DR cannot be any greater than using a magenta filter, and you have an extremely kludgy workflow with all the disadvantages inherent to blending multiple captures (alignment corrections, problems with subject movement, etc.). All of the disadvantages + none of the advantages = don't bother. If you want to increase captured DR, blending bracketed linear RGB images is the best way to go.
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2009, 03:05:57 pm »

Ken, which camera are you thinking of?

(I have read your latest post, and then everything went blank and now all newer posts are gone.)
Logged
Gabor

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2009, 05:08:40 pm »

The demosaic version of Zero Noise worked perfect for me until now, that's why I didn't put too much effort in having a DNG output version. In fact this demosaic version allows to apply the gamma curve altogether with all the exposure reduction floating point calculations obtaining 16-bit TIFF files with a very much higher tonal richness than any 16-bit linear DNG can encode. The 16-bit TIFF files produced by ZN are nearly virtually impossible to posterize, no matter how noise-free they become when many input RAW files are merged.

But things have changed: with my recently purchased 5D (Mark I), I am quite disappointed with the results obtained with DCRAW development: the camera generates far more hot pixels than my 350D with exposures several seconds long (I never used the long exposure NR on my 350D, but will have to activate it on the 5D), and DCRAW doesn't fix them while ACR does. Also moire (specially that disgusting demosaicing colour moire), is much better handled in ACR than in DCRAW.

In brief, I would like to have a DNG output version for Zero Noise so that I have the best of both worlds: a free of noise (HDR) DNG file, and proper RAW development. As soon as I have some time I'll go for it again,  just needing someone who can build an undemosaiced DNG from undemosaiced data. For the very 1.0 version it could even be DNG to DNG, so that the only change between the original and output file are the data values.

Perhaps Gabor can give some advice on the info needed to be taken into account to build the output DNG (colour matrices, WB multipliers,... metadata in general). BTW there is already a C++ version of Zero Noise running some 4 times faster than my VB ZN. As soon as the guy who translated it has some more time I'll try to convince him to take the Adobe SDK for DNG handling. I recently installed Visual Express C++ on my laptop to be able to compile the C++ project, but next time I booted the PC it didn't start. I had to restablish it to a previous state   , without knowing what happened, so I am not sure what to do next.

Regards
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 05:19:02 pm by GLuijk »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2009, 05:35:38 pm »

Might I suggest the following workflow:

1. Convert the original RAWs to demosaiced RGB DNGs. This gives you access to ACR's demosaic abilities and moire reduction, while retaining the advantages of working with linear-gamma images--not having to commit to an output color space, etc.

2. Combine the demosaiced DNGs in Zero Noise.

3. Output to either 16-bit TIFF or RGB DNG.

I'm looking at this workflow for an image processing tool I'm writing. It's purpose is to duplicate or improve on DXO's image correction capabilities, but allow users to make their own custom camera/lens correction profiles instead of having to shell out big $$$ for a limited selection of canned profiles. If all goes as planned, it will correct barrel, pincushion, and mustache distortions, vignetting, transverse and longitudinal chromatic aberrations, spherical aberrations, coma, etc. for prime, zoom, and shift lenses.

Perhaps we could discuss this further offline. PM me if interested.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 06:04:58 pm by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

sandymc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2009, 07:26:03 am »

Quote from: GLuijk
just needing someone who can build an undemosaiced DNG from undemosaiced data.

I've done that, via the Adobe DNG SDK; happy to donate some C++ code. PM/email me if that's useful.

Sandy
Logged

kwalsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2009, 09:51:02 am »

Whoops, my posts disappeared into the overnight black hole the other day.  Re post here...

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
There's another reason writing back to the RAW format is stupid: unless you're shooting with a digital back, the RAW format is limited to 12 or 14 bits. If you're exposure blending to increase captured DR, limiting yourself to 12 bits is going to leave you with quantization noise problems in the shadows 4 stops sooner than a 16-bit format.

Doesn't apply in my case, I'm only copying the R, G and B channels from individual exposures.  No tone curves, no expansion of the DR of any individual channel data, just direct copies.  So 12-bits in, 12-bits out.  No quantization problems.

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
The maximum increase in captured DR cannot be any greater than using a magenta filter,

Not really true.  A magenta filter affects R and B identically.  On my camera, in daylight, the R channel is 2/3 stop lower than the B channel.  Under clouds or in open shade it is even worse.  So a magenta filter does little to help my R channel - the most important channel for my B&W conversions.  Yeah, in theory I could carry around a whole set of CC filters and stack them based on lighting conditions...  Actually, for B&W conversions I may use a Wratten 15.  It cuts at 530nm, right in the middle of the G channel.  It gives me equal R and G channels in daylight and has the added benefit of taking most of the G channel from the red end of its spectral response.  Of course I lose the B, but I'm usually dropping that in my B&W conversions anyway.

Quote
and you have an extremely kludgy workflow with all the disadvantages inherent to blending multiple captures (alignment corrections, problems with subject movement, etc.). All of the disadvantages + none of the advantages = don't bother. If you want to increase captured DR, blending bracketed linear RGB images is the best way to go.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that if I'm going to bother with multiple exposures that in the end a standard HDR merging approach is as good or superior to what I'm proposing to try - just as you suggest.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to try, and that is why I'm asking about tools for repacking RAW data that has been modified.

Quote from: Panopeeper
a. convert the raw file in uncompressed DNG,
e. create another DNG file; the part before and after the raw data needs to be copied around the updated raw data. This is the easiest step, it can be cone in MS command mode by COPY.

Good idea, I hadn't realized there was an uncompressed DNG format.  That would be a pretty easy task to do extraction and then just write back to the same offset.  Thanks for the suggestion!

Quote
However, difficulties may arise:

Yes, many!  I'm only trying to do something for B&W conversion so at least many of the color disasters that might occur are less of an issue.

Quote from: Panopeeper
Ken, which camera are you thinking of?

At the moment I'm doing this on a Panasonic G1.
Logged

kwalsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2009, 09:54:29 am »

Quote from: GLuijk
But things have changed: with my recently purchased 5D (Mark I), I am quite disappointed with the results obtained with DCRAW development: the camera generates far more hot pixels than my 350D with exposures several seconds long (I never used the long exposure NR on my 350D, but will have to activate it on the 5D), and DCRAW doesn't fix them while ACR does. Also moire (specially that disgusting demosaicing colour moire), is much better handled in ACR than in DCRAW.

FYI, I'm pretty sure you can make DCRAW handle hot pixels.  I think the difference is that you have to create a text file for it with the locations of the hot pixels.  Of course you'd still have the objectionable color moire problem.  By the way, I've really enjoyed the articles on your web site.

Ken
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2009, 03:05:36 pm »

Quote from: kwalsh
Not really true.  A magenta filter affects R and B identically.  On my camera, in daylight, the R channel is 2/3 stop lower than the B channel.  Under clouds or in open shade it is even worse.  So a magenta filter does little to help my R channel - the most important channel for my B&W conversions.  Yeah, in theory I could carry around a whole set of CC filters and stack them based on lighting conditions...

You're wrong. There are magenta filters out there specifically designed to balance RAW channels to maximize single-exposure DR, which do not affect R and B channels equally. If you use one of those, you'll get the same DR benefit as combining three separate exposures, without the workflow hassle and alignment issues, etc. But you're still going to get a much larger boost to captured DR if you blend bracketed exposures 3 or so stops apart instead of what you're trying to do.

The linear-RGB flavor of DNG is uncompressed.

Quote
Doesn't apply in my case, I'm only copying the R, G and B channels from individual exposures. No tone curves, no expansion of the DR of any individual channel data, just direct copies. So 12-bits in, 12-bits out. No quantization problems.

Only because you're pursuing a rather pointless method for increasing captured DR. If you blend bracketed exposures, you can create an output image that can goes beyond the quantization limits of a 12-bit RAW.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 03:19:59 pm by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

kwalsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 101
Read/Modify/Write RAW data tools?
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2009, 05:35:08 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
You're wrong. There are magenta filters out there specifically designed to balance RAW channels to maximize single-exposure DR, which do not affect R and B channels equally. If you use one of those, you'll get the same DR benefit as combining three separate exposures, without the workflow hassle and alignment issues, etc. But you're still going to get a much larger boost to captured DR if you blend bracketed exposures 3 or so stops apart instead of what you're trying to do.

That's pretty cool, are they glass multicoated filters?  Do you special order them with the CC mix you want?  I've looked and searched a number of threads and pages on Uni and I've never seen these.  I've just seen people use polyester or gelatin CC filters in most cases - personally I'll take the hit in sensor DR before tolerating the flare and loss of contrast from those methods.  If you've got a manufacturer name or source that would be most cool.  And yes, I totally agree that a *good* filter would be a far superior method - at least for lenses that accept filters.

Quote
Only because you're pursuing a rather pointless method for increasing captured DR. If you blend bracketed exposures, you can create an output image that can goes beyond the quantization limits of a 12-bit RAW.

Yes, yes, we all know you think it is a stupid idea.  And I don't entirely disagree with you.  But you seem to have an attitude that only a person with severe brain damage would ever want to tweak RAW data.  That was my primary question, what can I use to easily edit RAW data.  The endless "your method sucks" comments aren't really contributing an answer to that question, nor is the myopic viewpoint that processing demosaiced data is the only reasonable approach to doing any image processing.  I'm interested in editing RAW data for a large number of reasons and I've never bothered experimenting because of the barrier to writing it back.  That's why I'm asking.  I do enjoy discussing this particular approach, but I'm already acutely aware of all of the flaws you've pointed out in the method and that there are plenty of other ways to do it.  But frankly, I don't give a crap, I want to play with the RAW data myself.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up