RawDigger format reader is based on dcraw. Dcraw didn't even support P65+ and later properly until last year when I personally added support and sent it to Dave Coffin (Dcraw author) which got it integrated into Dcraw, and then it propagated to all software using dcraw in one way or another, including RawDigger.
Dave doesn't prioritize the MFD formats very much an no other of the open source guys either except for, well, me. CCDs especially are a mess as they depend so much on calibration data, that is you get to display an image quickly but to do it right you must reverse engineer and apply the calibration data too. CMOS are not as dependent on calibration data fortunately, but as RawDigger/dcraw seems to read the 16 bit files the 2 extra bits are probably stored as some extension or something.
The raw data is read in the function phase_one_load_raw_c and you can see on this magic line:
i = (pixel[col] << 2) - ph1.black + cblack[row][col >= ph1.split_col] + rblack[col][row >= ph1.split_row];
that the real data pixel[col] is shifted up two bits from 14 to 16 (the << 2 operator), that is the current decoder can only read 14 bit real data like the format was before (yes also including for the "16 bit" CCDs...).
Someone's got to look into what the format differences in the new 16 bit encoding is and decode that properly and provide that to Dave/Dcraw, then it will end up in RawDigger eventually.
And no, Phase One won't help out. I've of course asked. If I don't do it it will probably stay half-supported for years, just like the P65+. Maybe I'll take a look, but I must say that I really really
hate reverse-engineering formats. It's hard coming up with a more frustrating time-wasting experience in the world of programming. The only reason I've done it is that I hate closed camera formats even more.
Hi,
It looks interesting, at least in my version of RawDigger. The low numbers definitively look to be 14-bit as only each fourth bit contains data. Going up to say 100-200 levels the gaps start to fill in.
I have the latest version of RawDigger, but Phase One cameras above IQ-280 are not officially supported it seems. So it can be that RawDigger would interpret something wrong. Still it is very odd.
A small comment to Doug, it seems that focus is bad on the f/10 image, as the f/14 is far more distinct.
Best regards
Erik