Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: State of the art camera profiling software?  (Read 41324 times)

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #100 on: March 16, 2015, 11:05:09 am »

true, but then who knows how many layers of firmware Canon cameras have... not being an expert in ML at all I might still suggest that ML is running in an outer layer while Canon still have inner layer, no ? like for example in OS there might be a kernel-level/mode and non kernel level/mode (user space) drivers.

It feels like we're drifting away in a tangent here...

The only way this would be relevant in terms of camera profiling is if it would introduce some sort of non-linearity. I've worked quite a lot with raw decoding with various type of cameras and I haven't seen any indications of non-linearity. There are cameras that use a static curve to encode raw data (efficient compression), but it's reversed when decoding the format, so again no effect on camera profiling.

It's true that we will measure the product of the color filters, ADC, on-chip noise reduction and any firmware tweaks, but that is what we want anyway, we want to measure the response the color conversion pipeline will see.
Logged

TRANTOR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
    • Nuclear Light | Home of Color
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #101 on: March 16, 2015, 11:46:00 am »

if he has used any public measurement data.
I got it from public database: http://www.cis.rit.edu/jwgu/research/camspec/db.php


BTW, if someone can make measurements of sensors for cameras that isn't this list, then I can make corresponding profiles. Absolutely for free. =)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 11:52:23 am by TRANTOR »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #102 on: April 30, 2015, 01:22:44 pm »

Okay, sorry for being away for so long, but I've had a reason: I've written a new camera profiling tool, and now I just made the first release. See what it can do at its web page: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #103 on: April 30, 2015, 01:56:31 pm »

Okay, sorry for being away for so long, but I've had a reason: I've written a new camera profiling tool, and now I just made the first release. See what it can do at its web page: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html


thank you !
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 612
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #104 on: April 30, 2015, 07:34:24 pm »

I've been reading this thread and have one question:

Why do you want to profile a camera? For a science project, I understand. But why would a photographer want dead accurate color? After all, who shoots with dead accurate light?

Isn't the best color for the image what we should be seeking?

I understand prints matching the display, but matching Mother Nature? I don't get it.
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #105 on: April 30, 2015, 07:58:47 pm »

I've been reading this thread and have one question:

Why do you want to profile a camera? For a science project, I understand. But why would a photographer want dead accurate color? After all, who shoots with dead accurate light?

Isn't the best color for the image what we should be seeking?

I understand prints matching the display, but matching Mother Nature? I don't get it.

some folks consider that they want to start their own color adjustment from that "accurate" color rather then from what OEM profiles deliver
some folks just want a "different" color vs OEM profiles
some folks consider that OEM profiles are simply not good enough, guide color transforms incorrectly with saturated colors, light emitting sources, etc

if you are happy with the color from OEM profiles as 99% users are then just move on
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #106 on: May 01, 2015, 02:54:11 am »

I've been reading this thread and have one question:

Why do you want to profile a camera? For a science project, I understand. But why would a photographer want dead accurate color? After all, who shoots with dead accurate light?

Isn't the best color for the image what we should be seeking?

I understand prints matching the display, but matching Mother Nature? I don't get it.

To me it's about artistic integrity. I want to have my own personal style of color which I have control of and know how I deviate from realism. With digital cameras color reproducition can be much more accurate than it ever could with film. This fact is greatly under-utilized, most raw converters are stuck in a film thinking and their profiles is part of that - profiles deliver a "look" just like film did. In addition color adjustments possibilities are often a bit limited and coarse, like in Lightroom, as you're supposed to embrace the look of Adobe via their profiles rather than make your own look. The profile don't tell you how it changes the color, it just does it.

While it's a great approach for laymen or those that are not that into color, I don't like this approach. I want to make the look from scratch according to my taste and my eye for color, and the logical starting point for that is a neutral profile.

There is of course no thing like absolute accuracy, and when shooting landscape the light changes greatly. But the scale of which typical bundled profiles distorts color to acheive a look(tm) is so huge that light variations is just a breeze in comparison.

I do agree that we should be seeking the best color for the image, I just think that flipping through a bunch of manufacturer pre-defined looks is not the way to go for me. Another aspect is that when working with neutral profiles I think you get a deeper understanding of how colors work in a scene, what an image requires. I think that enriches the artistic side of my photography.

It's highly personal though, and I don't say using predefined manufacturer looks is wrong, I just don't think it's the right way for me and I think many other would appreciate this way to work too. Unfortunately the typical tools available have not made this way to work very easy, so it's little bit of a special interest of the few, and my technical DCamProf software won't change that unfortunately. It will help those with that special interest though.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2015, 03:05:14 am by torger »
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 612
    • Bruce Alan Greene Cinematography
Re: State of the art camera profiling software?
« Reply #107 on: May 01, 2015, 10:49:43 am »

To me it's about artistic integrity. I want to have my own personal style of color which I have control of and know how I deviate from realism. With digital cameras color reproducition can be much more accurate than it ever could with film. This fact is greatly under-utilized, most raw converters are stuck in a film thinking and their profiles is part of that - profiles deliver a "look" just like film did. In addition color adjustments possibilities are often a bit limited and coarse, like in Lightroom, as you're supposed to embrace the look of Adobe via their profiles rather than make your own look. The profile don't tell you how it changes the color, it just does it.

While it's a great approach for laymen or those that are not that into color, I don't like this approach. I want to make the look from scratch according to my taste and my eye for color, and the logical starting point for that is a neutral profile.

There is of course no thing like absolute accuracy, and when shooting landscape the light changes greatly. But the scale of which typical bundled profiles distorts color to acheive a look(tm) is so huge that light variations is just a breeze in comparison.

I do agree that we should be seeking the best color for the image, I just think that flipping through a bunch of manufacturer pre-defined looks is not the way to go for me. Another aspect is that when working with neutral profiles I think you get a deeper understanding of how colors work in a scene, what an image requires. I think that enriches the artistic side of my photography.

It's highly personal though, and I don't say using predefined manufacturer looks is wrong, I just don't think it's the right way for me and I think many other would appreciate this way to work too. Unfortunately the typical tools available have not made this way to work very easy, so it's little bit of a special interest of the few, and my technical DCamProf software won't change that unfortunately. It will help those with that special interest though.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!!!

But, I don't think I'll take this approach. It's not for me :)
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up