Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: fdisilvestro on February 12, 2019, 06:33:22 am
-
Adobe released a few updates, including Lightroom 8.2 with a function to "Enhance Details", which I haven't tested yet, and a supposedly faster tethering for Nikon cameras.
Now, when I tried to tether a nikon camera (to a Windows 10 computer), I received an error message saying that the file CRClient.dll was not found by tether_nikon.exe (the new LR module for tethering Nikon). I tried reinstalling LR in 2 computers and the same result.
I then checked in the Lightroom folder inside program files and confirmed that the file CRClient.dll was there. I copied the file inside the tether.nikon_lrplugin folder and now it works.
Standard path for Lightroom in Windows 10:
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic CC
Path for the nikon tethering plugin:
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic CC\tether_nikon.lrplugin
In any case, tethering from Lightroom is still the least capable tool, compared to other tethering options such as capture 1 or ControlMyNikon
-
One comment about "Enhance Details", on Windows 10 it works only if you have the October 2018 update for Windows 10 (Version 1809)
-
One comment about "Enhance Details", on Windows 10 it works only if you have the October 2018 update for Windows 10 (Version 1809)
Interesting that Adobe is tying things to the newest Windows. I was "forced" to update to Win 10 from 8.1 because 8.1 would not update past LR 7.5 because of some dll incompatibility. Since the ISO I used was version 1809, I'm on the newest version. Despite the fact that most Windows programs are backwards compatible to Win 7 (I still have a couple of PC running this), Adobe seems to be the outlier here.
-
Interesting that Adobe is tying things to the newest Windows. I was "forced" to update to Win 10 from 8.1 because 8.1 would not update past LR 7.5 because of some dll incompatibility. Since the ISO I used was version 1809, I'm on the newest version. Despite the fact that most Windows programs are backwards compatible to Win 7 (I still have a couple of PC running this), Adobe seems to be the outlier here.
I have some (limited) sympathy for Adobe on this.
I've not written code for Windows recently, but I write Android apps and there's a similar problem. Each new release of Android adds new features and new compatibility issues with the new Android release, and gradually obsoletes old releases.
You get into a process involving steps like:
- Check your app works with the new release, and if not debug it and if necessary make changes
- See if any new features of the new release can add new functionality or performance to your app, and if so write the code for it.
- Does the new code work on older releases of Windoes/Android/whatever? If not, is there some compatiblity work-around?
Step 3 leads to the difficult problems. If we've written code that takes advantage of the new version and it's not compatible with earlier OS releases then how seriously is this going to inconvenience users? What's the trade-off between the new feature (new functions, better performance or whatever) and the irritation to users to upgrade their OS when they don't want to?
There are quite a number of new features in Windows 10 not in Windows 7. For example the ability to handle high-DPI screens is much improved in W10. Anyone with a high-DPI screen (with a screen scale factor set to >100%) will have seen the fuzzy text that results from apps not written to be fully dpi-aware (i.e not using features available only in Windows 10).
Program writers don't want to be stuck with the lowest common deminator - only use features available on historic operating systems - so there will always be these awkward decision to make.
-
@Francisco:
I have installed LR8.2 on two systems (laptop and desktop) and tethering works fine (on my Nikon D800) without the issue you found.
However, I did have an installation issue on the desktop. The upgrade failed with a slightly contradictory error message, and left the existing LR installation unusable. It then wouldn't even try to upgrade and I had to remove LR (from the CC app) and reinstall, when it worked fine.
I tried the Enhance Details option and couldn't see any improvement on a number of images. Not really sure what to expect.
-
One comment about "Enhance Details", on Windows 10 it works only if you have the October 2018 update for Windows 10 (Version 1809)
Interesting that Adobe is tying things to the newest Windows.
The new "enhance details" feature was developed using machine learning on a neural network. According to Adobe (https://theblog.adobe.com/enhance-details/), it requires library support that is only available in the latest revs of MSWindows and MacOS.
-
The new "enhance details" feature was developed using machine learning on a neural network. According to Adobe (https://theblog.adobe.com/enhance-details/), it requires library support that is only available in the latest revs of MSWindows and MacOS.
Thanks for the link, which explains why it needs 1809.
I tried on a couple of images with significant detail, but maybe not ones that benefit from better demosaicing. I think I need to experiment more.
-
I couldn't see any difference either so I opened both enhanced and raw in PS, layered them and looked at the difference. Totally black so I'm not sure what's happening. I'll try it on other images, this one had sharp and OOF blurred sections.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OMAKvUd-VrTRatTgXFKKQumDOiKxCDdbDEQRxU_H2ZXQak5eTQAYIUzhs14jPCuIDtmaoAUpa-51oSOCxMx4odyFqPYDupUZBfTcJSXKgJuvxYO30-xsaLpLZLGr9treLW_D-LuWWWMviXuOAdlVdytu1pOgqa2guUMfzWZw4BfpHp-a1KH_JwvgvvIfYiiNjnez0uxQy1aIYZX6eQL45Ph_tJsKIFKESPmXyob2YtDdwjDqAA6UMts0xJHz3QCmTM8_ffEvPp1ZzW-bqpoKDBPXhBm1RTMeKcjrOaw8kkND2urq51GTN8bwRWpGVdqHob76osMcJKI4uGEClK0i2dxQOypaXhWoWHdimaFN_1EJ_tF0ProHxqiV05egUSfeE_TCAX1v6KE7l0wJKFWUGessxvWrTgm4bLB5PNHLnyGAni7LHygwEmDDd_XI-O4v4XYsXEkWSFAD12YpV4UXKNGLR911NsJ5xHTwiTwA8IUvSheIgoQ4PN3dZ-n8R8rtq5Y8JvpbccwAUwz-TKqXGBFrd0uRJFAfYa-dfFmeihxhmZ5ZQ0y7iDC9N2hIlysEq_fNV9CkXzFeM2MbsDEmzcaoJOTUg4UHE1ojwITHFOvVIbevaowgi9jPf36T_Gewt4Cg4eVuuG5g6-O4OgqYI-zJcEtDXM25H2J5Vs2psZzCtqh4c1M2Er_nYtcMB3Dgy8Mfn2M88_QgL8i3yK512J-HbQ=s1150-no)
-
You will be able to identify some difference using that method, but the impact is often very subtle. Make sure that in PS you zoom in 1:1.
-
My friend, business-school classmate, and a Lightroom instructor, Laura Shoe, has a deep-dive article and video tutorial on Enhanced Details on her site:
https://laurashoe.com/2019/02/12/enhance-raw-file-details-in-lightroom-classic-cc-and-lightroom-cc/?fbclid=IwAR2w0YBsNi0R7ymp2NqjtyMfBCuTCKfWXyhcV-I963QL59V8K6EEbbmaY0I
-
Good article thx for posting ...
-
Enhanced Detail will range for doing absolutely nothing visually to producing in best case (according to internal Adobe testing with Siemens Star resolution charts) 30% increase of resolution (NOT increase of pixels!). There is of course a before and after preview and the ideal zoom ratio to examine whether it's worthwhile converting the data to a linear DNG.
-
One comment about "Enhance Details", on Windows 10 it works only if you have the October 2018 update for Windows 10 (Version 1809)
On my new laptop the Enhance Detials works. On my desktop, I get the error message re need latest Windows 10.
Problem is, I went to Windows update and updated Windows 10 to the the point where it tells me I’m “current” but it shows 1803. Is there a way to prompt/force Windows update to take me to 1809?
Rand
-
Is there a way to prompt/force Windows update to take me to 1809?
Rand
Try this link https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows10 (https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows10)
-
@Francisco:
I have installed LR8.2 on two systems (laptop and desktop) and tethering works fine (on my Nikon D800) without the issue you found.
Thanks for the update, I don't know what happened in my case, but I had the issue in two different computers
-
Try this link https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows10 (https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows10)
Thank you. Is there any potential down side to October 2018? I find it strange that with the regular updates I've received/installed, that it isn't already October 2018. There's something I'm not understanding here.
Rand
-
Thank you. Is there any potential down side to October 2018? I find it strange that with the regular updates I've received/installed, that it isn't already October 2018. There's something I'm not understanding here.
Rand
No issues with October 2018. That update has been delayed due to some issues when it was released which meant it was pulled for fixing. When it was eventually re-released the rollout was slow on purpose just in case there were more issues. You will eventually get it via Windows Update without forcing it.
-
Thank you. Is there any potential down side to October 2018? I find it strange that with the regular updates I've received/installed, that it isn't already October 2018. There's something I'm not understanding here.
Rand
A significant number of uses had their data drive wiped with the install of the October update. This was one of the reasons MSFT pulled it. If you have the Pro version of Win 10 you can delay the major system update as well as monthly quality updates for defined periods of time. Perhaps your computer was configured to do just that. A good friend of mine is a computer consultant and his recommendation is to delay the twice a year major update for 100 days and the monthly quality updates for 14 days. Note that this has the potential to interfere with Adobe CC updates which could be based on the most current OS configuration. A very good resource for system and monthly patches can be found at Ask Woody (https://www.askwoody.com/). They do a lot of good work in assessing when updates are problem free. Since I had to migrate to Win 10 to run the newest version of LR for my Nikon Z 6, I installed ver 1903 and it has not led to any problems.
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
The majority of the time I'm a LR/PS/browser user and it doesn't really matter what OS I'm using
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
I lived my professional life in the business world where 99.9% of the systems were (and still are) Windows and networked PC based. I cut my teeth on DOS 1.0 and single floppy disk systems! LOL
I’ve wondered the same thing about why people would pay twice the price for the same computing power in an essentially handcuffed system as regards user upgrades to the system. Especially since my primary photo tools are identical on either platform. This is especially my sense with the beer keg Mac that is elegant looking for sure (until you connect something to it - then it looks like a cat that has been disembowled). And where laptops are concerned, my brand new Dell XPS 15 has equal or better specs than the equivalent Mac Book for about 2/3 of the price.
I know this is probably sample bias since most here appear to be Apple users, but for the most part, I see way more OS incompatibility issues on the Apple side than with Windows. For instance, the broken color management issue a year or so ago that took a couple of months to resolve. And I actually get a kick out of all the discussion of whether OS Chipmonk, is upgradable from OS Unicorn and whether OS Fairydust works with this or that peripheral. :D
This issue w/ enhanced details is the first time in my use of a PC OS (going back to my original IBM PC) that my OS has been incompatible with an Adobe product update.
For the most part, I’m agnostic. If someone wanted to give me a nice Mac Book I’d certainly use it and appreciate it. I do just enough teaching and sharing re “things photographic” that I have to be at least a little conversant with both platforms. I have and love iPhones and iPads and find that they integrate seamlessly with my PC’s vis synching email, contacts, calendars, etc. All in all it’s a nice world we live in where personal computing is so darn powerful and convenient.
Rand
-
No issues with October 2018. That update has been delayed due to some issues when it was released which meant it was pulled for fixing. When it was eventually re-released the rollout was slow on purpose just in case there were more issues. You will eventually get it via Windows Update without forcing it.
Thank you for the insight. And to Alan and Franco too. Much appreciated. That’s one of the powerful things about the forums here - knowledgeable people, willing to share.
Rand
-
Would somebody explain why would anybody use "Enhanced Details"?
Excuse my ignorance but I don't see the point.
I mean, what kind of problem does it solve?
Thanks
-
Rabanito, read reply #9 on page one.
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
Because it is the operating system used by the majority of the world, it works and a lot of people can't afford the Apple tax anyway. Looking through posts here and elsewhere every upgrade of Mac operating system causes untold problems whereas upgrades of Windows do not in general cause previous working applications to stop working. I installed v1809 a week ago and everything continued to work perfectly including Capture One, Lightroom and Photoshop.
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
Very simple. I can build my own PC for about 1/2 the price of a comparable Apple product. I do a lot of command line programming which is much easier on Windows. I don't have to buy into the Apple OS problems which seem to be common everything a new OS version is out. I can easily upgrade my system when new hardware comes out.
-
Would somebody explain why would anybody use "Enhanced Details"?
Excuse my ignorance but I don't see the point.
I mean, what kind of problem does it solve?
Thanks
Superior rendering. Simple as that. Yeah, it can be very subtle but it's also visible. At least I see a difference in an enhancement of detail:
-
Because it is the operating system used by the majority of the world, it works and a lot of people can't afford the Apple tax anyway.
Tax? That's about is absurd as suggesting a software subscription is software rental (or that people own, the do not, the software who's products are not subscription based).
-
Very simple. I can build my own PC for about 1/2 the price of a comparable Apple product.
And I can buy a 20 year old used car that's a lot less money than my new car. So what? They are not comparable; you can't run the same OS for one.
Now maybe we can get back on topic of LR. Or must we further digress as to what's 'better' (comparable), Nikon or Canon (Sony?), the Pacific Ocean or Atlantic?
-
Tax? That's about is absurd as suggesting a software subscription is software rental (or that people own, the do not, the software who's products are not subscription based).
Yup, “TAX” is just a pajoritive (unnecessarily) way to describe price/performance comparisons.
Rand
-
Superior rendering. Simple as that. Yeah, it can be very subtle but it's also visible. At least I see a difference in an enhancement of detail:
Andrew,
Thanks... this is a very good example to illustrate a very visible difference.
Rand
-
Superior rendering. Simple as that. Yeah, it can be very subtle but it's also visible. At least I see a difference in an enhancement of detail:
Thanks. But even accepting that, I don't see that, all other things being equal, this enhancement can help make a better image in the end.
As I said before, I don't see what problem it solves. I mean, if you send a rocket to the moon using Newton or using Einstein, the result is the same (well, almost) :)
-
Andrew,
Thanks... this is a very good example to illustrate a very visible difference.
Rand
Looks better without first being converted to a JPEG for upload.
It IS subtle and that's why there's a preview which for me is very speedy. To decide if it's worth converting and producing another iteration which is much larger than the original as it's now linear DNG data.
And as for issues, can't replicate on this end with CR2's or ARW's, original or subsequently converted to DNG on import. This is a 2016 MacBook Pro Retina. The issues may indeed be due to older hardware. It isn't OS or raw original as far as I can determine from my files and other's being traded on Adobe's forums.
-
As I said before, I don't see what problem it solves.
Lesser resolution. Maybe that's not a problem for you. And you can decide by previewing prior to conversion. IF you see no useful difference, DON'T USE IT.
-
One other note, back to the Microsoft October 1809 update.
This is for some reason seen as a different type of update, and doesn't seem to automatically get applied. Also note, there was a October 2018 1803 update, which most people odds are did get applied. The 1809 is a called by Microsoft a "feature update" to windows 10. However IMO it's actually a totally new version of windows 10, thus the problem some people were having with their data being wiped on installation.
I don't believe you can get this to show up via the normal windows update checker, I tried to find it on both of my win10 machines via auto update, both had the October 2018 1803 update but did not show the October 2018 1809.
I was able to find it via a search on the Microsoft website, takes about 45 minutes to totally install.
I did not lose any data, programs etc, but it did concern me as the the update installs as a new copy of windows 10 installs.
Paul C
-
One other note, back to the Microsoft October 1809 update.
This is for some reason seen as a different type of update, and doesn't seem to automatically get applied. Also note, there was a October 2018 1803 update, which most people odds are did get applied. The 1809 is a called by Microsoft a "feature update" to windows 10. However IMO it's actually a totally new version of windows 10, thus the problem some people were having with their data being wiped on installation.
I don't believe you can get this to show up via the normal windows update checker, I tried to find it on both of my win10 machines via auto update, both had the October 2018 1803 update but did not show the October 2018 1809.
I was able to find it via a search on the Microsoft website, takes about 45 minutes to totally install.
I did not lose any data, programs etc, but it did concern me as the the update installs as a new copy of windows 10 installs.
Paul C
Same here, although I didn't know it was a new version of Win 10. I got MS to install it for me on my desktop and may do it myself on my laptop. The DE is not looking like something I'll use though, especially on my laptop which I only use in the field while away for a few days.
-
Lesser resolution. Maybe that's not a problem for you. And you can decide by previewing prior to conversion. IF you see no useful difference, DON'T USE IT.
Of course.
But anyway I could be missing something. That's why I ask the experts.
If they use it, they know surely why.
I don't dismiss anything before being convinced that it's not useful (to me). Not a good way to learn. 8)
-
Of course.
But anyway I could be missing something. That's why I ask the experts.
If they use it, they know surely why.
We and you will know why when you SEE a difference that is worth the extra larger document. That's again why there's a preview.
-
... I don't see that, all other things being equal, this enhancement can help make a better image in the end...
I am not sure what are you driving at? Better image in what sense? Esthetic? Or technical?
Technically, it could make some images better, some much better, and some may not benefit at all. If you do large images, especially with diagonals, than it might be quite helpful.
-
I am not sure what are you driving at? Better image in what sense? Esthetic? Or technical?
Technically, it could make some images better, some much better, and some may not benefit at all. If you do large images, especially with diagonals, than it might be quite helpful.
I assume that it could be only technical. With "all other things being equal" I mean the difference of using the enhanced or the not enhanced file as starting point.
As you say and Ms Shoe also points out in her article there is plenty of implicit "could" and "might" do's.
Actually as I said in another response, I don't like to discard something just because I don't understand it.
That's why I ask. Not driving at anything in particular :)
-
...That's why I ask. Not driving at anything in particular :)
It was a figure of speech :)
The good thing this addition is free of charge.
For those who print big, and I am one of them (biggest being 36" x 48" (or 1.2m), being able to start post-processing with a potentially cleaner image might mean a better print at that size.
I recently visited a National Geographic gallery where they had a 2m (80") wide print of a lion's head. Whiskers, diagonal, had very visible stair-step edges, instead of a smooth line. Some existing interpolation programs can do a better job at diagonals, but anything that might help from the very beginning is a welcome addition.
This is just an illustration of the artifact:
-
This is just an illustration of the artifact:
I see.
Thanks Slobodan :)
-
Would somebody explain why would anybody use "Enhanced Details"?
Superior rendering. Simple as that. Yeah, it can be very subtle but it's also visible.
Plus, for those of us who use Fuji X cameras—I'm still testing as, I'm sure, are many other Fuji shooters—the Enhanced Details option may finally fix some particular deficiencies in Lightroom's handling of X-Trans files. Many Lightroom users have been resorting to demosaicing certain types of detailed images with third-party apps; it would be nice to be able to do everything in LR and still get the very fine, artifact-free edge acuity such images demand. (With sufficiently powerful hardware, it will also be a time-saver: my 2013 Mac Pro has been able perform the additional processing of every file I've thrown at it so far in 10-20 seconds, which is much faster than a round-trip through a third-party app—e.g., Iridient X-Transformer.)
-
Why isn't this new RAW rendering be simply an option in the workflow? Standard or Enhanced without a need for an additional (rather large) DNG file?
-
I'm still testing as, I'm sure, are many other Fuji shooters—the Enhanced Details option may finally fix some particular deficiencies in Lightroom's handling of X-Trans files.
Unfortunately not much has changed. It improves the image by a tiny bit, but Iridient is still way sharper and with less artefacts. "Enhance Details" reduces worms, but causes weird variations in how noise is rendered.
it would be nice to be able to do everything in LR and still get the very fine, artifact-free edge acuity such images demand.
While "Enhance Details" allows you to stay within Lightroom, you still need to create (and manage) an extra DNG file for every image. Personally, this doesn't save me anything. I wish Lightroom would simply do a better job on the original files, without extra steps and extra files.
(With sufficiently powerful hardware, it will also be a time-saver: my 2013 Mac Pro has been able perform the additional processing of every file I've thrown at it so far in 10-20 seconds, which is much faster than a round-trip through a third-party app—e.g., Iridient X-Transformer.)
Iridient is pretty slow, but it takes about 1 seconds per image here, vastly faster than "Enhance Details". You don't need to send images to Iridient one by one, you can send hundreds of images at once.
-
Why isn't this new RAW rendering be simply an option in the workflow? Standard or Enhanced without a need for an additional (rather large) DNG file?
Good question. I guess because it takes an immense amount of time to process an image compared to the traditional process.
-
Why isn't this new RAW rendering be simply an option in the workflow? Standard or Enhanced without a need for an additional (rather large) DNG file?
Because the process takes place on rendered data. Maybe someday it can take place directly on raw without conversion to linear DNG but that's not the case today.
-
Unfortunately not much has changed. It improves the image by a tiny bit, but Iridient is still way sharper and with less artefacts. "Enhance Details" reduces worms, but causes weird variations in how noise is rendered.
I gather you already have been testing X-Trans files with Enhanced Details for quite a while; I had no early access to LR 8.2, am just beginning to explore the new feature, and am trying to figure out what files to select for my own tests. Have you noticed types of images where the new rendering method does particularly well or particularly badly? Could you post some examples? (Preferably with 1:1 crops of significant features where LR does better or worse.)
-
The good thing this addition is free of charge.
NO, you only get it as part of a paid for subscription.
-
Because the process takes place on rendered data. Maybe someday it can take place directly on raw without conversion to linear DNG but that's not the case today.
So if not a RAW converter process, then it may be similar to what Focus Magic does...
-
I have no idea what Focus Magic does. Sorry.
-
I gather you already have been testing X-Trans files with Enhanced Details for quite a while; I had no early access to LR 8.2, am just beginning to explore the new feature, and am trying to figure out what files to select for my own tests. Have you noticed types of images where the new rendering method does particularly well or particularly badly? Could you post some examples? (Preferably with 1:1 crops of significant features where LR does better or worse.)
If you check out the web page that Slobodan linked to on the first page of this thread, you'll find a description of the types of images that benefit the most from this new feature.
https://laurashoe.com/2019/02/12/enhance-raw-file-details-in-lightroom-classic-cc-and-lightroom-cc
-
NO, you only get it as part of a paid for subscription.
So, how is that not a free addition to the paid subscription? What other LR 8.2 is out there?
-
So, how is that not a free addition to the paid subscription? What other LR 8.2 is out there?
One of the promises of the paid subscription is the continuous incorporation of new functionalities, so I would also say that the AI Enhanced Details is part of what you get by paying
-
Because the process takes place on rendered data. Maybe someday it can take place directly on raw without conversion to linear DNG but that's not the case today.
the mere fact that it has to create a specific linear (means demosaicked) DNG says that it takes (in part !!!) place on raw data (as it does not work on linear DNGs created w/ other means)
-
the mere fact that it has to create a specific linear (means demosaicked) DNG says that it takes (in part !!!) place on raw data (as it does not work on linear DNGs created w/ other means)
Perhaps but the results of the new feature isn't the raw, it's partially rendered data from there on out. Of course the raw data is used to do anything that results in processing that raw data.
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
probably because they have brains and hands...
-
Perhaps
certainly...
-
There there are essentially two DNG's in the container, the one not affected and the one processed with Enhanced Detail. So other products can still access the DNG but it doesn't access the Enhanced Detail part of the DNG (perhaps because that spec hasn't been provided... yet).
In LR, if one produces such a DNG and then uses the Update DNG Preview and Metadata command, the JPEG a result of the Enhanced Detail processing.
Interesting titbit just provided by Simon Chen of Adobe.
(https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/enhance-details-causes-cut-out-squares?utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=new_comment&utm_content=reply_button&reply[id)
-
certainly...
And utterly unimportant. :P
-
but the results of the new feature isn't the raw
they are, for a start, in demosaicked "raw" file (that new linear DNG) - from that point onwards Adobe shall work identically with original raws and linear DNGs (unless Adobe added some new tags in DNG spec instructing the code behind the scene to treat those linear DNGs differently... did you see any changes in DNG standard ?)... hence as noted beats me why they can't simply create a new process version taking care about demosaicking part at least, and let people with sufficiently powerful machines to use that w/o generating linear DNGs files, residing in storage space... people w/ lesser computers can still do "batch" conversion first...
-
they are, for a start, in demosaicked raw file - from that point onwards Adobe shall work identically with original raws and linear DNGs (unless Adobe added some new tags in DNG spec instructing the code behind the scene to treat those linear DNGs differently... did you see any changes DNG standard ?)... hence as noted beats me why they can't simply create a new process version taking care about demosaicking part at least, and let people with sufficiently powerful machines to use that w/o generating linear DNGs files, residing in storage space... people w/ lesser computers can still do "batch" conversion first...
I understand why it beats you. I understand why you don't work for Adobe, conduct prerelease for them too. ;)
As to what will happen, once my NDA is up, I'll let you know. ;D
-
So if not a RAW converter process, then it may be similar to what Focus Magic does...
While I'm hesitant as to what benefits "Enhanced Details" really brings in comparison to the proven record of FocusMagic, in theory, it could nudge the output to higher quality.
It would be interesting indeed, to see how much it does (if any). Since I'm not a subscriber to a (or most) software subscription(s) system, I cannot myself do a test and publish the results (which I usually do).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why on earth are there people still using Windows!?
Or Mac OS, for that matter. Nerds use Linux.
Cheers,
Bart
-
This is just an illustration of the artifact:
Whoa, but that's a really piss poor Raw conversion. Whatever produced that should be banned from serious use.
It should not be hard to improve on that...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Whoa, but that's a really piss poor Raw conversion. Whatever produced that should be banned from serious use.
It should not be hard to improve on that...
Cheers,
Bart
Maybe one should convert a JPEG to raw first for that improvement? ::)
-
Maybe one should convert a JPEG to raw first for that improvement? ::)
??????
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mixed bag on the files I tried it with. Some of them I could honestly see no difference at all other than the enhanced file was initially rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise. After a while you can kind of get a feel for what files will benefit from it. As has been noted diagonal crisp lines show improvements. The rendering around specula highlights are also smoother.
Took about 10 seconds on my machine for a Sony APSC file. Will try it with the bigger Sony files when I have the time.
-
AFAIK, there are only two people here posting who had any experience, under NDA, speaking with Adobe engineers like Simon Chen and Eric Chan about the development of Enhanced Detail last year as it was being developed and tested. Here are some facts, as much as I can provide under NDA and the facts can be corroborated by other betas.
Adobe didn't wake up on day and thought, "let's produce a new rendering process that forces people to take the time to convert raw to linear DNG and extra space" because they felt those two attributes were good for customers workflows per se. They did it that way because that's the way, for now, the feature had to be implemented. The "why did Adobe do this" question was asked last year. What happens in the future may change. Asking today why this was implemented as it was, especially by people who don't have a clue about the ACR processing code, marketing people who work for competing companies of Adobe who may or may not know how their own software code actually works, is as silly as me asking why my 2017 Mazda CX5 doesn't run on electricity or why my iPhone X doesn't receive G5.
Adobe didn't claim this feature is for everyone or works well on every image. They did testing with Enhanced Detail with Siemens Star resolution charts showing a 30% increase of resolution (NOT increase of pixels!). They didn't claim more, they didn't state this was true for all images and cameras that capture this data.
There is of course a before and after preview and the ideal zoom ratio to examine whether it's worthwhile converting the data to a linear DNG so users can see, on a case by case basis if they wish to convert and use Enhanced Detail.
The same people asking why this is, are some of the same people who spent post after post, page after page defending Topaz Lab's claim they convert JPEG to raw and can edit a JPEG as if it were a raw without any evidence to defend those claims. Adobe can defend the claim that in some captures, Enhanced Detail will enhance the detail. As can users. They cannot "defend" why one must convert the data to a linear DNG to the degree they explained their processing to those under NDA. Nor can they defend that if you use LR or Photoshop to convert a wide gamut image to sRGB, you'll clip colors. That's how it works kids. Unlike Topaz, they will not use marketing shills to state they can produce stuff that doesn't exist and processing that can't be backed up.
Now this is a new feature and it will evolve. One issue is the amount of processing and OS support needed today (simply examine the OS requirements for Enhanced Detail to work, one OS being just released a few months ago). Few here have any experience producing software. I have a little. Yeah, it is possible that ED (Enhanced Detail for short) could be produced directly from the raw without a DNG intermediate but what if 8% of the user based had hardware support for it? Wouldn't fly well now would it. What happens in the future happens. TODAY, if you want to use ED, you convert to a linear DNG and if you're smart, you view the preview first instead of doing a batch convert. How you'll handle this in a year is your guess. Some of us will know before that.
-
Or Mac OS, for that matter. Nerds use Linux.
Unfortunately, Adobe do not port their programs to Linux.
-
Now this is a new feature and it will evolve. One issue is the amount of processing and OS support needed today (simply examine the OS requirements for Enhanced Detail to work, one OS being just released a few months ago). Few here have any experience producing software. I have a little. Yeah, it is possible that ED (Enhanced Detail for short) could be produced directly from the raw without a DNG intermediate but what if 8% of the user based had hardware support for it? Wouldn't fly well now would it. What happens in the future happens. TODAY, if you want to use ED, you convert to a linear DNG and if you're smart, you view the preview first instead of doing a batch convert. How you'll handle this in a year is your guess. Some of us will know before that.
I'm sure you know better than I about this need for a conversion but I put faith in Adobe engineers as well. If they felt this was the right way to approach the issue regarding the development of the tool there must have been a darn good reason. Your statement that I highlighted is the wisest course at the moment. I don't think one knows how widely applicable this tool will be.
-
Unfortunately, Adobe do not port their programs to Linux.
Which is a shame. Photoshop used to run on Unix (IRIX and Solaris): http://i.imgur.com/Lzlbyp9.jpg.
-
Here are some facts, as much as I can provide under NDA and the facts can be corroborated by other betas.
Interesting background, Andrew. One question: is the DNG file that is produced by the Enhance Details tool a typical linear DNG? I wasn't able to fully understand your dialog with Simon Chen over on the Adobe support forum. I got the impression from what the two of you were saying that this is some sort of new flavor of DNG container.
-
Without checking, I think it's slightly different, Chris. The original file is embedded, and there's RGGB demosaiced data.
-
Interesting background, Andrew. One question: is the DNG file that is produced by the Enhance Details tool a typical linear DNG? I wasn't able to fully understand your dialog with Simon Chen over on the Adobe support forum. I got the impression from what the two of you were saying that this is some sort of new flavor of DNG container.
It is different, that's why it's so much larger too. There's actually two variants of the linear DNG in the container. Only LR/ACR currently understands the enhanced detail part of the DNG. But other converters that properly support DNG can access that part of the data which hasn't undergone Enhanced Detail.
-
The original file is embedded, and there's RGGB demosaiced data.
Only LR/ACR currently understands the enhanced detail part of the DNG. But other converters that properly support DNG can access that part of the data which hasn't undergone Enhanced Detail.
Observation:
The enhanced file seems to behave very much like a raw file: i.e., Lightroom adjustments appear to work identically on the original raw file and the enhanced one, unlike a typical rendered image where attributes like color balance are "baked in." When I copy all the settings I have made to the raw file to the enhanced one, I wind up with two visually identical images, as far as I can tell—except for the enhanced details, if any.
Speculation:
I don't know much about computational image processing, but I've noticed that some tools that are publicly accessible, for example the Deep Dream generator, offer the capability to perform the same transformation several times. It occurs to me that the reason for embedding the original raw file in the enhanced DNG container might be to facilitate some future form of iterative processing.
-
Observation:
The enhanced file seems to behave very much like a raw file: i.e., Lightroom adjustments appear to work identically on the original raw file and the enhanced one, unlike a typical rendered image where attributes like color balance are "baked in." When I copy all the settings I have made to the raw file to the enhanced one, I wind up with two visually identical images, as far as I can tell—except for the enhanced details, if any.
It isn't 'as raw' but 'more raw' than a fully rendered image. See:
https://dpbestflow.org/DNG
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/linear.htm
-
It isn't 'as raw' but 'more raw' than a fully rendered image.
"Undercooked? "Very rare?" (Definitely not "half-baked.")
-
Now that we've resolved the ED problem, can we get back to Mac vs PC?
<ducking>
-
Now that we've resolved the ED problem, can we get back to Mac vs PC?
<ducking>
Why don’t we discuss the subject, “Lightroom 8.2”?
Take Mac v pc elsewhere!!
-
Why don’t we discuss the subject, “Lightroom 8.2”?
Take Mac v pc elsewhere!!
Great idea. Just decided to build a Smart Collection to keep track of all the Enhanced Detail conversions. Pretty simple as shown below:
-
Did anyone bring this to attention. Maybe this is all it is about.
-
Does anyone know of an Adobe/Lr website to suggest adding lens profiles?
Thanks in advance!
-
Does anyone know of an Adobe/Lr website to suggest adding lens profiles?
Thanks in advance!
https://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html
-
This thread is monitored by the Camera Raw persons responsible for creating Lens Profiles. It is the best place to post your request:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/acr-lightroom-when-will-my-lens-profile-be-available