Raw Convertors

ray writes:
With the present tendency of camera manufacturers to embed color
fringing correction and also I believe pincushion and barrel
distortion correction into their proprietary RAW conversion software,
it seems to me that we are pretty well limited to the camera makers
software.

I fear you may be correct. Ironic, isn't it? Makers shoot themselves
in the foot by not releasing the information to allow proper decoders
to be made, so certain folks wind up not buying their products. BTW -
don't give me the 'proprietary information' garbage - everyone in the
industry already knows it.

For the most part I think it's simple conservatism and fear of the unknown.

They may try to keep up technically, but attitudes change verrrry slowly
at big Japanese companies....

-Miles

--
You can hack anything you want, with TECO and DDT.

The pixel Bandit wrote:
me wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:37:02 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The usual claimed differences between various raw
converters have more to do with the default values
rather than with how well the converter can work when
configured to accomplish what any given user wants.
Bingo!

That would depend on the RAW converter being able to
understand *ALL* the instruction in a given RAW file for
demosaicing the image.

No, it depends on the user being able to fine tune
adjustments as desired. Letting a program determine
what the image should look like (which means it defaults
to whatever the programmer happened to like, rather than
what the user happens to like) is not particularly
productive.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

ray wrote:

I don't 'dual boot' - though I do, on ocassion run another Linux
distribution in a virtual machine. I don't have a legal copy of MS and
don't intend to buy one - and I eschew WINE.

Same here (except I have a network of computers running
Linux). I use Nikon cameras, including a D3. (And I am
generally using both /ufraw/ and /gimp/ sources that are
less than a week old from the development threads, which
can be both an advantage and a disadvantage at times.)

When the D3 was first announced I downloaded several of
Nikon's demo images (with both NEF and JPEG formats
available) at different ISO's, and then used /ufraw/ to
convert the NEF's to JPEG format with the intention of
duplicating Nikon's results. It was not difficult to
get exactly the same results. And much to my surprise
it wasn't all that hard to do a little better too!

I generally shoot RAW+JPEG and have *never* produced a
JPEG out of the camera that /ufraw/ cannot duplicate.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The pixel Bandit wrote:
me wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:37:02 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The usual claimed differences between various raw
converters have more to do with the default values
rather than with how well the converter can work when
configured to accomplish what any given user wants.
Bingo!
That would depend on the RAW converter being able to
understand *ALL* the instruction in a given RAW file for
demosaicing the image.

No, it depends on the user being able to fine tune
adjustments as desired. Letting a program determine
what the image should look like (which means it defaults
to whatever the programmer happened to like, rather than
what the user happens to like) is not particularly
productive.


Pardon me for presuming you were human Floyd. Us mere mortals
sometimes have problems with "fine tuning". I personally have
problems trying to get some programs like the crap released to
the public *FREE* under a GPL - to do what commercial programs do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sn...row_Alaska.jpg

No less than five areas of this image which is well within the
capabilities of *any* DSLR, including the pretty shocking E300
Olympus... Are blown off the planet.

Was there supposed to be any detail in this image Floyd?
http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidso...m/d3f_6875.jpg

Here's one I took long before the Nikon and Fuji put anything
I took with a Canon to shame.
http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/gull-on-hi.htm

Here's one from Capture2 NX:
http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/preview.htm

Getting the idea Floyd? The software you are using might be OK
for happy snaps but when it gets down to serious development
of images... I hate to be the one to enlighten you Floyd but
that Linux stuff is brilliant for Internet hosting but sadly
lacking when it comes to image processing capabilities.


That you actually put your name to those images and then have
the gall to contradict someone trying to provide honest
information to one of the flock, is, I suppose as stupid as
the time you told Paul Furman he'd win a case I was about to
launch against him for theft of copyright, after he stole my
images and tried to copyright them.

Your idea of the "fair Use" clause of the copyright act didn't
quite hold water then and your claims about .NEF files and
DCraw doesn't hold up now.

Floyd. Why do you do it? Worse still, why do you keep giving
out bull**** for advise when real experts are telling how it
is? Whatever it is Floyd... You really ought to stop making an
idiot out of yourself. Pretty soon it won't be Floyd from
Alaska it's be Floyd the idiot.

--

I'm coming back as a Pelican...
Watch out because I'm staying the worlds biggest ass-hole!

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:38:31 +1000, The pixel Bandit
wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The pixel Bandit wrote:
me wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:37:02 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The usual claimed differences between various raw
converters have more to do with the default values
rather than with how well the converter can work when
configured to accomplish what any given user wants.
Bingo!
That would depend on the RAW converter being able to
understand *ALL* the instruction in a given RAW file for
demosaicing the image.

No, it depends on the user being able to fine tune
adjustments as desired. Letting a program determine
what the image should look like (which means it defaults
to whatever the programmer happened to like, rather than
what the user happens to like) is not particularly
productive.


Pardon me for presuming you were human Floyd. Us mere mortals
sometimes have problems with "fine tuning". I personally have
problems trying to get some programs like the crap released to
the public *FREE* under a GPL - to do what commercial programs do.


What's wrong with "RAWTherapee"? Never used it?

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

The pixel Bandit writes:
Floyd. Why do you do it? Worse still, why do you keep giving out bull****
for advise when real experts are telling how it is? Whatever it is
Floyd... You really ought to stop making an idiot out of yourself. Pretty
soon it won't be Floyd from Alaska it's be Floyd the idiot.

Silly troll...

*plonk*

-miles

--
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.

In message , ray
writes
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:43:51 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , ray
writes
Thanks for the information - that would tend to make Nikon a no-go for
me, then, since I'm totally Linux.

Strange decision... You base your photographic gear on a computer OS?

Well, if the computer software cannot adequately translate the data, it
would be pretty useless, wouldn't it?

Quite... he has said I use Linux so I can 't use Nikon..... cart before
the horse.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Max G. wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:38:31 +1000, The pixel Bandit
wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The pixel Bandit wrote:
me wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:37:02 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

The usual claimed differences between various raw
converters have more to do with the default values
rather than with how well the converter can work when
configured to accomplish what any given user wants.
Bingo!
That would depend on the RAW converter being able to
understand *ALL* the instruction in a given RAW file for
demosaicing the image.
No, it depends on the user being able to fine tune
adjustments as desired. Letting a program determine
what the image should look like (which means it defaults
to whatever the programmer happened to like, rather than
what the user happens to like) is not particularly
productive.

Pardon me for presuming you were human Floyd. Us mere mortals
sometimes have problems with "fine tuning". I personally have
problems trying to get some programs like the crap released to
the public *FREE* under a GPL - to do what commercial programs do.


What's wrong with "RAWTherapee"? Never used it?

http://www.rawtherapee.com/


I have used it Max and didn't mention it because I had no
opinion about it. When I tried to use it the results were so
bad, I'd obviously done something wrong and couldn't figure
out what.

Either that or the same problem I had trying to get a decent
noise free development out of DxO Optics Pro Elite version
exists in it. DxO help have no answer either.

I don't want to get into a commercial V Open discussion but
when I had a problem with Capture-one from Phase-one, I got a
reply from them in about 6 hours detailing how to overcome the
issue.

Open source software has a real issue to overcome in these
situations. Forum questions and answers are their developer's
solution because they can't afford a proper help desk.

This might be fine for people prepared to experiment with
software and involve themselves in lengthy discussions with
geeks but for me, it either works or can be fixed with a phone
call or it goes in the dumper. The trade off is I have to pay
for it. If I had no money I'd probably have no choice either
and use open source stuff... Hypothetical stuff.

--

I'm coming back as a Pelican...
Watch out ...I'll be flying low and fully loaded with seafood!

Bob Larter wrote:
ray wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:31:38 +1000, The pixel Bandit wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 30 Jul 2009 02:26:06 GMT, ray wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:22:00 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

There have been many discussions of the merits of various raw
convertors in the news groups with the merits of everything from
Bibble to Photoshop being compared. A recent contributor to the
Nikonians D100/D200/D300 forum has made an interesting comment which
applies to Nikon cameras.

The author says he has used all the major raw convertors and is
familiar with what they can do. He has recently changed cameras (from
Canon?) and was disappointed with the results he obtained from first
his D300 and then the D700. He particularly remarked that with
Photoshop and Lightroom the pictures appeared relatively flat and
lifeless. He then tried Nikons own NX2 and was blown away by the
difference it made. He doesn't like working with NX2 (its different?)
but now strongly recomends its use with Nikon Cameras. FWIW.



Eric Stevens
Just out of curiosity, have you tried ufraw?
I think I tried it on the raw files from the D70 but abandoned it. I
haven't tried it on the D300.



Eric Stevens
It's not real brilliant on the FF Nikons. My new D3 just arrived an hour
ago and I tried its files on PSP. Same sort of thing as with the D700.
No highlight preservation... Which confirms my thoughts that software
plays a serious part in producing the results Nikon are getting.

Thanks for the information - that would tend to make Nikon a no-go for
me, then, since I'm totally Linux.

You could maybe try it under Wine.


Wine is commercial software Lionel... $$$$
Stay true to the code man...

Open source or open the box. Nirvana one way and hell the
other Question is... Which way leads to Nirvana!

Sublimation wrote:
[]
Wine is commercial software Lionel... $$$$

No, WINE is free, although there are commercial versions available if you
wish to pay for support:

http://www.winehq.org/download/

David