Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on July 16, 2014, 09:00:23 am
-
Any visibility on the plan to support the D810 in C1 Pro?
Thanks,
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am sure they will eventually but it may be not until the next release. The 810 will have the same issue with LR support and ACR.
Paul
-
I am sure they will eventually but it may be not until the next release. The 810 will have the same issue with LR support and ACR.
Hi Paul,
What makes you say so if I may ask?
Thanks.
Regards,
Bernard
-
By issue, I meant to say new camera no raw converter support. I have not seen a upgrade for the 810 yet in LR. May have missed it however. C1 has supported all previous Nikon bodies in the past I hope it's just a matter of catch up. My 810 arrived at my dealer yesterday.
Paul
-
By issue, I meant to say new camera no raw converter support. I have not seen a upgrade for the 810 yet in LR. May have missed it however. C1 has supported all previous Nikon bodies in the past I hope it's just a matter of catch up. My 810 arrived at my dealer yesterday.
I should be getting mine tomorrow.
As of now it is already supported by Iridient Developper.
But I would expect C1 Pro to work particularly well with it thanks to their experience with AA filter less demoisaicing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
By issue, I meant to say new camera no raw converter support. I have not seen a upgrade for the 810 yet in LR.
It's not (yet).
Thanks again Nikon (and Canon) for again making customers wait to use their own data.
-
It's not (yet).
Thanks again Nikon (and Canon) for again making customers wait to use their own data.
Nonsense, according to Bernard's remark that Iridient Developer already supports* it. It's not the Camera makers, it's the software makers that need to catch up. Of course, if the camera makers would stop inventing new features, they could keep the Raw-file contents the same, and easy to translate/convert ...
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. * Apparently supported since July 10th (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_history.html).
-
Nonsense, according to Bernard's remark that Iridient Developer already supports* it. It's not the Camera makers, it's the software makers that need to catch up. Of course, if the camera makers would stop inventing new features, they could keep the Raw-file contents the same, and easy to translate/convert ...
First, it's not nonsense, there are piles of raw converters other than Adobe's that don't yet support the file format. I happen to use and love ID and perhaps Brian got ahold of a raw file early on, or from a beta tester, don't know. Point is, Brian and Adobe and everyone else has to get a file to decode and support. That shouldn’t be necessary! Clearly it isn't with JPEG. 2nd, Brian and everyone else has to spend time and money updating their products. It dilutes their productivity working on other items we end users need. Even if it took Brian 10 minutes to decode the new file, it's far, far more than 10 minutes total work to test, build installers, upload and inform the community etc. So yes, it totally IS the camera makers falut, they could easily produce a raw file that didn't need any of this work to support the new raw. Or be open to send a raw to anyone who needs it early to support their raw converters before the camera ships. The other software makers shouldn’t have to catch up, that's the point. Nikon, Canon and all the companies that continue to make differing raw formats for each camera are the cause of the need to catch up, that's the only way I can see it and the reason why the newest cameras that spit out a JPEG (of which many of us don't want) have zero issues the minute the camera ships.
-
Adobe released ACR 8.6rc today with D810 support.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/camera-raw-8-4-rc-and-dng-converter-8-4-rc-now-available-on-adobe-labs.html
I'm sure Lightroom will be along soon.
But I want/need C1!
-
Adobe released ACR 8.6rc today with D810 support.
There you go Bart!
Funny I can't find an update to the DNG converter. I don't think we'll see an LR update that soon so hopefully the DNG converter is next for release. Adobe typically releases the two at the same time.
-
Funny I can't find an update to the DNG converter.
Here?
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/cameraraw8-6.html
-
Thanks Bob, got it!
-
Since the camera shipped yesterday, knowing the typical software release cycles, I would say that it seems pretty likely that Nikon did collaborate with Adobe to ensure early support of the D810?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Since the camera shipped yesterday, knowing the typical software release cycles, I would say that it seems pretty likely that Nikon did collaborate with Adobe to ensure early support of the D810?
Either that or someone with a beta unit seeded Adobe with a raw file (it's happened in the past but my lips are sealed). That's all Thomas needs, one stinkin raw file.
On the other hand, I'd sure like to think what you are suggesting is the case. That would bode well for Nikon (are you listening Canon?).
-
Either that or someone with a beta unit seeded Adobe with a raw file (it's happened in the past but my lips are sealed).
Yes, this is indeed a possibility as well.
But I would think that Nikon has realized by now that Adobe has de facto a high market share in raw conversion and that getting supported quickly is in their best advantage and in the advantage of Nikon's customers.
Especially now that they have given up on trying to make money selling raw conversion software.
My view is that they think they owe their customer to given them the possibility to get in raw the exact conversion Nikon thinks is right, which is why they continue to to provide a version of Capture. But it doesn't mean they don't know that many people will decide to use another tool.
I am a bit surprised to see you write that Canon doesn't work more closely with Adobe. I have always felt that Adobe's raw converters were designed with Canon bodies as a reference (in terms of colors and rendering).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am a bit surprised to see you write that Canon doesn't work more closely with Adobe.
I have no evidence of any such support one way or the other by Canon, do you?
Let's hope this is a new behavior from all the camera companies, short of just making a stinkin standard raw format per company (giving up any hope of a universal raw from the camera). If the raw converters companies like Adobe and Iridient can get access to the raws this early, maybe all my bitching about these camera companies will finely cease. 8)
-
Since the camera shipped yesterday, knowing the typical software release cycles, I would say that it seems pretty likely that Nikon did collaborate with Adobe to ensure early support of the D810?
or alternatively the FUD by some people about huge, huge differences in raw formats for each new camera model from the same manufacturer is just FUD :-)... which it is
-
or alternatively the FUD by some people about huge, huge differences in raw formats for each new camera model from the same manufacturer is just FUD :-)... which it is
Yup, it's FUD, no there are obviously differences. The differences are unnecessary and someone has to work to update all raw converters to use them.
-
There are minor differences, starting by a reverse Byte Order from MM to II (it's in the header) to a few changes in the offsets. I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and
RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.
This trick has some drawbacks, as it seems to stripe a few pixels (the image shows 7334*4926) but otherwise is workable
Another thing is that apparently the black point offset is not substracted from the raw values (it is around 600), but I cannot confirm this until the D810 is properly supported. The WB preconditioning is still present.
The attached images shows:
a) the histogram from Rawdiggerstarting around value 600 and shows the effect of the WB preconditioning (normal for NEFs)
b) crop from the imaging resource NEF at 64ISO processed in RawTherapee with amaze demosaicing and no sharpening
-
Yup, it's FUD, no there are obviously differences.
try to find the differences in the format between D800 and D800e and D810 in dcraw code and show us :-)
PS: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c
-
There are minor differences, starting by a reverse Byte Order from MM to II (it's in the header) to a few changes in the offsets. I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.
This trick has some drawbacks, as it seems to stripe a few pixels (the image shows 7334*4926) but otherwise is workable
indeed minor... Adobe spent more time using the actual D810 camera and monochromator in their lab to collect the data to build their dcp profiles ;) ...
-
try to find the differences in the format between D800 and D800e and D810 in dcraw code and show us :-)
PS: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c
Apparently the main difference is in the matrices, no difference between D800 and D800E, As far as I can see the matrix for the D810 is not from adobe (it has the comment DJC, the default matrices are from the adobe DNG converter for dcraw). I could not find other specific differences for the D810 in the code, but I might be wrong. Also the value for "black" seems to confirm that the black point offset is not subtracted in the D810
const char *prefix;
short black, maximum, trans[12];
{ "Nikon D810", 596, 0, /* DJC */ { 6502,-2328,154,-4249,9943,4307,-1303,2538,8108 } },
{ "Nikon D800", 0, 0,
{ 7866,-2108,-555,-4869,12483,2681,-1176,2069,7501 } },
-
I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.
Correction to my previous post: The last version of RawTherapee already had the support for the D810
-
try to find the differences in the format between D800 and D800e and D810 in dcraw code and show us :-)
PS: http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c
There's no reason to, there IS a difference such that all the raw converters that were not updated for D810 can't access the raw data. It's as simple as that! You guys can analyze all you want, the facts remain the same. I don't care if you find the differing raws 99.9 percent similar or 99.99999 percent similar, the facts are, that data isn't accessible until the raw conveters are updated. If you had any feelings for your fellow photographers who just tossed over $3K for a camera and want to process their data, (instead of dissecting the minutia of a raw file), as I've witnessed just this week on numerous forums, that would be a refreshing adjustment on your part.
Here are the facts, dismiss them if you can!
1. Using just Adobe as an example, day before yesterday, if you had a D810 (and from the various forums, it's clear some did), you couldn't access your raw data in the raw converter you wish. The JPEG from the same camera could be opened in a 20 year old copy of Photoshop and other products. Them's the facts.
2. I don't care if it took Thomas or Eric 30 seconds to look at the raw and update their product. It shouldn't be necessary. It wasn't with the JPEG. So I'm going to assume whatever Nikon and Canon do to write a JPEG, that would be oh so lovely for them to also do with their raw files. Now if you say this is impossible, go for it. Is it impossible Vladimirovich?
3. Even if it took Adobe 30 seconds to detect the differences and a mere 3 days to update their product, it's unnecessary, expensive, frustrating to customers and dilutes the limited resource for all companies that have to do this. Now unlike you and your pals who love to look inside raw files, these companies have better things to do than rebuild their converters for raw support. They have business to run, customers to please. I'm not at all sure if you fit into that world or not. But consider it.
So here's the FUD in respect to how the raw files are handled: Frustration, Unacceptable, Disservice. FUD from Nikon, Canon and all the other companies who waste our time and our software engineer's time altering a byte or three!
See if you can spend a bit less time looking at bytes and rather have some sympathy for your fellow photographers (assuming you are one) who just want to drop big bucks on a camera body and use it as they desire. They only have limited options waiting:
1. Shoot JPEG (try selling that one Vladimirovich)
2. Use the manufacturers raw converter and wait
Clearly unacceptable to many photographers based on the posts all over the net. You think that's an acceptable set of options for someone who just spent $3000? I don't.
-
There's no reason to, there IS a difference such that all the raw converters that were not updated for D810 can't access the raw data.
that's a different story - talk w/ them... Adobe had no issues ;D
that data isn't accessible until the raw conveters are updated.
and again take you grievances to raw converter manufacturers... you are using Adobe, are you not ? you didn't download RC release yet ?
If you had any feelings for your fellow photographers who just tossed over $3K for a camera
I have no feeling for somebody who rush to toss money w/o understanding that camera is a small part of the workflow - be it a "professional" photographer or "amateur"... and DNG does not solve the problem because you know there are things like color transforms and even if the color profile(s) is(are) stored in DNG that is not the same as profiles supplied by your manufacturer of choice (and please do not suggest a crap from 24 patch target)
1. Using just Adobe as an example, day before yesterday, if you had a D810 (and from the various forums, it's clear some did), you couldn't access your raw data in the raw converter you wish. The JPEG from the same camera could be opened in a 20 year old copy of Photoshop and other products. Them's the facts.
and those who purchased it mostly were perfectly aware about what it the situation or were using Nikon OEM or were JPG shooter or were people with proper skills to use D810 as it is... I do not see a mass hysteria anywhere except some people in this thread :D
2. I don't care if it took Thomas or Eric 30 seconds to look at the raw and update their product. It shouldn't be necessary.
it is necessary - you know some people for a change like to use Adobe dcp profiles... not the rendering that manufacturer suggests
3. Even if it took Adobe 30 seconds to detect the differences and a mere 3 days to update their product, it's unnecessary, expensive, frustrating to customers and dilutes the limited resource for all companies that have to do this. Now unlike you and your pals who love to look inside raw files, these companies have better things to do than rebuild their converters for raw support. They have business to run, customers to please. I'm not at all sure if you fit into that world or not. But consider it.
you kind of forget that Nikon has no obligation to care about Adobe... manufacturers comprising 95% of the raw enabled camera market (except some very minor/nicher players like Ricoh or Leica) do not want to have anything to do with DNG for a reason... and you refuse to understand those reasons... DNG is not a solution - solution is to have the reasons for manufacturers to document the data inside their raw files (in the format of their choice and under their own sole control - which is certainly not DNG)... does Adobe document how other raw converters can reproduce their rendering ? only partially ... why don't you start a campaign for Adobe to make a full disclosure, huh ? so that I can just use another raw converter if for whatever reason I can't use Adobe tools... BTW - do you know what next step will be later down the road... instead of raw files cameras will be generating software available to you on a paid subscription basis that will interact with raw converters to produce a rendering - but no raw files (data), instead active ".exe" files with API to rawconverters... no more passive data generating no revenue to camera manufacturer ;D ... nice idea, huh... you want to continue to use your shots - pay subscribtions fees, because peeking inside what camera generated as a software code per shot will be an illegal breaking that code.
So here's the FUD in respect to how the raw files are handled: Frustration, Unacceptable, Disservice. FUD from Nikon, Canon and all the other companies who waste our time and our software engineer's time altering a byte or three!
See if you can spend a bit less time looking at bytes and rather have some sympathy for your fellow photographers (assuming you are one) who just want to drop big bucks on a camera body and use it as they desire. They only have limited options waiting:
1. Shoot JPEG (try selling that one Vladimirovich)
2. Use the manufacturers raw converter and wait
Clearly unacceptable to many photographers based on the posts all over the net. You think that's an acceptable set of options for someone who just spent $3000? I don't.
I did not see any significant number of posts... just a regular bunch, which manufacturers simply ignore - more so they know that those people will be buyhing their product nevertheless... have guts to start not using anything but Leica and Ricoh for a change... make a stand.
-
Apparently the main difference is in the matrices
and that's not a format - that is the data... which BTW Nikon does not want to store in raw files at all, does it ? and even if they 'd stuff something in that rendering might be not what you expect or get used to... so every respectful raw converter has custom made profiles and that still requires time and actual camera in place... some, like Adobe, naturally have better resources and better access to cameras when they released... smaller players have to rely on 3rd party shots or dcraw code or whatever
-
that's a different story - talk w/ them... Adobe had no issues ;D
I have no idea what you're referring to.
Did or didn't the D810 need updating in both Adobe and Iridiant Developer and is or isn't the current version of C1 able to access this new file? The answer is pretty clear. Whether the raw is a tiny bit different or hugely different doesn't matter, all these companies had to update their software to access this new data. Yes or no?
and again take you grievances to raw converter manufacturers... you are using Adobe, are you not ? you didn't download RC release yet ?
Oh I have! And I'm giving grievances to people like yourself that feel the current conditions are fine, they clearly are not. Or are all the new D810 users who want to access their raws but can't insane, off base?
I have no feeling for somebody who rush to toss money w/o understanding that camera is a small part of the workflow - be it a "professional" photographer or "amateur"... and DNG does not solve the problem because you know there are things like color transforms and even if the color profile(s) is(are) stored in DNG that is not the same as profiles supplied by your manufacturer of choice (and please do not suggest a crap from 24 patch target)
It's now very clear you have no feelings for what I suspect are not fellow photographers (I'm not sure what you are, your lack of transparency here is evident. For all I know, you work in the accounting office for Nikon!).
and those who purchased it mostly were perfectly aware about what it the situation or were using Nikon OEM or were JPG shooter or were people with proper skills to use D810 as it is... I do not see a mass hysteria anywhere except some people in this thread :D
NO, they were not aware or the posts just in the last 48 hours on the Adobe UtoU site alone would not have photographers asking why their shiny new camera doesn't allow them to use their shiny new raws.
you kind of forget that Nikon has no obligation to care about Adobe...
I'm asking them to have an obligation to their customers, a point you simply don't get. Another point you don't get is that this isn't about Adobe alone! It's about every stinking raw converter including in this forum, C1. You think the C1 user base and engineers like the current situation? Or would life be much kinder if they didn't have to update their converter to access data they coudln't?
manufacturers comprising 95% of the raw enabled camera market (except some very minor/nicher players like Ricoh or Leica) do not want to have anything to do with DNG for a reason...
This has nothing to do with DNG. It has to do with access to our data. Again, the day a camera ships, why should a customer not have the ability to process his raw file like the JPEG? Can you answer that? Is it acceptable to you that customers are unable to use their data as they desire but only for a few days/weeks/months until their converter of choice spends the time and money to update their product?
You are either unwilling or unable to answer any of the questions that pertain to the customer's needs in this context. So I have to suspect you're not a photographer and you probably work for an Adobe competitor (hence you inability to see this isn't a DNG or Adobe issue). Care to tell us your day job?
I did not see any significant number of posts... just a regular bunch, which manufacturers simply ignore - more so they know that those people will be buyhing their product nevertheless... have guts to start not using anything but Leica and Ricoh for a change... make a stand.
The posts exist. The people who are frustrated shouldn't have to be, a point you continue to ignore UNLESS you can tell us that it is impossible for Nikon or Canon to release a new camera with a raw that behaves like the last such that no updates to a converter are necessary. IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on. And it's clear you don't give a rats ass about those who can't access their data.
Here's the bottom line: you don't give a crap that people can't access their data and you're unable to explain why they should wait. You're unable or unwilling to tell us if this issue could be fixed by the camera companies themselves without a lick of help from Adobe or the use of DNG. You've provided no justification for the current methods whereby everyone with a new camera has to wait for an update to their converter of choice. You're unable to tell us what options otherwise are acceptable to you as presumably a photographer (stick with JPEG, use manufacturer's converter).
I don't own nor will own a D810 but I feel for my fellow photographers who are frustrated by a system that has no justification, at least one anyone has ever explained. Unless you're going to tell us it's impossible for each raw file from Nikon (or Canon) to behave like a JPEG or TIFF or DNG such that the day the camera ships, the file it produces is universally understood like those file formats.
-
I have no idea what you're referring to.
you just pretend for a public.
Did or didn't the D810 need updating in both Adobe and Iridiant Developer and is or isn't the current version of C1 able to access this new file?
absolutely - for example they created their own profiles :-) ... if somebody, for example, wants to use Adobe's profiles DNG does not help at all - you still have to wait ;D
-
The answer is pretty clear. Whether the raw is a tiny bit different or hugely different doesn't matter, all these companies had to update their software to access this new data. Yes or no? Oh I have!
they do and dcraw illustrates it is nothing to think about unless you are inclined to spread baseless FUD about huge work that poor developers have to do... they are paid to do this and don't expect the cost of Adobe tools to drop if next day all cameras will start generating DNGs...
And I'm giving grievances to people like yourself that feel the current conditions are fine, they clearly are not. Or are all the new D810 users who want to access their raws but can't insane, off base?
you are off base because you try to create an illusion of a massive problem - I count couple of dozen people rasining issues (not only here - I read many other forums) and much less who do not have other camera for their work ;D ... and 9 out of 10 of those are OK since yesterday, except of course those who like you just want to spread FUD - instead bug Adobe to release how their adjustments work, you know, we, photographers, want to feel safe and that the metadata reflecting our work with raw files tobe publicly available for interpretation by other raw converters... how about that ?
It's now very clear you have no feelings for what I suspect are not fellow photographers (I'm not sure what you are, your lack of transparency here is evident. For all I know, you work in the accounting office for Nikon!).
more FUD, when you have no arguments try to implicate your opponent in being a Nikon employee ;D
NO, they were not aware or the posts just in the last 48 hours on the Adobe UtoU site alone would not have photographers asking why their shiny new camera doesn't allow them to use their shiny new raws. I'm asking them to have an obligation to their customers, a point you simply don't get.
companies, as Adobe perfectly demonstrates, have obligations solely to their shareholders... oh wait, stupid me... not shareholders, that's just for a Fox audience - but to a class of options holding C level execs... shareholders might just get lucky along the way.
-
You are either unwilling or unable to answer any of the questions that pertain to the customer's needs in this context.
customers are getting support in raw converters... you either unwilling or unable to understand that most of people use OOC JPG, out of the rest most are using OEM raw converters, out of the rest most do not buy a new camera right away, most of the rest are OK to wait a little or play w/ raws using hex editors and only few repeat that endless cycle of crying that always stops in a few weeks
So I have to suspect you're not a photographer and you probably work for an Adobe competitor (hence you inability to see this isn't a DNG or Adobe issue).
OK, not I am not working for Nikon accounting - I am apparently working for ??? Corel or ISL or who else is left standing to afford me ?
-
Care to tell us your day job?
sure, my day job is in IT staffing business ;D ... does it make you happy ?
The posts exist. The people who are frustrated shouldn't have to be, a point you continue to ignore UNLESS you can tell us that it is impossible for Nikon or Canon to release a new camera with a raw that behaves like the last such that no updates to a converter are necessary. IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on. And it's clear you don't give a rats ass about those who can't access their data.
all kind of posts exist for posterity ( and most of them are probaby yours - on this forum ;D ) and yet the same people are somehow happily shooting with their non DNG cameras and marketshare of manufacturers using DNG is successfully shrinking... that's what market says = nobody (both customers and those who create raw converters) gives a damn about cameras not having DNG or even not having just publicly available description of the format & data (even partial)... you want to change it - please, stop using anything but Ricoh and Leica and btw - stop using Adobe products too, because Adobe does support manufacturers in their behavior and to be more logical start demanting full disclosure of raw conversion metadata (how it shall be used) from Adobe too (and from C1, from ISL, from all of 'em raw converters - they are no better than camera manufacturers)...
-
Here's the bottom line: you don't give a crap that people can't access their data and you're unable to explain why they should wait.
the bottom line is that you are incapable of listening... 99.99% people (that is from a small minority who do not use OOC JPS and/or OEM raw converters) by the time when they actually buy cameras and out of those 0.0001% most just have no issues waiting till their raw converter of choice will support the camera (and as Adobe is a market leader apparently their wait is not long)... changes in the format are in 9 out 10 cases are simply absent or require less than a days work... what requires work is camera profiling and DNG is not solving this at all, specifically for converters like DxO where you might need extra work for camera+lens combos (beyond what manufacturer might store in raw file for optics correction)
You're unable or unwilling to tell us if this issue could be fixed by the camera companies themselves without a lick of help from Adobe or the use of DNG.
DNG can't fix anything because manufacturers are not willing to be tied by that Adobe standard or even non Adobe standard belonging to some organization and they are not willing in some cases to share their development work that in case of some standard they might have to disclose (case in point that I repeat to you for years - optics correction introduced by Panasonic and the time it took Adobe to incorporate that in DNG - and I always ask you a question - should the company like Panasonic wait with the release of their product and incur income loss while they waiting for Adobe to decide how Adobe wants to do it ? shall the company in case of the standard belonging to organization disclose their move to their competitors who are corporate members of that same organization and seek their approval may be for what the company in question wants to do/to store/how to store in raw files ? and Panasonic was the fine example - they did this alone and it took Adobe several month to fix the code and much more to publish the standard... and please do not suggest to store that data in a tag intended for undisclosed manufacturer data - that kills the whole idea - they are as well OK storing in their own .RW2 format)... camera manufacturers have their own valid reasons to stick with their own raw formats in order not to be tied and not to disclose in advance... they also know that most (not just most but absolute majority) their market will not be harmed by them not disclosing anything and that most of 3rd party manufacturers, though inconvenient for them, will support their cameras nevertheless and there is a possibility that some manufacturers do share the details with some companies making raw converters and in case when they don't share the changes in raw formats with every new camera model are so minor (or simply absent) that it is a non issue (except a reason for somebody to vent in a forum).
You've provided no justification for the current methods whereby everyone with a new camera has to wait for an update to their converter of choice. You're unable to tell us what options otherwise are acceptable to you as presumably a photographer (stick with JPEG, use manufacturer's converter).
I repeat you that Panasonic example for years, yet every time you pretend you did not hear about it... memory loss ?
-
you just pretend for a public.
absolutely - for example they created their own profiles :-) ... if somebody, for example, wants to use Adobe's profiles DNG does not help at all - you still have to wait ;D
Again, I don't know what your point is nor the text you just pretend for a public.
So you agree there are differences! DNG Profile or not, the behavior is such that there's a need for an update and again, is this impossible or not to rectify? Your refusal to answer a simple question to keep the manufacturers off the hook is suspect!
they do and dcraw illustrates it is nothing to think about unless you are inclined to spread baseless FUD about huge work that poor developers have to do... they are paid to do this and don't expect the cost of Adobe tools to drop if next day all cameras will start generating DNGs...
Nothing to think about? WTF is that supposed to mean? The last version of ALL raw converters and many current can't read the file right? That's something to think about for sure.
you are off base because you try to create an illusion of a massive problem
First off, that's your baggage (the so called illusion). Next, it's been an ongoing issue for YEARS! Like EVERY TIME a new camera comes out. This has affected potentially thousands of users. Just think about how often this happens. It's unacceptable to have to wait for a fix of a problem that is solely created by the camera manufactures. Tell us how and why that's justifiable? Especially when you've admitted by their own doing the raw files are different and apparently it isn’t impossible not to do so.
I count couple of dozen people rasining issues
Just this week with one camera. What about the history of all raw files and what's coming in the future. Be it dozens or hundreds maybe you can tell us what number of pissed off customers warrants a change in this on-going issue? Since it didn't affect you, it's not a big deal? Again, you have zero sympathy for photographers and you can't justify this on-going behavior in producing a non universal raw even per company let alone a universal raw format for all.
sure, my day job is in IT staffing business Grin ... does it make you happy ?
Yes thanks, it makes your POV pretty obvious now. Maybe if you were a photographer with a new camera who wanted to use it, you'd understand the problem. It's not the end of the world, no question. It's a PITA that continues month after month, year after year for no reason. But since it doesn't directly affect you, you don't really care how it affects others. Let em wait right?
customers are getting support in raw converters... you either unwilling or unable to understand that most of people use OOC JPG, out of the rest most are using OEM raw converters, out of the rest most do not buy a new camera right away, most of the rest are OK to wait a little or play w/ raws using hex editors and only few repeat that endless cycle of crying that always stops in a few weeks
Yes customers are eventually getting support from raw conveters, but WHY should they wait? What justification do you have that lets these companies continuously play this silly game making their customers wait? Again, if it's impossible for a new camera to spit out a file a current converter hasn't seen nor can use, tell us, if it isn't impossible, justify why the companies do this and why the paying public should wait.
-
I repeat you that Panasonic example for years, yet every time you pretend you did not hear about it... memory loss ?
The sentence makes no sense to me. What about Panasonic?
-
You keep bringing up DNG. This has nothing to do with DNG and everything to do with a company producing a product that can provide the paying customer with a data file they can use. ONE of the data files can't be used, the other can. Customers who want to use the raw have to wait. Why should they? Whether it's 50 or 5000.
-
Again, I don't know what your point is nor the text you just pretend for a public.
So you agree there are differences! DNG Profile or not, the behavior is such that there's a need for an update and again, is this impossible or not to rectify? Your refusal to answer a simple question to keep the manufacturers off the hook is suspect! Nothing to think about? WTF is that supposed to mean? The last version of ALL raw converters and many current can't read the file right? That's something to think about for sure. First off, that's your baggage (the so called illusion). Next, it's been an ongoing issue for YEARS! Like EVERY TIME a new camera comes out. This has affected potentially thousands of users. Just think about how often this happens. It's unacceptable to have to wait for a fix of a problem that is solely created by the camera manufactures. Tell us how and why that's justifiable? Especially when you've admitted by their own doing the raw files are different and apparently it isn’t impossible not to do so. Just this week with one camera. What about the history of all raw files and what's coming in the future. Be it dozens or hundreds maybe you can tell us what number of pissed off customers warrants a change in this on-going issue? Since it didn't affect you, it's not a big deal? Again, you have zero sympathy for photographers and you can't justify this on-going behavior in producing a non universal raw even per company let alone a universal raw format for all. Yes thanks, it makes your POV pretty obvious now. Maybe if you were a photographer with a new camera who wanted to use it, you'd understand the problem. It's not the end of the world, no question. It's a PITA that continues month after month, year after year for no reason. But since it doesn't directly affect you, you don't really care how it affects others. Let em wait right? Yes customers are eventually getting support from raw conveters, but WHY should they wait? What justification do you have that lets these companies continuously play this silly game making their customers wait? Again, if it's impossible for a new camera to spit out a file a current converter hasn't seen nor can use, tell us, if it isn't impossible, justify why the companies do this and why the paying public should wait.
The answer to all of this is that the processing of raw data is still a rapidly evolving technology (not yet mature). The camera manufacturer believes that their technics, processing etc is their advantage in the marketing of their products. Adobe thinks their processes are superior, likewise C1, DxO, etc, etc.
This competition is what keeps pushing the development process and competition to the benefit of the consumer.
If we agreed to a standard raw format five years ago, what would we have DNG/ACR version 4.6.
-
The camera manufacturer believes that their technics, processing etc is their advantage in the marketing of their products. Adobe thinks their processes are superior, likewise C1, DxO, etc, etc.
This competition is what keeps pushing the development process and competition to the benefit of the consumer.
I don't see how that's so considering that whatever the tiny difference are between releases, it's moot given a period of time (weeks, months and in this case days) for companies to figure out how to decode the data. IOW, this delay in using the data we prefer is temporary but frustrating for those that buy a camera and wish to use it immediately. What's the justification for this as far as the camera manufacturers are concerned? How has that raw data changed from the day the camera shipped to the week later when X number of 3rd party converters now support it? It hasn't. It's just been a delay that didn't need to be.
The bottom line as I see it is this. This behavior has no justification (at least I've yet to hear any). It's just a burden on the customer albeit for a short time. IF you happen to be one of those customers, it's not pleasant nor justified. The more photographers refrain from bitching about it (which is far from FUD as defined by Vladimirovich), the less likely the condition will change.
The difference between Vladimirovich and I in terms of this debate is I believe the years of this ongoing behavior have no benefit for the customer. Just the opposite. And I don't care if only 0.01% of these customers get stuck with this versus 1% or 10%. If you're the person who's in that boat, you're not happy. I haven't had that experience but unlike Vladimirovich I can understand it. Maybe next time he's doing his IT job and a product or service he depends on causes issues, hopefully he'll step back and reflect on that feeling and see that it isn't much different from the folks who buy a camera shortly after release and can't use it as they desire. Waiting isn't a legitimate solution. Blaming someone for buying a camera early isn't an excuse. Expecting other software companies to update their converter when there's no need isn't justification for "doing your job" as he puts it.
Bottom line, a camera company on June 1st releases a camera with a new raw format that virtually every product but their own can't read. Weeks later after work, the products can read it. So what's the point of the company doing this in the first place? There is none, it's bad customer service. And the more buyers who ignore it because the timing doesn't affect them, the longer the companies continue to do this. Only when you are personally affected is this an issue. That's kind of selfish and doesn't do our industry any good.
-
The bottom line as I see it is this. This behavior has no justification (at least I've yet to hear any). It's just a burden on the customer albeit for a short time. IF you happen to be one of those customers, it's not pleasant nor justified. The more photographers refrain from bitching about it (which is far from FUD as defined by Vladimirovich), the less likely the condition will change.
Another sadness is that just because Adobe has released something that will convert Nikon's new RAW format, doesn't mean it's the best they can do. There are usually tweaks as they advance their understanding of the format. Nikon gets a head start because they know what's in the file. And they can stay ahead because they can take advantage of everything in the file, even if Adobe (or whoever) chooses not to. Not to mention that they have the RAW to JPG conversion algorithms to exactly match what the camera creates for JPGs.
It is irritating that each manufacturer has a different RAW format for each camera. I suppose they think they improve their format with each new release. Maybe they do.
-
My point is simple if the manufacturer, the software developer, and the user adopt a particular standard of producing raw data. Then there would be no need for any of them to make further development of their individual process and further research and development. This will not happen.
-
My point is simple if the manufacturer, the software developer, and the user adopt a particular standard of producing raw data. Then there would be no need for any of them to make further development of their individual process and further research and development. This will not happen.
I'm not asking for a universal raw format (in this thread) although I'd prefer that. I'm asking why there are three Nikon variants in recent memory that are all different to a tiny degree it breaks workflows and if it's impossible they be treated the same in terms of any or all converters. I've asked several times, is this impossible?
I've asked in the past why there can't be a 3rd option on the camears: Raw, JPEG and DNG. This is obviously a political issue. If we had that 3rd choice, then who cares if the proprietary raw isn't updated for months or at all, at least those that prefer DNG and want access on day one could have it. Best of both worlds.
Or another possibility: Nikon and Canon and friends just allow any 3rd party converter company to sign an NDA, get a raw file a few weeks prior to releases. On release day, the converters understand the new data.
The current behavior isn't acceptable IMHO, but I guess that's pretty clear. I'm open to any or all of the above possibilities, I'm not open to doing business as usual when it's the photographer who suffers. Even if there are very few.
-
Or another possibility: Nikon and Canon and friends just allow any 3rd party converter company to sign an NDA, get a raw file a few weeks prior to releases. On release day, the converters understand the new data.
This makes the most sense to me. It allows the camera manufactures to evolve and improve their formats, and even add new features not covered by DNG. And it provides early purchasers the 1st class, optimized, raw support they need.
I, for one, am contemplating a D810 to "replace" my D3, but will wait until C1 has support.
-
My point is simple if the manufacturer, the software developer, and the user adopt a particular standard of producing raw data. Then there would be no need for any of them to make further development of their individual process and further research and development. This will not happen.
Are you sure? (I'm honestly asking as I've got no idea, I just use the data). Would producing a standard means of understanding the data force a lack of further development?
Couldn't they still produce proprietary metadata that only their converters could utilize as they do today?
-
I, for one, am contemplating a D810 to "replace" my D3, but will wait until C1 has support.
Hi Bob,
I don't understand that. Your new D810 will presumably allow to take better images than your current setup. It will do that from day 1. The Raw files can be converted by a number of alternative Raw converters, including the one that comes with the camera (I assume). And you can at a later date still revisit the Raws, they are not going away, but at least you have got them, rather that having missed the opportunity to shoot them.
The Raw files will still be there when you unleash their full potential when your trusted Raw converter also supports a good conversion. That support has mainly to do with color calibration, which I'd rather like having done well, rather than mediocre.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Are you sure? (I'm honestly asking as I've got no idea, I just use the data). Would producing a standard means of understanding the data force a lack of further development?
Couldn't they still produce proprietary metadata that only their converters could utilize as they do today?
And I don't know either. But could different sensors (Bayer, Foveon, X-Trans) somehow be shoehorned into a single format? And what if someone develops yet another sensor technology? What then?
I would hate to limit manufactures.
But I still agree with the initial point: the manufactures should make it easier for their customers to get at the data. Surely they know that few people use their proprietary RAW conversion tools, preferring Lightroom, Aperture, Capture One, Iridient Developer, etc. instead. My opinion is that the manufacturer publishing their formats, in advance of their cameras' releases, perhaps under NDA, to the RAW converter developers seems reasonable.
-
Dear Francisco,
> I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.
I think with RawDigger you do not need to edit the camera model, but depending on the version of RD you are running you may need to set black level to manual.
-
I don't understand that. Your new D810 will presumably allow to take better images than your current setup. It will do that from day 1. The Raw files can be converted by a number of alternative Raw converters, including the one that comes with the camera (I assume). And you can at a later date still revisit the Raws, they are not going away, but at least you have got them, rather that having missed the opportunity to shoot them.
The Raw files will still be there when you unleash their full potential when your trusted Raw converter also supports a good conversion. That support has mainly to do with color calibration, which I'd rather like having done well, rather than mediocre.
I suppose you're right. And since I was in a Best Buy this morning that actually had several D810s in stock, I got one. Now I'll wait impatiently for the C1 update that covers it.
-
> there IS a difference such that all the raw converters that were not updated for D810 can't access the raw data
Not in the case D800 vs. D810. Raw format produced by those cameras is the same. "Prevention" is artificial, and that is why hex editor or ExifTool trick does work.
-
Not in the case D800 vs. D810. Raw format produced by those cameras is the same.
That's encouraging. So presumably when the newer of the two was released, did the existing raw converters simply work without any further updates?
-
That's encouraging. So presumably when the newer of the two was released, did the existing raw converters simply work without any further updates?
Depends on how full the format support is implemented. If the raw converter is reading black level from the raw file, should be OK; especially with custom-made colour profile. If it relies on built-in tables, like dcraw for Nikon stating black level as 596, and the table is not yet in place, it is a problem (D800 has black level at zero).
-
Depends on how full the format support is implemented. If the raw converter is reading black level from the raw file, should be OK; especially with custom-made colour profile. If it relies on built-in tables, like dcraw for Nikon stating black level as 596, and the table is not yet in place, it is a problem (D800 has black level at zero).
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. If the two raws are the same, why would the converter not treat them equally? The table that is or isn't in place is where?
-
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. If the two raws are the same, why would the converter not treat them equally? The table that is or isn't in place is where?
Raw converter should treat them equally, but equally _right_, meaning it needs to read the black level tag from makernote. If instead it uses internal converter tables, the update of the converter or a hack is needed. The table is not the right approach, because the black level is not a constant and depending on the camera settings and sensor temperature it changes.
-
Dear Francisco,
> I was able to open the NEF available from Imaging Resource in RawDigger and RawTherapee by editing the camera model (to D800E) using a hex editor.
I think with RawDigger you do not need to edit the camera model, but depending on the version of RD you are running you may need to set black level to manual.
You are right! I stand corrected.
-
Hi,
I have no insight in raw developers, but I presume that they use a colour conversion matrix to convert from sensor RGBG values to internal working space. So, that colour conversion matrix is needed my understanding is that Adobe develops it colour conversion matrix based on lab measurements. As far as I know DNG does contain two colour conversion matrices one for illuminant D and one for A, with interpolation between the two for different colour temperature.
What I would ask if raw data from say Nikon does contain colour conversion matrices, or if these need to be measured. If the raw file doesn't contain conversion matrices, I would guess these need to be measured.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Bob,
I don't understand that. Your new D810 will presumably allow to take better images than your current setup. It will do that from day 1. The Raw files can be converted by a number of alternative Raw converters, including the one that comes with the camera (I assume). And you can at a later date still revisit the Raws, they are not going away, but at least you have got them, rather that having missed the opportunity to shoot them.
The Raw files will still be there when you unleash their full potential when your trusted Raw converter also supports a good conversion. That support has mainly to do with color calibration, which I'd rather like having done well, rather than mediocre.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What I would ask if raw data from say Nikon does contain colour conversion matrices, or if these need to be measured. If the raw file doesn't contain conversion matrices, I would guess these need to be measured.
My understanding is the conversion to the internal working space's source is 'assumed' in some way by some (all?) 3rd party converters unless they somehow figure out the spectral sensitivities of the sensor/filters. I have no idea how each company does this and would suspect the manufacturer has a better/different idea unless everyone is doing this identically.
Might want to check out Doug Keer's piece on this, his comments are below:
The matter of the "color space" of the sensor array itself is a fascinating one. It is discussed at length in my new technical article, "Digital Camera Sensor Colorimetry", available here:
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin#Sensor_Colorimetry
This article is very fat, and was actually written for the selfish purpose of recording the many fascinating things I had learned, and come to somewhat understand, during an intense week-long study of the literature covering various interlocking technical areas. (If I don't do that, it will all evaporate with a half-life of about three weeks.)
Now underway is the extraction from this heap of some articles of manageable scope and length covering particular aspect of the field. One is the matter of "What color space does the camera sensor actually operate in [essentially in what color space is the raw data to be interpreted, once we get over the fact that there are not three photodetectors at any given pixel location], and what are its primaries."
The answer to that is fascinating (perhaps even shocking), and I'll give a summary here.
• The typical camera sensor array does not maintain "metameric accuracy", which means that although there can be many light spectrums that all have the same color, the sensor does not necessarily give the same set of three outputs (implying the same color) for all of them. Not desirable, but a result of various design compromises.
• Thus, the sensor cannot be said to practice any color space at all.
• However, without actually ever saying so, we treat is as if it did practice a color space (it does "approximately"); else we could not transform its outputs, after demosaicing (or perhaps more precisely, during demosaicing), to any bona fide "delivery" color space, such as sRGB or Adobe RGB.)
• Stipulating to the notion that the sensor practices a color space, what are its primaries? Fascinatingly enough, they are all imaginary (like the primaries of the CIE XYZ color space). They could not be physically generated, and if they could, we could not see them. They have existence only in that they follow the recognized mathematical rules about what happens when we combine two or more primaries to produce an actual visible color.
• Could that conundrum have been avoided by "proper" design of the sensor? No. For a sensor to practice a color space having real (physically-realizable) primaries, its "channel" spectral response curves would have to be negative for some range of wavelengths. That is physically impossible. (We cannot design a filter that, if placed in front of a photodetector, would result in the photodetector giving a positive output for some wavelengths and a negative one for others. No, an offset won't fix that - the output must be zero for "no" stimulus.)
• Wouldn't it be nice to choose filter responses for a sensor array such that its three outputs directly related to the sRGB color space (that is, were essentially the values R, G, and B in linear form)? Nice, but not possible. Such a sensor would have real primaries (the sRGB primaries, in fact). As a corollary of the matter described just above, for that to be so, each response curve would have to be negative over some range of wavelengths, not physically possible.
I have to tell you that learning all this was somewhat of a shock to me.
-
The RC version does not do a very good job of converting D810 files. (I have shot with mine since last Thursday) NX-D does a significantly better job with conversions. I expect Capture One will have great profiles as will other companies.
http://photographylife.com/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-iso-comparison
This review speaks to the difficulties of trusting the Adobe conversions.
-
My understanding is the conversion to the internal working space's source is 'assumed' in some way by some (all?) 3rd party converters unless they somehow figure out the spectral sensitivities of the sensor/filters. I have no idea how each company does this and would suspect the manufacturer has a better/different idea unless everyone is doing this identically.
In an indirect way, Nikon are supplying their camera profiles with SDK. It is also a banal thing to calculate colour transforms using Nikon converter. Shooting a target and computing colour transforms is elementary, too.
-
Shooting a target and computing colour transforms is elementary, too.
I suppose if my goal was to get the output referred color numbers (why not just look at what the converter shows me?). That's not the data I'm referring to. Nor Doug if I understand his fine article.
-
All third-party converters are using one or two of the above-mentioned methods.
-
All third-party converters are using one or two of the above-mentioned methods.
Maybe I'm confused or we're talking about two different parts of the process. The raw image data is in some native camera color space right? But it is not a colorimetric color space, and has no single “correct” relationship to colorimetry. How to get there and what is the native camera color space? Again, my understanding is that short of having spectral sensitivities of the filters, someone has to make a choice of how to convert values in non-colorimetric color spaces to colorimetric ones. There are good and not as good choices, but no single correct conversion (unless the “scene” you are photographing has only three independent colorants, like when we scan film). The image has a color space, but do we know what it is? If you know the camera spectral sensitivities, you may estimate the image color space quite well if the camera spectral sensitivities happen to satisfy the Ives-Luther condition which is unlikely. Only then we can determine the colorimetric color space. So do all the raw converters have this necessary data supplied to them or as I'm led to believe, they make some educated guesses and move on?
It is kind of useful that critical photographers understand this otherwise they might wonder why they get different results photographing the same scene with different cameras, even when they use the same raw converter. Or, why different conversions to scene-referred produce different results for the same scene and camera. You need to know there is judgment involved in designing the conversion otherwise you won’t know to perform evaluations to see what conversion you like best.
-
> raw image data is in some native camera color space
Depends on how one defines colour space. Mathematically and from the point of view of physics, no, it is not a space because the metrics is not defined.
> short of having spectral sensitivities of the filters, someone has to make a choice of how to convert values in non-colorimetric color spaces to colorimetric ones
Spectral sensitivity is not the solution here. One of the reasons is that it does not help with the metameric error.
Speaking of C1, they calculate colour transforms based on shooting a good target. Myself, I determine spectral responses and shoot targets, too. Happens that profiling from targets renders better results (both in terms of dE2000 and visually).
-
Depends on how one defines colour space. Mathematically and from the point of view of physics, no, it is not a space because the metrics is not defined.
That's where I'm coming from. How are the metrics defined so the color space is defined? Again, I'm told this is not completely precise, there are good and not as good choices, but no single correct conversion.
-
> How are the metrics defined so the color space is defined?
Commonly, in colour the metrics is defined if the conversion to LAB/XYZ/Munsell is defined.
> there are good and not as good choices, but no single correct conversion.
A number of manufacturers have conversion matrices and twists included right in the raw files' metadata. Some are even calibrated to particular sensor sample, and additionally take into account shooting conditions, like sensor temperature. Is that conversion data is always metrically good / appeals to my taste? - No. So you are quite right, the answer is definitely "no single correct conversion exists" and more importantly - indeed, "there are good and not as good choices".
-
Commonly, in colour the metrics is defined if the conversion to LAB/XYZ/Munsell is defined.
To LAB/XYZ/Munsell from what? I guess the answer is, it depends. So thanks, it seems you're confirming what I thought to be the case.
-
Lab/XYZ/Munsell from RGB.
I'm making 2 points: in case of D810 as well as in case of many other cameras, neither raw format, nor colour transform are offering any excuse for delayed camera support in raw converters.
-
Lab/XYZ/Munsell from RGB.
I'm making 2 points: in case of D810 as well as in case of many other cameras, neither raw format, nor colour transform are offering any excuse for delayed camera support in raw converters.
What RGB would that be is the question (which has nothing to do with an excuse for delayed camera support in raw converters)?
-
> What RGB would that be is the question
Camera RGB. Once the metrics is introduced (that's what profiling in fact is) the conversion is possible. This metrics is of course an approximation, like it is with any physical objects. "Correct" profiles exist only in theory, be it a printer or a sensor. One of the reasons is that the physical sensor is rather far from ideal, meaning it is not a flat field - different pixels of the same colour have slightly different responses depending on their location and manufacturing tolerances (same as different nozzles do not produce the exact same droplets, and paper is not perfectly uniform too). If the target is shot, then rotated and shot again, colour transforms calculated from both shots render noticeable differences (larger than 2 dE). However if one compares different modern profiling methods, the difference in colour transforms is below 4 dE, enough for practical purposes. It means we have mostly only good choices, given we know what we are doing. The difference between sensor samples reaches 6%, plus we have different lenses which affect the colour registration too. So if one wants a good profile he better makes it himself.
-
Hi
A question to Iliah: Do you need a representative camera that you can shoot to be able to support it? With "correct colour".
Your discussion of tolerances is quite revealing. Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Erik
> What RGB would that be is the question
Camera RGB. Once the metrics is introduced (that's what profiling in fact is) the conversion is possible. This metrics is of course an approximation, like it is with any physical objects. "Correct" profiles exist only in theory, be it a printer or a sensor. One of the reasons is that the physical sensor is rather far from ideal, meaning it is not a flat field - different pixels of the same colour have slightly different responses depending on their location and manufacturing tolerances (same as different nozzles do not produce the exact same droplets, and paper is not perfectly uniform too). If the target is shot, then rotated and shot again, colour transforms calculated from both shots render noticeable differences (larger than 2 dE). However if one compares different modern profiling methods, the difference in colour transforms is below 4 dE, enough for practical purposes. It means we have mostly only good choices, given we know what we are doing. The difference between sensor samples reaches 6%, plus we have different lenses which affect the colour registration too. So if one wants a good profile he better makes it himself.
-
Dear Erik,
> Do you need a representative camera that you can shoot to be able to support it? With "correct colour".
I need at least 2 cameras to be reasonably sure I do not have an "outlying" sample instead of a representative. It is quite a headache actually to borrow them. Without having a representative camera in hands one can try to use Imaging Resource ColorChecker SG target shots, and perform an image matching trick, that is calculate an RGB-to-RGB transform from raw RGB and RGB obtained from "native" raw converter (Nikon Capture, Canon DPP,...). This usually gives a decent approximation.
-
Strange that C1Pro v7.2.3 doesn't include D810 support.
-
> What RGB would that be is the question
Camera RGB.
How is camera RGB defined?
-
How is camera RGB defined?
Camera RGB is a generic name for sensor output.
-
The current behavior isn't acceptable IMHO
it is acceptable because you (you personally) do nothing serious to change it and the situation is supported by those who make raw converters (and those who make sure that dcraw code lives - that way mr. Coffin himself is probably the #1 reason why) because they just provide support for the new cameras and they do that in acceptable timeframe for 99 out 100 purchasers who are using non OOC JPG/non OEM raw converters... there is ~zero pressure of any kind on camera manufacturers to provide the fully documented access to their raw files in whatever format they like... just be a realist.
-
Camera RGB is a generic name for sensor output.
OK but how is that defined, what flavor of RGB is it exactly, how does one raw converter company vs. another get to that recipe? Or is this completely understood by each and not ambigous? That's the root of my question.
-
it is acceptable because you (you personally) do nothing serious to change it and the situation is supported by those who make raw converters (and those who make sure that dcraw code lives - that way mr. Coffin himself is probably the #1 reason why) because they just provide support for the new cameras and they do that in acceptable timeframe for 99 out 100 purchasers who are using non OOC JPG/non OEM raw converters... there is ~zero pressure of any kind on camera manufacturers to provide the fully documented access to their raw files in whatever format they like... just be a realist.
If you'd read a bit of the posts here and elsewhere, you'll see that it isn't acceptable to others besides myself. But it doesn't matter at this point, you simply don't care about the burdens of other's facing their inability to use the data as they so desire for absolutely no justifiable reason.
-
> how is that defined
By the response necessary. Colour filter arrays in front of the sensor are not arbitrary filters.
> what flavor of RGB is it exactly
This question is more or less like "what flavour is scanner RGB". I guess you know the answer. Filter flavour.
> how does one raw converter company vs. another get to that recipe?
Three ways I mentioned above.
-
> how is that defined
By the response necessary. Colour filter arrays in front of the sensor are not arbitrary filters.
I didn't think they were arbitrary, I'm wondering how their behavior so to speak, is defined before conversion to the internal RGB color space used for processing.
> what flavor of RGB is it exactly
This question is more or less like "what flavour is scanner RGB". I guess you know the answer. Filter flavour.
True, in terms of taking a target of known color values, scanning it which can vary drastically, then building a profile. I thought a bayer array was a bit more complicated than that to define.
> how does one raw converter company vs. another get to that recipe?
Three ways I mentioned above.
OK, so if I understand you, that varies and that goes back to the statement that there are good and less good ways to do this, but assumptions have to be made along the way. Is that fair?
-
If you'd read a bit of the posts here and elsewhere, you'll see that it isn't acceptable to others besides myself.
that's just noise - manufacturers pay zero attention, because they know that even you will buy their cameras in the end.
But it doesn't matter at this point, you simply don't care about the burdens of other's facing their inability to use the data as they so desire for absolutely no justifiable reason.
I do not buy a new camera (not that I am buying a lot of cameras, like some people here) until there is at least one raw converter that I can use & want to use for it - the rest is just emotions that will die out now even for most people who complained (now that ACR RC was made available last week)... so for me this is a non issue, but I want to try to represent the opposite view as a matter of principle.
-
that's just noise - manufacturers pay zero attention, because they know that even you will buy their cameras in the end.
Fine, we'll agree to disagree and I'll continue to believe based on your posts, you just like those manufacturers don't really care about photographers and their issues or this industry.
I do not buy a new camera (not that I am buying a lot of cameras, like some people here) until there is at least one raw converter that I can use & want to use for it - the rest is just emotions that will die out now even for most people who complained (now that ACR RC was made available last week)... so for me this is a non issue, but I want to try to represent the opposite view as a matter of principle.
Yes, it's all about you and of course everyone who buys a camera before the converter they hope to use is just a fool. I wonder what Nikon or Canon or the camera suppliers would say about that. Like you, they don't give a s^%t,.
-
> how their behavior so to speak, is defined before conversion to the internal RGB color space
The guides for creating CFAs are based on a trade-off between tolerable metrics ambiguity (including metameric failures) and low noise. To have low noise and better colour response stability in shadows the filters deviate from L-I, and also they are more transparent meaning lower separation. We are now on the third generation of CFAs, first being very strict and thus cameras were more noisy, the second was too relaxed and resulted in mushy and plastic colours, now it is in-between, which is possible due to lower read noise. Incidentally larger pixels allow for stricter CFAs due to "lower" noise, and so are larger sensors (one of the reasons semi-MF sensors are more joy to me). There is a disconnect between filter design and colour transforms design - good colour transforms are based on experiments and not on design data. It is like it used to be with lenses, resolution was determined through tests and not based on calculations, and even now the calculated MTFs can't be trusted much. Internal space is not always RGB; and even if it is an RGB it is often that quite a lot of calculations is performed over the camera RGB.
Scanner filters were dealing with 4 main types of dyes, slide, neg, photopaper cmy, and press cmyk. Those can't be separated well enough out of the box with the same set of filters. But profiling takes a very good care of the diversity making it possible to reproduce all types of originals with a single profile made from a combined target which contains different emulsion types. The situation with Bayer filters is similar, given we normalize the target by a flat field before profiling, and we profile using targets encompassing 10 stops (2 shots of SG 4 stops apart with a black trap /SpyderCUBE/ included in the scene is a good way, but the first shot needs to be exposed so that raw values for the white patch are about 227 /that corresponds to 242 in gamma 2.2/); or have an adequate setup with a monochromator. More, for most of the practical purposes even colour separation we have with a film is quite adequate to cover for a wide variety of light and scenery. On a side note, digital photography introduced a false notion that filters on the lens are not necessary anymore.
Good and bad ways do exist, but there is a lot of information allowing to avoid bad ways. Assumptions currently (since 1999 at least) are not necessary because the math. models and calculation methods we have are quite good. Ironically, not so good for printing.
-
of course everyone who buys a camera before the converter they hope to use is just a fool.
no, there are
1) curious people willing to play using tools available and wait for support or people like recently joined here IB who can create their own quality profiles
2) OOC JPG shooters or those willing to do this and wait for some non OEM raw converter of their choice
3) OEM raw converter users or those who are OK to use it and wait for some non OEM raw converter of their choice
and that covers 99.5% early adopters... so for a mass user it is not a problem and so it is not a problem for manufacturers... and the fools are people who earn money using cameras and who sell their old cameras to afford a brand new one w/o waiting for it to be supported by tools used in their "workflow", those are fools... I can hardly imagine the need to sell in a rush for example D800/800e to buy D810 if your $$$ do not allow to buy it just to play... in most cases that just GAS w/o $$$ to support it.
-
Happens that profiling from targets renders better results (both in terms of dE2000 and visually).
what is behind getting better profiles from some targets (one can assume all the strings attached including individually measured patches, target rotations, proper illuminations, bracketing, light traps, you name it) than from monochromator (one can assume all the proper calibration) ?
-
and that covers 99.5% early adopters... so for a mass user it is not a problem and so it is not a problem for manufacturers... and the fools are people who earn money using cameras and who sell their old cameras to afford a brand new one w/o waiting for it to be supported by tools used in their "workflow", those are fools...
Look, in just one week on one forum (the Adobe UtoU) there are 18 different topics from customers of just the 810 asking about support in one raw processor:
https://forums.adobe.com/search.jspa?q=Nikon+d810
Obviously it is not a problem for the manufactures or they'd do something about it. Obviously it is a problem for photographers who take the time asking for help.
I can hardly imagine the need to sell in a rush for example D800/800e to buy D810 if your $$$ do not allow to buy it just to play... in most cases that just GAS w/o $$$ to support it.
And you can hardly imagine their frustrations, you can hardly describe (you haven't) why this has to be an issue. It doesn't concern you so it's not relevant. As I said, it's all about you. Time to move on. One of us has an interest in their fellow photographers and the issues that plague them, the other isn't and doesn't care. If at least you had one justification for this behavior, you wouldn't come across (to me, maybe others) has being rather heartless.
-
Look, in just one week on one forum (the Adobe UtoU) there are 18 different topics from customers of just the 810 asking about support in one raw processor:
https://forums.adobe.com/search.jspa?q=Nikon+d810
do you care actually read the text in the search results ? not every out of 18 shown results was about what you try to show... for example one result is "Can't open D810 RAW files, even after ACR 8.6 RC download!" - that' clearly about somebody with a different issue (something is wrong with his ACR installations)... or some non onwers are just asking about the time table = "Since today the new Nikon D810 is available in stores. When will this camera is supported by Lightroom?" ... you are a master of FUD, that's for sure...
-
And you can hardly imagine their frustrations
and you try to inflate a non issue... I mean that is an issue for example for IB as he might spend some of his time actually developing something for new cameras and he might be the person who actually buys them among the first, but for the regular folks it is not.
, you can hardly describe (you haven't) why this has to be an issue.
that's you just repeat the same stuff... there is no issue for manufacturers (apparently not even for Fuji with x-trans demosaicking issues or for Sigma where the proper support for .X3F is simply absent in ACR/LR - even in those cases it is/was really a problem for customers because the relevant support was not coming either for many month /Fuji/ or is not coming ever at all /Sigma/) and there is no issue for 999 out of 1000 buyers of new cameras... because again - by the time those folks buy, support is in place (and most of folks anyways does use OOC JPG and/or use OEM raw converters... not even LR/ACR can compete w/ that crowd marketwise)
One of us has an interest in their fellow photographers and the issues that plague them, the other isn't and doesn't care.
one of us has an interest to inflate the issue (more so in case of D810) and one of us just shows the real situation
-
do you care actually read the text in the search results ? not every out of 18 shown results was about what you try to show... for example one result is "Can't open D810 RAW files, even after ACR 8.6 RC download!" - that' clearly about somebody with a different issue (something is wrong with his ACR installations)... or some non onwers are just asking about the time table = "Since today the new Nikon D810 is available in stores. When will this camera is supported by Lightroom?" ...
Wrong! The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format! Had this been implemented, there would be no such issue. Want to wager the same person had no issue what so ever with the same camera and the JPEG?
you are a master of FUD, that's for sure...
Well at least unlike you, I'm not a self centered empthy-less photographer, that's for sure. In all these threads, you've been unable to explain why the current conditions are acceptable, desirable or useful be it 18 or 17 or 1700 frustrated photographers. Because you just don't care about the photo industry or the people who make it up.
-
The biggest problem with monochromator is cameras with semi-transparent mirrors. Some OLPF/AA filters also pose a problem. If a sensor has metameric issues that goes into memory colours (green-orange, some of the Sony sensors have it), measurements with monochromator result in awkward colours.
-
> The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format!
Again, in reality raw formats are very few and seldom change. Issue is that metadata is not documented. Universal raw format is irrelevant, what is relevant is documentation.
-
Isn't DNG a step into the right direction? Do we have a better alternative?
Best regards
Erik
... Issue is that metadata is not documented. Universal raw format is irrelevant, what is relevant is documentation.
-
Iliah,
Thanks for the information. A longer explanation may be of interest, you don't happen to have a nice link to one of the more technical threads? (I know you post a lot of good stuff on DPreview for instance).
Best regards
Erik
The biggest problem with monochromator is cameras with semi-transparent mirrors. Some OLPF/AA filters also pose a problem. If a sensor has metameric issues that goes into memory colours (green-orange, some of the Sony sensors have it), measurements with monochromator result in awkward colours.
-
Wrong! The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format! Had this been implemented, there would be no such issue.
Andrew, that still doesn't make sense, no matter how often you repeat it.
Camera RGB is universal (although some e.g. use different blackpoints or store the data in non-linear response curves), but useless without calibration of some sort. So any time the camera's CFA characteristics change, any Raw converter software maker must determine the best parameters to use in their specific (usually undocumented) Raw demosaicing method by trial and error. Even between cameras of the same type, there may be (small) differences.
Besides, camera Raw formats are typically TIFFs with known (Tagged) storage positions for the various parameters, but the actual data stored at those offset positions can differ between manufacturers and camera models. So it's not about the file format but about interpreting the data itself. Even if the file format would be identical between manufacturers, the data would still need interpretation and calibration for the specific demosaicing process one wishes to use. So with each new camera introduced to the market, there will be some effort required, unless all software producers use the same demosaicing engine. Don't hold your breath for that to happen ...
It's mostly about the software, not the camera producers (unless they use non-standard sensor designs, e.g. Foveon). Camera makers will keep on innovating (one hopes), therefore some of the new features must be recorded in the known Tagged Makernote position of the EXIF data, because they are unique to that camera model and other camera makers have no need for an agreed standardized file format for that. Again, it's about interpretation of that information, not the file format.
Cheers,
Bart
-
> The entire issue is a lack of a universal raw file format!
Again, in reality raw formats are very few and seldom change. Issue is that metadata is not documented. Universal raw format is irrelevant, what is relevant is documentation.
I 100% agree with that. And the reason is for competitive reasons, to stay in business or grow it, not to annoy software developers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
On the other hand, the DNG format have the information needed. I don't know how many users use vendors software, but folks like me who use Lightroom would be much helped by manufacturers directly supporting DNG.
I have been fortunate enough that I only once bought a camera without proper support by LR, and I simply will not buy any camera any more which is not supported by choice of tools.
It seems that Nikon is struggling to have an decent quality raw converter on the Mac while Canon gives away their software for free. I don't konow if it makes business sense for any of those companies. Leica has chosen to support DNG, one reason to buy a Leica M or Leica S.
Best regards
Erik
Andrew, that still doesn't make sense, no matter how often you repeat it.
Camera RGB is universal (although some e.g. use different blackpoints or store the data in non-linear response curves), but useless without calibration of some sort. So any time the camera's CFA characteristics change, any Raw converter software maker must determine the best parameters to use in their specific (usually undocumented) Raw demosaicing method by trial and error. Even between cameras of the same type, there may be (small) differences.
Besides, camera Raw formats are typically TIFFs with known (Tagged) storage positions for the various parameters, but the actual data stored at those offset positions can differ between manufacturers and camera models. So it's not about the file format but about interpreting the data itself. Even if the file format would be identical between manufacturers, the data would still need interpretation and calibration for the specific demosaicing process one wishes to use. So with each new camera introduced to the market, there will be some effort required, unless all software producers use the same demosaicing engine. Don't hold your breath for that to happen ...
It's mostly about the software, not the camera producers (unless they use non-standard sensor designs, e.g. Foveon). Camera makers will keep on innovating (one hopes), therefore some of the new features must be recorded in the known Tagged Makernote position of the EXIF data, because they are unique to that camera model and other camera makers have no need for an agreed standardized file format for that. Again, it's about interpretation of that information, not the file format.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Dear Erik,
Isn't DNG a step into the right direction? Do we have a better alternative?
DNG is not a format, it is a container, and it solves nothing. Problem is, decoding raw format is not an issue. You can roll back dcraw to about 3 years ago and it will decode D810 NEFs. Problem is metadata. And DNG explicitly allows un-documented metadata tags.
-
Dear Bart,
> the reason is for competitive reasons
They say so. But it is an extremely weak argument, trust me.
-
Isn't DNG a step into the right direction? Do we have a better alternative?
Sure it is, but the politics doesn’t support it. You’re hearing a lot of semantic minutia such is DNG isn’t a format but a container, it’s not the raw data, it is the metadata and so on. What you don’t hear is this side telling us it’s technically impossible to create a universal format/container (or whatever they want to call it), that provides data the camera saves that acts like the JPEG; that being, the day the camera is released, the raw converter you used to access other raw data behaves with this new data the same way. You have tech whinnies drilling down into the minutia every time you ask such simple questions because they can’t answer simple questions, it kills the debate dead in it's tracks. Go ahead, ask these people the same questions I have over the years and see if you can clear yes or no answers such as:
- Is this technically impossible for the camera raw file released today to like camera raw file that worked last week in my converter?
How is the current behavior beneficial to anyone but the camera manufacturers?
Is the current behavior beneficial to the photographer who has no intention of using the manufacturers raw converter?
Why can’t we have a 3rd option on the camera to produce a raw to DNG conversion, just as we have a switch on the camera to produce a raw to JPEG conversion, producing a file 20+ year old software is able to read.
Instead, you’ll hear them say in one sentence the data is the same but it isn’t, that the problem isn’t a problem (despite years of posts from photographers saying otherwise), that it only affects a tiny group, that this group is foolish to buy a new camera so quickly etc. They never get to the heart of the debate or answer the key question. What is the cause of the issue and how can it be fixed. Best some can do is suggest it isn't an issue. Hogwash, there have to be thousands of posts if not more over the years asking the same question: I just bought XYZ camera and ABC's converter can't read the data. Help!
This is real simple: either the problem reported is technology impossible and always will be or it can be fixed and hasn't over all these years due to politics and a lack of a loud enough demand by the customer base, while being dismissed and defended by another group that for whatever reason, would rather justify this practice than aid in the requests of (presumably) their fellow photographers. As has been said here and elsewhere regarding this issue; you're either part of the solution or part of the problem.
-
Dear Bart,
> the reason is for competitive reasons
They say so. But it is an extremely weak argument, trust me.
Hi Iliah,
Maybe, but I can imagine that reaching consensus with competitors to create a specific tag for some new patented feature, will not be a fast process... Also, removing deprecated tags to avoid EXIF bloat, would not work as it would render the old camera Raws useless. So Raw formats will grow, and grow, and grow, even if the number of pixels would remain the same. The undocumented Makernotes section in the EXIF is here to stay. Besides, why alert your competitors that you need a new tag in some universal format.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Maybe, but I can imagine that reaching consensus with competitors to create a specific tag for some new patented feature, will not be a fast process... Besides, why alert your competitors that you need a new tag in some universal format.
Another political not technological excuse.
Can anyone imagine the early days in the car industy:
Ford: we're putting the gas pedal to the right of the break pedal.
Other company: no, we want the gas pedal to the left.
Result for consumer: chaos!
-
Another political not technological excuse.
I was adding some technilogical 'excuses' while you posted.
-
Dear Bart,
> Raw formats will grow
Raw is a bitmap, one way or another. It is not growing - meta- and metemetadata are growing. It is a myth that there are some secret features in metadata that manufactures are trying to keep from each other. Teams that develop camera firmware sometimes work for competing camera manufactures.
-
> I just bought XYZ camera and ABC's converter can't read the data. Help!
It is the problem with metadata, and it is not a problem with raw format, and metadata problems can't be solved by DNG.
Is is also a problem with raw converter updates schedule.
-
> Another political not technological excuse.
Yes, but the whole thing is more about politics than anything else.
-
> Another political not technological excuse.
Yes, but the whole thing is more about politics than anything else.
And sadly these days, it appears far more difficult to fix anything political than technological.
-
>>> Another political not technological excuse.
>> Yes, but the whole thing is more about politics than anything else.
> And sadly these days, it appears far more difficult to fix anything political than technological.
Before fixing anything political, maybe not to break anything political on the first place.
-
It is the problem with metadata, and it is not a problem with raw format, and metadata problems can't be solved by DNG.
Is is also a problem with raw converter updates schedule.
Exactly!
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Iliah,
from Wikipedia: "Digital Negative (DNG) is an open lossless raw image format"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative
The way I see it DNG defines a lot of tags, like color conversion matrices. Some of it is mandatory and some are recommendations.
Best regards
Erik
Dear Erik,
DNG is not a format, it is a container, and it solves nothing. Problem is, decoding raw format is not an issue. You can roll back dcraw to about 3 years ago and it will decode D810 NEFs. Problem is metadata. And DNG explicitly allows un-documented metadata tags.
-
Dear Erik,
Wiki is a poor source. DNG can contain both lossy and lossless raw data, and it can also contain linear demosaicked images. The tags that are pre-determined in DNG are not enough for many purposes. Say, one has a stitched sensor, like semi-MF or Nikon FX. Have you seen any DNG tags that control flat fielding? 2 matrices are not enough for many purposes as well, that is why the whole DCP thing was developed, and even that does not solve everything.
-
I would rather wait the few weeks for the C1 update then mess around with a quick (market driven) response by Adobe. My D810 arrived the day it was released. I tested the camera with the Adobe Camera RAW RC version that "supports" the D810. The results, were lacking IMO. The Nikon Capture NX-D processed files were much cleaner and showed the cameras strengths.
Waiting a few weeks for Phase One to update Capture One is worth it to me. C1 does an exceptional job with Nikon files and I expect that the D810 files processed with Capture One will be up to their high standards.
-
I am sure they will eventually etui tab 3 10.1 (http://www.etuigalaxytab3.com) housse samsung galaxy tab 3 10.1 (http://www.etuigalaxytab3.com)
-
There is a beta 7.2.4 available, but I did not try it yet:
http://leblogaaphoto.wordpress.com
Markus
-
It's there in C1 8, now released.
Paul
-
It's there in C1 8, now released.
Paul
Yes, working very well too!
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5563/15224168266_c36f4de0f3_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard