RFF to encode leica and Zeiss lenses

[rvaubel]

I see your point but I trust Leica to employ a lightness of touch....... The natural vignetting of the lens should be left untouched.

Maybe with Leica lenses a "lightness of touch" would be a good choice. I tend to let the lenses natural vignetting reveal itself, mostly. However, with the 15mm Heliar, a sledgehammer approach to vignetting control is perhaps, more appropriate. Really nasty vignetting which can seldom be ignored.

That's really my point. Each situation may require a different approach. I really like my 15mm Heliar, despite the vignetting. I find that most, if not all, lenses require at least a little subtle raw processing to bring out their best. Maybe the M8 firmware could make an initial cut at the best solution, but I'd still like to see the unproceesed version.

Rex

 

[Bob Ross]

Maybe the M8 firmware could make an initial cut at the best solution, but I'd still like to see the unproceesed version.

Rex

There is an interesting attitude across the digital community and even including some mfrs., that all the R&D and work going into the onboard RAW conversion are a waste of time and effort and the only way to be a real photographer is to shoot RAW and hunt around for a good conversion software. In some ways this is true and there are a few exceptions to break the generalization, too. I do both, but having done a lot of color darkroom work over the years, I know how errors can creep in. I see it in so many poorly post processed images that the author has proudly proclaimed that it is a RAW conversion of the highest quality. My point is that the propietory on board conversion programs understand the RAW file it was taylored to better than an untrained post processor using a program they don't fully understand. With what we may be facing with the M8's additional peculiarities, this may get even more interesting.
Bob

 

[rvaubel]

There is an interesting attitude across the digital community and even including some mfrs., that all the R&D and work going into the onboard RAW conversion are a waste of time and effort and the only way to be a real photographer is to shoot RAW and hunt around for a good conversion software.
Bob

My problem with the on board RAW conversion software is I don't know what it is really doing. At a minumum it must convert the linear files to a suitable gamma scale. Just what gamma (1.8 to 2.2 I assume) I don't know. I set the on board contrast to the lowest level assuming that will yield the greatest dynamic range but I really don't know (maybe it just effects the JPEGs).

I also set sharpness at minumim fiquring that CR2 has a better sharpness algorithm. But even with the on-board sharpness OFF, it appears that a little in camera sharpness is still applied. At least that what appears to happen a few seconds after opening the image in CR2 RAW. But then I don't really know.

I also set the noise reduction at OFF for the same reason. But who knows what is really going on in the camera.

I set all the auto adjust features OFF. That way when I bracket an exposure, at least they stay bracketed.

Maybe I'm off base but I would like to be able to toggle between the cameras idea off ideal RAW processing and my interpratation of the cameras minimal RAW processing.

Rex

 

[Bob Ross]

Hi Rex,
This all varies by camera and mfr., but the way I checked was to shoot RAW + JPEG and then used the JPEG as the standard and adjusted the RAW to equal it, with the camera maker's software. The RAW settings gave me an idea of what the camera was doing. Used in reverse you can zero in on the JPEG settings by using the RAW adjustments that you end up with. What fooled me with this is the E-1's JPEGs are every bit as good as RAW conversions, but this is not the case with my KM5D, which has consumer settings.
I think that since JPEG is best when you nail the exposure, metering for contrast range becomes interesting, because you can do something about it, a luxury we didn't have with roll film. The problem that I see come up the most is the NR and only the "Pro" models seem to have any control on it. Sharpening is probably best done in PP, as you can go with a variety of ways and stack them to get what works for you. Camera sharpening isn't bad, but it seems quite generic and global. The no AA filter on the DMR & M8 should invite less sharpening.
Bob

 

[Mark Norton]

I maintain there's a market need for excellence straight out of the camera, not everyone has the inclination to start from scratch with every image. Providing the adjustments can be varied/undone in post processing, I think it's correct for the camera to apply its own processing. Time for me to brush up on the Adobe DNG specification though...

 

[ampguy]

good explanation

good explanation

Bob,

This is a good explanation. The reason I chose the *istDL was that it gave the ability over flexibility with JPGs (noise red. on/off, "brightness" on/off, and separate contrast and saturation levels with up/down adjustments, as well as raw for those who choose to use it.

Those who shoot JPGs (this consumer DSLR doesn't offer raw+JPG simultaneously) often turn off the default "brightness" on, and up the contrast a notch or two from default, and the contrast one notch. Some users keep brightness on, after comparing with raw or above settings.

I would hope the M8 could do raw + JPEGs at the same time, but if not, I would expect the menus for white balance, sensitivity, contrast, brightness, and noise reduction on/off to be able to be user defined for the non-raw shooters.

Some cameras noise reduction doesn't kick in until slow shutter speeds, but all of the other factors above should be easily seen at 12x zoom so once you get the menus down, you can tweak and create profiles.

Hi Rex,
This all varies by camera and mfr., but the way I checked was to shoot RAW + JPEG and then used the JPEG as the standard and adjusted the RAW to equal it, with the camera maker's software. The RAW settings gave me an idea of what the camera was doing. Used in reverse you can zero in on the JPEG settings by using the RAW adjustments that you end up with. What fooled me with this is the E-1's JPEGs are every bit as good as RAW conversions, but this is not the case with my KM5D, which has consumer settings.
I think that since JPEG is best when you nail the exposure, metering for contrast range becomes interesting, because you can do something about it, a luxury we didn't have with roll film. The problem that I see come up the most is the NR and only the "Pro" models seem to have any control on it. Sharpening is probably best done in PP, as you can go with a variety of ways and stack them to get what works for you. Camera sharpening isn't bad, but it seems quite generic and global. The no AA filter on the DMR & M8 should invite less sharpening.
Bob

 

[rvaubel]

Hi Rex,
This all varies by camera and mfr., but the way I checked was to shoot RAW + JPEG and then used the JPEG as the standard and adjusted the RAW to equal it, with the camera maker's software. The RAW settings gave me an idea of what the camera was doing.
Bob

Bob

In the case of the RD1, does anyone know what the camera software is doing to the RAW image? Sharpening? Noise Reduction?

I like your idea of shooting a RAW+JPEG and then trying to match the JPEG with the PP raw image. Of course I think I would beat the manufacturers in camera software every time but maybe not. I never tried it!

I wonder if the encoding software, whatever it turns out to be, will effect the JPEG image only or the RAW file also. Once again, I hope can turn it off, at least on the RAW file.

Rex

 

[Mark Norton]

The R-D1 provides a "standard" setting and 3 user preset "films", each with 5 sliders for in-camera processing: Edge Enhancement, Saturation, Tint, Contrast and NR.

 

[rvaubel]

The R-D1 provides a "standard" setting and 3 user preset "films", each with 5 sliders for in-camera processing: Edge Enhancement, Saturation, Tint, Contrast and NR.

Mark

Don't these sliders effect the JPEGs only? At least that was my impression. I always turn the edge enhancement, contrast and NR down all the way thinking thats the best thing to do for RAW image processing if it does effect the RAW image. But I don't really know.

Btw, the image on the LCD is always a JPEG whether your shooting RAW only or not. Or so I'm told

Rex

 

[ampguy]

raw has no camera setting data

raw has no camera setting data

Raw files are simply the data off the digital sensors. You get a lossy rendition of the image on the LCD.

Mark

Don't these sliders effect the JPEGs only? At least that was my impression. I always turn the edge enhancement, contrast and NR down all the way thinking thats the best thing to do for RAW image processing if it does effect the RAW image. But I don't really know.

Btw, the image on the LCD is always a JPEG whether your shooting RAW only or not. Or so I'm told

Rex

 

[rvaubel]

Raw files are simply the data off the digital sensors. You get a lossy rendition of the image on the LCD.

Yah, that's what I thought . But the image of the RAW file I open in Photoshop has been converted from a linear gray scale to a gamma scale of about 2.0 Was that done by Photoshop or by the camera software? Also even if I have the sharpness slider down all the way (in Photoshop RAW plugin), I still see a little sharpening applied a second or so after the file is opened.

If Leica can apply vignetting correction and whatever else, at the camera level, how do I know if Epsons not working a little sharpening and NR on my RAW files before I get my hands on them?

Rex
just wondering

 

[jaapv]

A RAW file has been processed in-camera as well, for instance for colour interpolation. If you could see an image of a file read off the sensor directly it is virtually inrecognisable in pixellated grey and grey. I am sure the various camera makers use different algorithms.A Cmos sensor, for instance, needs in-camera initial noise surpression to get the clean RAW files it produces.One of the strong points of Canon is that they got it right, thus enabling them to produce very silent files up to 3200, maybe 6400 (watch the Photokina!) ISO from a less expensive sensor.

 

[Bob Ross]

Bob

Of course I think I would beat the manufacturers in camera software every time but maybe not. I never tried it!

I wonder if the encoding software, whatever it turns out to be, will effect the JPEG image only or the RAW file also. Once again, I hope can turn it off, at least on the RAW file.

Rex

Hi Rex,
Give it a try, you might be surprised. It can be useful as Mark says when you don't intend on making a master piece or need to send the image quickly as PJs do. I will admit to being a PP junky and tend to at least try to improve everything. That strategy works against me in many cases.
The M8 RAW files may have the vignetting info imbedded and the Leica software can access it. Third party RAW converters may have to catch up on that. JPEGs and TIFFs probably get the treatment, but we might be able to turn it off in the menus. The DMR can make 16bit TIFFs but with the new software provider that could change. The 59MB files sound yummy
Bob

 

[Bob Ross]

Yah, that's what I thought . But the image of the RAW file I open in Photoshop has been converted from a linear gray scale to a gamma scale of about 2.0 Was that done by Photoshop or by the camera software? Also even if I have the sharpness slider down all the way (in Photoshop RAW plugin), I still see a little sharpening applied a second or so after the file is opened.

If Leica can apply vignetting correction and whatever else, at the camera level, how do I know if Epsons not working a little sharpening and NR on my RAW files before I get my hands on them?

Rex
just wondering

Hi Rex,
My guess is that with the average DSLR or RD-1 with an AA filter, the image would be very soft and the mfrs do a bit of sharpening for marketing reasons Your gamma shifts may be how you have your PS set up. As I recall it is kind of hidden. I use Picture Window Pro, so I can be of much help with PS. The tone curves used by the mfrs. do leave somethings to be desired. Nikon has the right idea, with their user adjustible tone curves. Even my old CP5k has some that I finally tried and love when doing in camera B&W.
Bob

 

[Bob Ross]

Bob,

Those who shoot JPGs (this consumer DSLR doesn't offer raw+JPG simultaneously) often turn off the default "brightness" on, and up the contrast a notch or two from default, and the contrast one notch. Some users keep brightness on, after comparing with raw or above settings.


Some cameras noise reduction doesn't kick in until slow shutter speeds, but all of the other factors above should be easily seen at 12x zoom so once you get the menus down, you can tweak and create profiles.

Hi Ampguy,
My approach to the contrast and sharpening is to start low and in PP adjust the contrast separately for the highlights, midtones and shadows using masks. This process also sharpens as a byproduct and increases highlight saturation. Shadow masks are also good for NR to get rid of the shadow noise where detail loss is not a problem. Highlight masks are good to bring up detail in the highlights to reduce the video/digital look.
My KM5D kicks in NR as the ISO increases as well as long exposures
Bob

 

[ampguy]

Hi Jaapv

Hi Jaapv

Color interpretation, and noise reduction are done in raw conversion.

Yes, other than the 4 or so vendors (leica included) that natively use Adobe's DNG, most other vendors use proprietary encrypted raw formats, with different tidbits of metadata attached to the raw data off the sensors, though at different levels, usually compatible with DNG/PS at basic levels.

With Canon and CMOS/CCD there are many other factors involving noise, e.g. full-frame vs smaller, etc. But again, noise reduction is done in raw conversion with CCD or CMOS sensors.

Color interpretation is digital is linear, this is why the barebones raw converters show a dark image, no S curve non-linear mods have been applied as they would have been to create a JPG. The important thing to note is that you may not want to expose digital the way you do film. Some folks always overexpose digital on purpose.

Read here for more info.:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

Bruce Fraser also has a book you can buy at Amazon or bookstores on RAW file formats, which are non-standardized, though the Adobe DNG is used natively as a least common denominator solution by a few vendors including Leica with the DMR.

A RAW file has been processed in-camera as well, for instance for colour interpolation. If you could see an image of a file read off the sensor directly it is virtually inrecognisable in pixellated grey and grey. I am sure the various camera makers use different algorithms.A Cmos sensor, for instance, needs in-camera initial noise surpression to get the clean RAW files it produces.One of the strong points of Canon is that they got it right, thus enabling them to produce very silent files up to 3200, maybe 6400 (watch the Photokina!) ISO from a less expensive sensor.

 

[jaapv]

Ok I bow to superior knowledge. Thanks for educating me....

 

[ampguy]

Hi Bob

Hi Bob

Sounds like you need to use raw to take control of the noise / ISO. Try lightzone or lightroom if PP opens the raw up weird.

There are a couple of things NR may be doing, 1 is to reduce the noise at high ISO's in JPG's, the 2nd is to mask out hot pixels in long exposures.

Hi Ampguy,
My approach to the contrast and sharpening is to start low and in PP adjust the contrast separately for the highlights, midtones and shadows using masks. This process also sharpens as a byproduct and increases highlight saturation. Shadow masks are also good for NR to get rid of the shadow noise where detail loss is not a problem. Highlight masks are good to bring up detail in the highlights to reduce the video/digital look.
My KM5D kicks in NR as the ISO increases as well as long exposures
Bob

 

[rvaubel]

Bob

Good Lord, you are anally compulsive about post processing routine! I thought I was bad. Adjusting contrast for highlights, midtones, and shadows using masks is really going the whole 9 yards as far as dynamic range retention is concerned. How many photos can you process in a night,..... about two?

Rex

 

[rvaubel]

Color interpretation, and noise reduction are done in raw conversion........... other than the 4 or so vendors (leica included) that natively use Adobe's DNG, most other vendors use proprietary encrypted raw formats, with different tidbits of metadata attached to the raw data off the sensors ......

When Epson released their firmware upgrade for the RD1s, I upgraded my RD1 to match. One of the things they improved was to include a hot pixel elimination algorythm that really worked. Also included was a high ISO noise reduction algorythm based on dark frame subtraction.

It took Adobe about a week to update Photoshop to include the "new" camera (new software and the letter s decal) . I took this opportunity to color profile the camera using the "calibrate" tab. Using my trusty Gretamacbeth Color chart and Bruce Frazers instructions, I spent the next 200 hours of my spare time dialing in the hues and saturations to the last nano-shade. After all that, I cant say it looked much better, or even much different. However, I can say my prints now looked much the same as the prints from my Canon........ I'm not so sure that is what I was striving for!

Anyway, the more I delve into the intricasies of RAW processing, the more I know I don't know.

I think that shooting similtaneous JPEGs to compare with my own output, might be an interesting exercise. If the in camera processing can do a better job than I have been doing, I think I will kill myself'.

Just kidding

Rex