Sinar e75LV problem with Brumbaer eMotionDNG

[filmcapture]

I recently bought a Sinar eMotion 75LV digital back, and after finishing some shots, I encounter a problem with Brumbaer's eMotionDNG.

I simply drag the Sinar RAW file folder which contains IA, BR and WR files into the eMotionDNG window, but I find there are lots of stuck (white) pixels in the DNG files. Instead, if I go for Sinar eXposure, virtually all stuck pixels are gone. I am not sure if the Brumbaer tool is not used properly, or Sinar's eXposure has an algorithm to mask those stuck pixels though they are indeed located in the CCD sensor. Your opinions shall be appreciated.

[David Klepacki]

The Brumbaer tool relies on a sensor reference file that used to be supplied on a CD with the back.  I believe Sinar now embeds this reference data within the back itself.  So, the eXposure software knows where to find this information, but the Brumbaer tool does not.

Most of the features of the Brumbaer tool are now incorporated into the eXposure software.  While the Brumbaer tool was a significant contribution at the time, I find that I no longer need it and now use eXposure in my workflow.

[Kumar]

Perhaps this thread might be of help http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39071

Cheers,
Kumar

[filmcapture]

Thanks, David. I used to have a Phase One P25, and I am now trying to find out if the DNG files can be processed by Capture One as well. I just downloaded a trial version of C1 5.0, it's interesting C1 can process the DNG files generated by eMotionDNG without any problem, but it has processing errors for those created by eXposure. That's why I try to stick with Brumbaer tools. I do have the original CD for my Sinar DB, I'll give it one more try if those stuck pixels could be eliminated. Anyway, the Sinar back is new to me, there should have a learning curve. Thanks again!

[rainer_v]

Thanks, David. I used to have a Phase One P25, and I am now trying to find out if the DNG files can be processed by Capture One as well. I just downloaded a trial version of C1 5.0, it's interesting C1 can process the DNG files generated by eMotionDNG without any problem, but it has processing errors for those created by eXposure. That's why I try to stick with Brumbaer tools. I do have the original CD for my Sinar DB, I'll give it one more try if those stuck pixels could be eliminated. Anyway, the Sinar back is new to me, there should have a learning curve. Thanks again!

interesting. i never tried the brumbaer dngs with c1.

but i am afraid you will have bad luck.
brumbaer dont interpretate the ref. files with the new generation of emotion backs ( with the newer firmwares , i dont emember which was the first of such fw ), so this are dead pixels cause the ref file isnt eliminating them. might be one bit  which is different, stefan stopped to update his programm and than they changed something in the ref and fw. code which made it uncompatible.
well done as many things like this, but this companies never care compatibility except with their own stuff.  i never could understand such thinking, its a part of the digging of their own graves these mf companies are doing.

but, btw. try the new LR, i.m.o. its very god how adobe improves and improves their processing. alternatively RPP is very good if not the best converter available. i personally dont like C! too much, cause its always sharpening even at default "ß" settings, and this can create problems if  making very big sizes upinterpolating.

[Mitchell Baum]

Rainer,

Two dumb questions in a row:

The original Sinar e 75LV conversion has to be done in eXposure before one goes to Lightroom, right?

What is RPP?      OK, I found RPP's site, but I notice they don't support Sinar. Does this mean you convert in eXposure and then adjust in RPP?

Thanks, and thanks for all your contributions in the past.

Best,

Mitchell

[ThierryH]

Rainer,

Two dumb questions in a row:

The original Sinar e 75LV conversion has to be done in eXposure before one goes to Lightroom, right?

Mitchell

Dear Mitchell,

Yes, Sinar's raw files have to be and are converted into DNGs only in eXposure.

Best regards,
Thierry

[Mitchell Baum]

Thanks Thierry,

You are so helpful as usual.

That's what I thought.

But, I guess Rainer is saying that both Lightroom 3 and RPP do a good job adjusting the DNG that comes out of eXposure?

Best,

Mitchell

[ThierryH]

But, I guess Rainer is saying that both Lightroom 3 and RPP do a good job adjusting the DNG that comes out of eXposure?

Best,

Mitchell

That's right, Mitchell, Rainer was speaking about the produced DNGs.

Best regards,
Thierry

[Mitchell Baum]

Theirry,

Thanks so much.

Mitchell

[JdeV]

interesting. i never tried the brumbaer dngs with c1.

but i am afraid you will have bad luck.
brumbaer dont interpretate the ref. files with the new generation of emotion backs ( with the newer firmwares , i dont emember which was the first of such fw ), so this are dead pixels cause the ref file isnt eliminating them. might be one bit  which is different, stefan stopped to update his programm and than they changed something in the ref and fw. code which made it uncompatible.
well done as many things like this, but this companies never care compatibility except with their own stuff.  i never could understand such thinking, its a part of the digging of their own graves these mf companies are doing.

but, btw. try the new LR, i.m.o. its very god how adobe improves and improves their processing. alternatively RPP is very good if not the best converter available. i personally dont like C! too much, cause its always sharpening even at default "ß" settings, and this can create problems if  making very big sizes upinterpolating.

Hi,
I wondered how RPP compares with Raw Developer. Have you done a comparison?
(By the way, I agree with you absolutely about Capture One.).
Cheers,
Jonathan

[rainer_v]

In prefer RPP, but since the 3beta i am back with LR.

[rethmeier]

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html

[baudolino]

Hi, here is my experience: I have a large magenta color stuck pixel on my emotion 75LV which only shows when I process the raw images in Brumbaer and then edit in C1 or Iridient Raw Developer (IRD). With IRD however, the hot pixel or whatever it is disappears if I shift the hot pixel threshold slider one position to the left (it's in the SharpNR menu). The hot pixel does not show if I process the DNGs generated by Brumbaer in Lightroom (2.5 or beta 3, doesn't matter); it seems that Lightroom has some way of correcting this automatically. The hot pixel also used to show in eXposure but I downloaded the latest version today and while it showed up initially in the first three or so pictures, it does not show anymore now (don't know why). Captureshop also seems to fix the problem automatically (and surprisingly, the latest version downloaded from the Sinar website is lightyears faster than the one that came on the CD with the back). To make a long story short, the only "problematic" combination seems to be Brumbaer DNGs edited in C1, as C1 does not have a way to correct hot pixels (or at least I haven't figured it out yet). Not sure if eXposure -> C1 shows the problem, haven't tried that. My workflow is Brumbaer (calibrated) -> Lightroom; I am thinking about changing to eXposure for DNG generation but eXposure still puzzles me a big way.... I hope this helps. Martin

I recently bought a Sinar eMotion 75LV digital back, and after finishing some shots, I encounter a problem with Brumbaer's eMotionDNG.

I simply drag the Sinar RAW file folder which contains IA, BR and WR files into the eMotionDNG window, but I find there are lots of stuck (white) pixels in the DNG files. Instead, if I go for Sinar eXposure, virtually all stuck pixels are gone. I am not sure if the Brumbaer tool is not used properly, or Sinar's eXposure has an algorithm to mask those stuck pixels though they are indeed located in the CCD sensor. Your opinions shall be appreciated.

[bdp]

What puzzles you about eXposure? I use it every day for tethered shooting and processing finished files for clients with no need for any other work in Photoshop usually. Sinar have made it quite easy to understand in my opinion - it looks similar to most other raw processors in structure, function and gui. There is a comprehensive help and people like your dealer or the friendly LL community are there if you need specific help with something. I don't deny it does lack some of the finer features of other processors and may be a little harder to fine tune your pictures to the degree possible in LR but it is fast and stable and worth getting to know. You can always request new features from Sinar in future versions - that is the only way they will know what people want.

[David Klepacki]

My workflow is Brumbaer (calibrated) -> Lightroom; I am thinking about changing to eXposure for DNG generation but eXposure still puzzles me a big way.... I hope this helps.

In the eXposure browser window, just drag the captured files into a folder on your computer.  That's it.  You will then have a folder of DNG files on your computer that can be processed by Lightroom if you wish.   eXposure also includes more metadata in the generated DNG files than Brumbaer (e.g., lens aperture), which may be useful for digital asset management of your images.

[baudolino]

What puzzles me about eXposure? Well, not the basic functionality but the seeming absence of logic in some operations. An example: I take an exposure under tungsten light - I set the WB on the back to the "Tungsten" setting, I set the input profile in eXposure to the eMotion 75 Tungsten 2009 profile, and I also choose Tungsten as the WB setting in the eXposure processing pane. Why on earth is the image still yellow/orange? Why does the Kelvin reading stay at 5500 when I set WB in the eXposure processing pane to Tungsten? Makes no sense to me (of course I can move the slider to 2850 but by that time my confidence in the software or my ability to use it starts to evaporate. Another issue: why do the previews show severe moire (magenta/cyan edges) where there is none after I enlarge the image with the loupe tool?

I had other issues with the version of eXposure that came on the CD with the back - all images imported with a severe dark green cast, calibration was entirely counter-intuitive (still don't know if the software was applying my calibration settings only to one image or all subsequent images, unfortunately the 6 page parody of a "manual" that came with the software did not help); when I tried to shoot the calibration target the software sometimes refused to acknowledge that I shot an image (in the calibration window, after it prompted me to take a shot of the target, it did not react when I shot the image).

After I read your positive comments on eXposure here yesterday I downloaded the newest version from Sinar's website and actually managed to do some good conversions but still with the white balance issues outlined above (had to fix WB manually with the color picker tool, after that the resulting image was as good as a straight conversion from Captureshop - but in Captureshop, I did not have to touch the white balance.....). Thanks in advance for any suggestions on what I am doing wrong. Regards, Martin

What puzzles you about eXposure? I use it every day for tethered shooting and processing finished files for clients with no need for any other work in Photoshop usually. Sinar have made it quite easy to understand in my opinion - it looks similar to most other raw processors in structure, function and gui. There is a comprehensive help and people like your dealer or the friendly LL community are there if you need specific help with something. I don't deny it does lack some of the finer features of other processors and may be a little harder to fine tune your pictures to the degree possible in LR but it is fast and stable and worth getting to know. You can always request new features from Sinar in future versions - that is the only way they will know what people want.

[ThierryH]

What puzzles me about eXposure? Well, not the basic functionality but the seeming absence of logic in some operations. An example: I take an exposure under tungsten light - I set the WB on the back to the "Tungsten" setting, I set the input profile in eXposure to the eMotion 75 Tungsten 2009 profile, and I also choose Tungsten as the WB setting in the eXposure processing pane. Why on earth is the image still yellow/orange? Why does the Kelvin reading stay at 5500 when I set WB in the eXposure processing pane to Tungsten? Makes no sense to me (of course I can move the slider to 2850 but by that time my confidence in the software or my ability to use it starts to evaporate. Another issue: why do the previews show severe moire (magenta/cyan edges) where there is none after I enlarge the image with the loupe tool?

I had other issues with the version of eXposure that came on the CD with the back - all images imported with a severe dark green cast, calibration was entirely counter-intuitive (still don't know if the software was applying my calibration settings only to one image or all subsequent images, unfortunately the 6 page parody of a "manual" that came with the software did not help); when I tried to shoot the calibration target the software sometimes refused to acknowledge that I shot an image (in the calibration window, after it prompted me to take a shot of the target, it did not react when I shot the image).

After I read your positive comments on eXposure here yesterday I downloaded the newest version from Sinar's website and actually managed to do some good conversions but still with the white balance issues outlined above (had to fix WB manually with the color picker tool, after that the resulting image was as good as a straight conversion from Captureshop - but in Captureshop, I did not have to touch the white balance.....). Thanks in advance for any suggestions on what I am doing wrong. Regards, Martin

Dear Martin,

the first thing you have to do, more important than setting "Tungsten" or "whatever" profile in your back or in eXposure, is to make a correct WB with a Macbeth or 18% neutral grey chart. Do your first shot with such a chart in the image and you will be able to calibrate for the available light, correctly. The profiles in the back are only average/default profiles and can give various results: I would never use them. Nothing replaces a right WB. Same with Captureshop, actually. You can then either click on this neutral grey chart with the "Manual WB" in the back menu, or later in eXposure. Doing it in the back will make sure that all following images will be neutral/white balanced. But you can do it later and in a batch process in eXposure, on all the images shot.

Then: there was effectively a "bug" in an earlier eXposure version, which made the green/magenta axis setting being to law in eXposure. That is now fixed since a while.

Previews with "Moiré": this is not Moiré, but simply a rough (sometimes pixelized) display of the image (preview) in order to make it faster to display. When zooming in the application calculates and processes then the full image quality.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,
Thierry

[baudolino]

Dear Thierry,

Thanks for your advice. Sure, I can shoot a Macbeth target at the beginning of every sequence - this works well for someone shooting in a studio, with constant lighting conditions. But I also understand that I should be able to calibrate eXposure, right? I understood the way this was done in Brumbaer (shoot one image of the target in daylight and a second one under tungsten, the software then interpolates between the two for the other settings; when doing conversions I can then choose the corresponding matrix to get reasonably close to accurate WB...). As I often shoot outside under varying lighting conditions, I would like to calibrate eXposure in a similar way so that it would get the initial processed image reasonably close to where it should be and not miles away, at least under one setting (let's say "Sunny" or "Flash").

So, to reword my question: can I get more consistent/accurate initial DNG conversions through calibration of eXposure, without shooting a color target every time? If so, what is the best way of doing that?

Best regards,

Martin

PS: I am still convinced that the WB slider in the processing pane should not stay at 5500K when I select the "Tungsten" setting but should move to around 2850K, could that be a bug....?

Dear Martin,

the first thing you have to do, more important than setting "Tungsten" or "whatever" profile in your back or in eXposure, is to make a correct WB with a Macbeth or 18% neutral grey chart. Do your first shot with such a chart in the image and you will be able to calibrate for the available light, correctly. The profiles in the back are only average/default profiles and can give various results: I would never use them. Nothing replaces a right WB. Same with Captureshop, actually. You can then either click on this neutral grey chart with the "Manual WB" in the back menu, or later in eXposure. Doing it in the back will make sure that all following images will be neutral/white balanced. But you can do it later and in a batch process in eXposure, on all the images shot.

Then: there was effectively a "bug" in an earlier eXposure version, which made the green/magenta axis setting being to law in eXposure. That is now fixed since a while.

Previews with "Moiré": this is not Moiré, but simply a rough (sometimes pixelized) display of the image (preview) in order to make it faster to display. When zooming in the application then calculates and processes then the full image quality.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,
Thierry

[ThierryH]

Dear Thierry,

Thanks for your advice. Sure, I can shoot a Macbeth target at the beginning of every sequence - this works well for someone shooting in a studio, with constant lighting conditions. But I also understand that I should be able to calibrate eXposure, right? I understood the way this was done in Brumbaer (shoot one image of the target in daylight and a second one under tungsten, the software then interpolates between the two for the other settings; when doing conversions I can then choose the corresponding matrix to get reasonably close to accurate WB...). As I often shoot outside under varying lighting conditions, I would like to calibrate eXposure in a similar way so that it would get the initial processed image reasonably close to where it should be and not miles away, at least under one setting (let's say "Sunny" or "Flash").

So, to reword my question: can I get more consistent/accurate initial DNG conversions through calibration of eXposure, without shooting a color target every time? If so, what is the best way of doing that?

Best regards,

Martin

PS: I am still convinced that the WB slider in the processing pane should not stay at 5500K when I select the "Tungsten" setting but should move to around 2850K, could that be a bug....?

Dear Martin,

yes, you can "Color Calibrate" and create a color matrix, but the most important, to begin with and to get rid of your "strong" color cast which you seem to have, is the WB. After that, if the default color calibration does not fit your taste you can create your own one in eXposure, like in Brumbaer. But most of the time it is not necessary. Necessary is to shoot a neutral grey, at the beginning of a session. Even if the light changes a bit, it will not affect that much, unless the weather goes from sunny to cloudy, or else. But then simply re-shoot a neutral grey and that's it. Really not a big deal, and other backs do work the same way. That will for sure get you "reasonably close", as you put it, believe me.

A color calibration comes then in a SECOND step, not before making a WB, respectively to replace it.

As for the slider in eXposure being at 5500K, am sorry, but I have not tried the latest version of eXposure and can't speak without experience. I would contact Sinar to ask them the question.

Best regards,
Thierry