4 ways to convert RAW--and different results

Bad weather--no shooting, so I'm working on figuring out the best way to convert RAW--and then try out the available NR actions.

I took some quick shots in the kitchen today---I knew I would get some noise in some areas. I then quickly converted one of them using PS with import, Orf suite, Camedia master and Qimage. They seemed quite different to me colorwise, but I didn't have time until this evening to do it carefully--and make sure that I did as little as possible to each for a truer test.

I converted the same---with all 4 apps. I did nothing to any-just converted to 8 bits in PS and saved them all as tiffs. I have 3 distinctly different images color wise. I'm not real sure about ORF suite--I used it earlier this year and thought I remembered the dialog being somewhat different--has there been a new version lately?? I honestly can't remember and I notice this is version 1.15. Anyhow, as far as I can tell, the only thing checked was gamma--and without it, the image was very dark, so I left it checked. Its very flat, grey, needs a lot of curve to make it palatable. The PS import and the Cam Master look identical---I'm wondering if there is anything done in the conversion--they are both fairly saturated compared to the other 2 (and probably true--I was using 5500 WB)--and not much noise. The 4th was converted with Qimage. I turned the global filter off and just saved as tiff--but it is less saturated and doesn't seem as sharp. I believe I took these with 'normal' sharpness--(sometimes I do normal, sometimes soft).

I'm just wondering if anyone else has tried all 4. I would have to say, unless I'm doing something wrong, that I would not chooise ORF suite--PS and CAm Master and Qimage all seemed to take the same length of time to convert, so I would most likely choose PS. I'd love to hear what others have decided to choose for their conversion.

Now--to take the same shots, same settings with RAW and SHQ/1/2.7 and see the difference in the noise. Then---to try the various NR actions.

Hopefully, it will quit raining or I'll get inspired inside---and only fiddle with these at night :> (--Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Diane

Well, I have tried three out of the four you mentioned. Camedia, Q and the Oly PS plugin. I have settled on the PS plugin @ full auto. Slow as hell...........but the end result is what I want.

Bill H

Hey Diane, it can't rain forever

I usually use ORF for previewing raw images for focus. Since it's faster than the PS plugin or Camedia, and in my opinion ORF doesn't quite get the levels adjustment nor color balance right - always seems to blow out the highlights. ORF also seems to soften the images somewhat, they aren't as sharp as images converted in the PS plugin or Camedia.

ps. When shooting raw, disregard the contrast and sharpness settings as those are not taken into account in converting the raw data to the final image. The white balance setting although saved into the raw data, is kept separate so the the PS plugin/Camedia can process the raw data w/ or w/o that WB setting used in-camera.

Bill Harris said:

Diane

Well, I have tried three out of the four you mentioned. Camedia, Q
and the Oly PS plugin. I have settled on the PS plugin @ full auto.
Slow as hell...........but the end result is what I want.

Bill H

Click to expand...

Me too, but I do wonder about the differences--I settled on the full auto also. They all seem about the same speed though. I would love it if someone came up with a good RAW conversion app like Chris Breeze did for Canon. It can batch, do WB, etc. I'd pay 'good' money for it for sure. The batching is what I am really interested in.

I hope someone using ORF suite replies---I'm mystified about that result.

Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

I did this same test a few months ago....I found the best results by far (at the time anyway....don't know how the other programs might have improved) with the Photoshop plugin (from Oly's website) and Camedia. I posted the results also which may still be in the archives somewhere here. Since Oly provides the plugin that's used with PS, it most likely is the same as Camedia's. I didn't like the way Qimage handled it but honestly I haven't tried it lately, and Mike Chaney has made tons of updates to his program. The other one, Orf suite, produced very weird colors. K.

Diane B said:

Bad weather--no shooting, so I'm working on figuring out the best
way to convert RAW--and then try out the available NR actions.

I took some quick shots in the kitchen today---I knew I would get
some noise in some areas. I then quickly converted one of them
using PS with import, Orf suite, Camedia master and Qimage. They
seemed quite different to me colorwise, but I didn't have time
until this evening to do it carefully--and make sure that I did as
little as possible to each for a truer test.

I converted the same---with all 4 apps. I did nothing to any-just
converted to 8 bits in PS and saved them all as tiffs. I have 3
distinctly different images color wise. I'm not real sure about
ORF suite--I used it earlier this year and thought I remembered the
dialog being somewhat different--has there been a new version
lately?? I honestly can't remember and I notice this is version
1.15. Anyhow, as far as I can tell, the only thing checked was
gamma--and without it, the image was very dark, so I left it
checked. Its very flat, grey, needs a lot of curve to make it
palatable. The PS import and the Cam Master look identical---I'm
wondering if there is anything done in the conversion--they are
both fairly saturated compared to the other 2 (and probably true--I
was using 5500 WB)--and not much noise. The 4th was converted with
Qimage. I turned the global filter off and just saved as tiff--but
it is less saturated and doesn't seem as sharp. I believe I took
these with 'normal' sharpness--(sometimes I do normal, sometimes
soft).

I'm just wondering if anyone else has tried all 4. I would have to
say, unless I'm doing something wrong, that I would not chooise ORF
suite--PS and CAm Master and Qimage all seemed to take the same
length of time to convert, so I would most likely choose PS. I'd
love to hear what others have decided to choose for their
conversion.

Now--to take the same shots, same settings with RAW and SHQ/1/2.7
and see the difference in the noise. Then---to try the various NR
actions.

Hopefully, it will quit raining or I'll get inspired inside---and
only fiddle with these at night :> (
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Click to expand...

MAROKERO said:

Hey Diane, it can't rain forever

I usually use ORF for previewing raw images for focus. Since it's
faster than the PS plugin or Camedia, and in my opinion ORF doesn't
quite get the levels adjustment nor color balance right - always
seems to blow out the highlights. ORF also seems to soften the
images somewhat, they aren't as sharp as images converted in the PS
plugin or Camedia.

ps. When shooting raw, disregard the contrast and sharpness
settings as those are not taken into account in converting the raw
data to the final image. The white balance setting although saved
into the raw data, is kept separate so the the PS plugin/Camedia
can process the raw data w/ or w/o that WB setting used in-camera.

Click to expand...

Right, yes that's understood, but if this is so---why are there 3 different results?? With the Canon conversion app you could alter the WB, leave as set--you could of course alter your sharpening and contrast too. That's what I'm wondering--is either PS or Cam doing these automatically--they certainly look sharper and with more contrast than I would have expected--and what I see in ORF.

If you are using PS--which of the 3 options are you using??

Thanks, Diane

--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

Koo, there is a somewhat newer version of the plugin available in the Olympus Japanese site. The original is from October 2000 I believe, while this new version was introduced in November 2001. I downloaded that new plugin to see if there were any improvements made to the convertion process... none that I could see! I blew the images to 400% and inspected several sections of the same raw image converted using the original and new versions (both saved as 16-bit TIFF).

koo22 said:

I did this same test a few months ago....I found the best results
by far (at the time anyway....don't know how the other programs
might have improved) with the Photoshop plugin (from Oly's website)
and Camedia. I posted the results also which may still be in the
archives somewhere here. Since Oly provides the plugin that's used
with PS, it most likely is the same as Camedia's. I didn't like
the way Qimage handled it but honestly I haven't tried it lately,
and Mike Chaney has made tons of updates to his program. The other
one, Orf suite, produced very weird colors. K.

Click to expand...

I sort of remembered you had posted comparisons but that thread didn't come up in my search. I agree--I got what I consider unacceptable colors in ORFsuite. Hadn't thought about the fact that Oly provided the plugin to PS---DUH!! I have the latest Qimage I think---but there was more rigamarole to deal with in conversion for one thing--plus it was not quite 'right' somehow.

Thanks, Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

koo22 said:

I did this same test a few months ago

Click to expand...

I found that thread by searching on RAW and koo. Seems it was back in June. I wish that Mike Chaney had posted back after he worked with your ORF original, but the thread was still interesting even though your photos are unfortunately gone.

Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

I use the third option, and on occasion I combine the second and third options to increase saturation a bit.

I remember when Mike posted the shot that he worked with. I also remember I still didn't like it as much as the results from PS/Camedia. K. P.S. don't tell him I said that....)

Diane B said:

koo22 said:

I did this same test a few months ago

Click to expand...

I found that thread by searching on RAW and koo. Seems it was back
in June. I wish that Mike Chaney had posted back after he worked
with your ORF original, but the thread was still interesting even
though your photos are unfortunately gone.

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Click to expand...

FYI for those who want to 'batch' process...

You can open quite a few raw files in Camedia at the same time,
then walk away till it converts them all, then just
alt-f, a, enter, and close the image window, for all the
images you've opened...

larry said:

FYI for those who want to 'batch' process...

You can open quite a few raw files in Camedia at the same time,
then walk away till it converts them all, then just
alt-f, a, enter, and close the image window, for all the
images you've opened...

Click to expand...

Good, another. On the other RAW thread I learned that Qimage also batch processes. Good to know there are 2 possibilities.

Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

Diane,

Here's a question for you (and anyone else, of course) to consider.

When you ask a camera for a raw image, do you want the iamge processed with white balance, gamma, and so on?

If you want a processed image from an e10 or e20, there's TIFF format, ready to go, all camera "stuff" applied. Or JPEG, of course.

The advantadge (as I see it) of raw is that the user gets to actually choose what is done - or not done - to the image using their mind instead of some programmer's heuristic. A sharp user can balance an image better than the camera can (because you're smarter about what's in the image than it is) and likewise, you can do a great job of getting just the window on the image data you want with tools like levels or other dynamic range processing operations.

So, I ask, isn't it a benefit that a raw loader gives you the "raw" image (which generally will, of course, look poor to awful), rather than something you'll look at and (sometimes) go, "ok, that's fine."

The reason I ask just this question is because I'm working on a raw loader for our application, it's already available to our users, and this is the path I went down. I find it somewhat curious to see folks talking about what processing a raw loader does and comparing them on that basis, myself - I'm obviously biased though.

Look forward to hearing any opinions anyone might have on this.

Walt

Diane B said:

On the other RAW thread I learned that Qimage also
batch processes. Good to know there are 2 possibilities.

Click to expand...

There are (at least) three. WinImages, our application, also batch processes - and it's got immense batch prodcessing prower, too.

We're looking for people to work with us on camera stuff, too.

Walt

Walt Richmond said:

Diane,

Here's a question for you (and anyone else, of course) to consider.

When you ask a camera for a raw image, do you want the iamge
processed with white balance, gamma, and so on?

Click to expand...

I want nothing processed. That's why I asked if others felt that perhaps there was some processing going on. There's nothing to reference to know for sure (except your own eyes, and they can be fooled also), as far as I can tell. I do know saving directly to a tiff I got 3 different images colorwise. So--something had to happen it seems to me.

Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

Walt Richmond said:

If you want a processed image from an e10 or e20, there's TIFF
format, ready to go, all camera "stuff" applied. Or JPEG, of course.

Click to expand...

In theory you are right, but in the case of the E-10 (and probably the E-20 - I don't have one) this doesn't apply entierly. There is why:

I compared tiff, .jpg (1:2.7) and ORF. I found the tiff and jpg almost identical, including the level of noise. I found the (auto) processed ORF much better in terms of noise, and identical in colors, saturation, etc.

So my workflow is: ORF, Camedia (twice as fast as PS since it converts to 8bit instead of 16), tiff.

To have good results this way, it is imperative to pay attention when shooting: exposure and especially WB.

Advantages: ORF is smaller than tiff, writes faster to the card, lowest noise possible with my E-10, reasonable time spent processing.

What I would really like is:

1. Some sort of Camedia with batch processing. I suspect this was left out deliberately, Camedia can batch convert from tiff to jpg and back ;-(

2. A software similar to Bibble (they announced a future edition with E-10 support). I was amazed what can be done with a NEF file and Bibble. This would be the best option.

It seems that the Camedia 4.0 will have batch, but nobody knows when it will be released.

Walt Richmond said:

The advantadge (as I see it) of raw is that the user gets to
actually choose what is done - or not done - to the image using
their mind instead of some programmer's heuristic.

Click to expand...

Right, but most cameras exhibit the same noise in RAW and camera tiff, except the E-10 (and maybe the E-20).

And most users' gripe about the E-x0 is the noise ;-(

Radu Grozescu
http://www.RaduGrozescu.com

Hi Diane,

This is a little of topic and I apologize. First off, I would like to say that I really like the way you capture light in that little black box of yours!

I am seriously contemplating and E-10 and have been doing research. My main reason for getting the camera would be for brochure and web page work (I am also an designer/craftsmen), my research has indicated it will do fine for that kind of work. I'll be honest here, this way I can it write off, but I would also enjoying the camera as a new toy. I have been curious about its versatility. Fine arts/landscape photography is often the realm of medium or large format film cameras. I have read some of your threads and I can tell that you are trying to ring the most out of this tool. I must say it appears that you have been successful.

Finally the question, what size print are you satisfied with before using noise reduction? That is assuming that you have done everything to optimize your capture. Secondly, after jumping through all the hoops both in capture and in post processing what is the maximum print size your satisfied with?

Thanks, Kim

Diane B said:

Bad weather--no shooting, so I'm working on figuring out the best
way to convert RAW--and then try out the available NR actions.

I took some quick shots in the kitchen today---I knew I would get
some noise in some areas. I then quickly converted one of them
using PS with import, Orf suite, Camedia master and Qimage. They
seemed quite different to me colorwise, but I didn't have time
until this evening to do it carefully--and make sure that I did as
little as possible to each for a truer test.

I converted the same---with all 4 apps. I did nothing to any-just
converted to 8 bits in PS and saved them all as tiffs. I have 3
distinctly different images color wise. I'm not real sure about
ORF suite--I used it earlier this year and thought I remembered the
dialog being somewhat different--has there been a new version
lately?? I honestly can't remember and I notice this is version
1.15. Anyhow, as far as I can tell, the only thing checked was
gamma--and without it, the image was very dark, so I left it
checked. Its very flat, grey, needs a lot of curve to make it
palatable. The PS import and the Cam Master look identical---I'm
wondering if there is anything done in the conversion--they are
both fairly saturated compared to the other 2 (and probably true--I
was using 5500 WB)--and not much noise. The 4th was converted with
Qimage. I turned the global filter off and just saved as tiff--but
it is less saturated and doesn't seem as sharp. I believe I took
these with 'normal' sharpness--(sometimes I do normal, sometimes
soft).

I'm just wondering if anyone else has tried all 4. I would have to
say, unless I'm doing something wrong, that I would not chooise ORF
suite--PS and CAm Master and Qimage all seemed to take the same
length of time to convert, so I would most likely choose PS. I'd
love to hear what others have decided to choose for their
conversion.

Now--to take the same shots, same settings with RAW and SHQ/1/2.7
and see the difference in the noise. Then---to try the various NR
actions.

Hopefully, it will quit raining or I'll get inspired inside---and
only fiddle with these at night :> (
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Click to expand...

Kim Walker said:

Hi Diane,

Click to expand...

I apologize for jumping in

Kim Walker said:

My main reason for getting the camera would be for brochure and web
page work (I am also an designer/craftsmen)

Click to expand...

One of my happy clients is the Romanian edition of FHM. I deliver product shots and they print up to half page without problems. Sometimes, they jump to full page, but I would like a D1x for that

For my workflow, see the other message - no noise reduction.

Radu Grozescu
http://www.RaduGrozescu.com

Radu Grozescu said:

I compared tiff, .jpg (1:2.7) and ORF. I found the tiff and jpg
almost identical, including the level of noise. I found the (auto)
processed ORF much better in terms of noise, and identical in
colors, saturation, etc.

Click to expand...

Almost certainly what this indicates is simply that the Camedia software routines to adjust the image are different from the camera's methods of doing the same tasks. I'd just about bet the farm that the camera's not doing anything different to get the data off the sensor depending on what file format the camera has to create - the basic data is the same, depending almost entirely upon exposure, ISO setting (because that actually affects the sensor's acquisition time) and focus.

Member said:

So my workflow is: ORF, Camedia (twice as fast as PS since it
converts to 8bit instead of 16), tiff.

Click to expand...

Just FYI, WinImages' load time for an E10 raw file is 1.09 seconds; load time for an E20 raw file is 1.26 seconds. Testbed is a Dell 1 GHz PIII. On the same machine, Camedia takes over 12 seconds to load an E10 raw image, and over 16 seconds to load an E20 raw image.

Member said:

To have good results this way, it is imperative to pay attention
when shooting: exposure and especially WB.

Click to expand...

Exposure affects the actual image off the CCD (in any mode.) The rest, because you're depending on Camedia to use the camera's blue bias, red bias, and color temperature settings to drive the Camedia software to do something you'll like. Makes perfect sense.

However, if you're not going to use automatic processing, but instead will be balancing the image by hand, then (a) it won't matter what WB setting the camera has, and (b) you'll often get far better looking images. I can demonstrate this easily; here's a raw file processed automatically by camedia:



Here's the same raw file, processed in WinImages:



As you can see, the E20's auto-white balance and Camedia's subsequent processing resulted in a visibly yellow image. The WinImages result, however, is balanced much better (those colors are definitely much closer to the true colors of the car, paper and so on.)

Member said:

Advantages: ORF is smaller than tiff, writes faster to the card,
lowest noise possible with my E-10, reasonable time spent
processing.

Click to expand...

I think we can be certain that the noise issue is a processing issue. A raw, unprocessed image has just as much (or more) potential to be low noise.

Member said:

What I would really like is:

1. Some sort of Camedia with batch processing. I suspect this was
left out deliberately, Camedia can batch convert from tiff to jpg
and back ;-(

Click to expand...

WinImages can batch both E10 and E20 RAW files. And there are many reasons you might want to do that, for instance to convert the RAW files to PNG or TRM, both formats that offer lossless compression that will give you much smaller files than TIFF will.

Member said:

but most cameras exhibit the same noise in RAW and camera
tiff, except the E-10 (and maybe the E-20).

Click to expand...

The base noise in the image is the same between TIFF and RAW, I think. There's just no reason for it to be otherwise, and every reason for it to be just this way. However, the TIFF has been processed by the camera, and an adjusted RAW file has been processed by the Camedia software, which is almost certainly doing something about the noise that is different than the camera. Olympus is certainly aware that sensor noise has been a consumer issue since the day the E10 hit the streets, and there's every reason to think that Camedia is doing something about it.

Member said:

And most users' gripe about the E-x0 is the noise ;-(

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

Walt
Software Engineer
Black Belt Systems
http://www.blackbeltsystems.com/