fz 150 raw images in silk pix bad picture quality

Is therre a good all in one photo processing software out there for the lx5 and the fz150 ? Or is one of the major draw backs to Panasonic cameras is no software supports their ever changing raw formats?

bob-one said:

bob-one wrote:

Is there a good all in one photo processing software out there for the lx5 and the fz150 ? Or is one of the major draw backs to Panasonic cameras is no software supports their ever changing raw formats?

Click to expand...

Lightroom 3.x (Camera RAW 6.x) has excellent Color NR, only so-so Sharpening tools.

Or your "convert to DNG" route and (if it must be) earlier versions of LR/CR that lack the newer improved Color NR (not experienced with them personally).

For RAW Therapee to work with the FZ150, you will have to wait until DCraw is updated to be able to process FZ150 RW2 image-files, and the RT developers integrate that code into RT 4.x.

But there always ... Siklypizz ... and Trevor G 's incredibly staisfied view of it ...

LR 3.5 recognizes the RAW images from the FZ150. I used it to develop the first OC pictures.





--
Dietero

'Make God Laugh, tell Him your plans.'

I've been following this thread and others re the FZ150 RAW files. I bought the FZ150 (for my wife, for Xmas!) about a month ago, and have been road-testing it almost since then! And it has not been a smooth ride!

I would consider myself quite experienced, been shooting for over 3 decades, have had a good range of digital cameras (including FZ5,20, 50, as well as my Canon DSLR).
I have processed 1000's of RAW files, using many programs.

Here's the hitch. The RAW files from this FZ150 will not process to a decent output image (I'm after TIFs). They look quite good in a viewer (my default is FastStone, but others display well). But every last one looks WORSE after processing. And that is whether I use Silkypix (3.1SE), LR3.6, RT4.0.5.2 or PSE/ACR, all the latest versions!

My 1000's of RAW files from the FZ50 and/or Canon T2i always move to improvement, but the FZ150 files go the other way.

I'm not a detail expert like Detail Man (but who is? ) but basically the converted FZ150 files are less sharp, almost smeared in appearance, by comparison.

I just sent it (the FZ150) back to B&H for replacement. I'll keep you all posted!

canuck dave said:

I'm not a detail expert like Detail Man (but who is? ) but basically the converted FZ150 files are less sharp, almost smeared in appearance, by comparison.

I just sent it (the FZ150) back to B&H for replacement. I'll keep you all posted!

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I understand you. If you load the RAW file into Lightroom are you saying you cannot improve on the default settings or that the RAW looks worse than a camera jpeg?
--
Kevin Coppalotti
http://maxhr.zenfolio.com/

In testing FZ150 Raw capability I converted/edited a few images with wide dynamic range using Silkypix, Raw Therapee and LR2 (from DNG input). The output from RT was by far the best; SP was the worst and LR was in the middle. No question that LR was the easiest to use and had many more file management features, but RT produced a better quality output image -- especially in the areas of highlight and shadow recovery.

Here is one of the output images converted to jpeg and reduced to dpr size, using RT.





--
Gerry

Take a look at my photography at:
gerryp123.zenfolio.com

"I'm not quite sure I understand you. If you load the RAW file into Lightroom are you saying you cannot improve on the default settings or that the RAW looks worse than a camera jpeg? "..............

Kevin, I only shoot RAWs, and when viewed in FastStone, for example, they look as expected, that is pretty good, but possibly could edit better. And that has been my experience with other RAWs in general. But the FZ150 RAWs soften up when even the defaults in Lightroom, RT etc are applied. Never seen anything like it!

Not sure if these two will show it, but the first is 'just' using FastStone to convert to a TIF. The second is the default TIF from LR.









Again, I have a lot of experience with RAW editing. With the FZ150 RAWs, working in any of four editors does not achieve the results I have come to expect from any other RAW files.
(I have a calibrated IPS monitor!)

Gerry ,

I like some of the changes that you have made on your waterfall image. Less reddish hues in the near-field rocks, and (I think) a better overall color-balancing. My eyes long for a bit of blue in the water - but maybe the blue skies were not there to generate such reflections in the water ?

Did you try using the LAB color-space Contrast (and perhaps some Saturation)? Did you use some "Vibrance"? Did you use the R-L Deconvolution sharpening? Did you use Lanczos re-sampling ? Did you use any mild USM after downwardly re-sampling the pixel-size ?

One tool that I also use (in addition to some LAB color-space Contrast) is the "parametric" control-mode of the Tone-Curve tool (which is very similar to Lightroom 3.x's same tool). It's a good way to tailor the shape of the tone-curve transfer-function in the deep shadows (reducing the gain at the lowest levels, by mildly altering the shape to that of the bottom of a mild S-Curve).

Was this shot hand-held, or tripod/mono-pod stabilized ?

DM

canuck dave said:

canuck dave wrote:

... when viewed in FastStone, for example, they look as expected, that is pretty good, but possibly could edit better. And that has been my experience with other RAWs in general. But the FZ150 RAWs soften up when even the defaults in Lightroom, RT etc are applied. Never seen anything like it!

Not sure if these two will show it, but the first is 'just' using FastStone to convert to a TIF. The second is the default TIF from LR.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see the differences that you report. It seems that the de-mosaicing algorithm used by FastStone surely works better than the particular ("secret-sauce") de-mosaicing algorithm that LR-3.x/CR-6.x selects in the case of FZ150 RW2s.

I recall, and have reported, that IR "House" FZ150 RW2 looked extremely mushy in Silkypix SE 3.181 (even by Silkypix "softness standards"). I began to wonder if some of that Panasonic advertised 3.9 dB (0.648 EV) SNR improvement (relative to the FZ100) at base ISO=100 might be gained via some RW2-level NR (a practice which appears to be the case in the GH1 and GH2, and has been highly suspected of being the case in the LX2 RW2s) ...

The IR "House" RW2 looked a bit better (than in Silkypix SE 3.181) in Lightroom 3.5 (though I stiil think on the soft side for a 12 Mpixel image-sensor), but I (also) felt that the results that I was able to achieve looked no better (or even worse ) than the matching FZ150 OOC JPG ...

canuck dave said:

Again, I have a lot of experience with RAW editing. With the FZ150 RAWs, working in any of four editors does not achieve the results I have come to expect from any other RAW files.

Click to expand...

Have you perhaps tried the various de-mosaicing option of RAW Therapee 4.052 ? Any differences. The fact that FastStone looks pretty good seems to mean that there may well be hope here ?

I processed a couple of Cole's FZ150 RW2s using Lightroom 3.5, and posted the (1200 pixel-height) results here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=39594560

The first image came out well as far as SNR using moderate amounts of LR-3.x NR (and no Sharpening at full image-size processing), but I did find that the (probably well-focused) detail of the exotic flower in the center of the image-frame was somewhat lacking. I had to up the (post-re-sampling) USM Radius from my usual 0.5 pixel up to 1.0 pixel (Strength = 100%), and it still on the soft-side. I might expect that from a post-processed (12 Mpixel) ZS7 JPG, but not at all from a (10 Mpixel) LX3 RW2, and probably not from a 12 Mpixel RW2 in general. So, my (LR-3.x) RW2 processing impressions have been similar to what you report (with Cole's and IR's FZ150s).

canuck dave said:

(I have a calibrated IPS monitor!)

Click to expand...

Ditto here. S-IPS, sRGB-calibrated.

You're going to give a 2nd FZ150 unit from B&H a try? Do let us know if things improve as a result!

DM:

"Yes" to all of your suggestions (but did not try the tone-curve). Thanks for your help. Camera was handheld and sky was overcast - just starting to rain.

Of interest: I also converted rhe image to DNG (so that I could process in LR2). When I processed this negative with RT there were black-dot artifacts in the resulting jpeg output at the clipped-and-restored top of the waterfall. No such anomally when processed with LR (but not as good highlight recovery as with RT). Does RT play well with DNG? Perhaps my highlight recovery with this negative was too aggresive?
--
Gerry

Thanks DM for your input. Yes, I'll be curious as to whether another version of FZ150 works better for me. Ooops; I mean for my wife, as it's her Xmas gift.......LOL.....but I wind up doing most of her RAW editing!

I should hasten to add that I'm not one of the 'my images look bad, must be bad equipment at fault'. The superb work from the likes of Kevin Coppalotti should be an inspiration for all of us!

Gerry, this is what is puzzling to me. Until (at least my version of) FZ150 RAWs I had never had a negative (degrading) effect when the RAW is brought into a RAW editor, any editor. We should not have to try out one RAW editor after another, just to TRY to get something better than the out-of-camera RAW!

Member said:

Gerry Pasternack wrote:
"Yes" to all of your suggestions (but did not try the tone-curve).

Click to expand...

I did not include the Tone-Curve (having already covered a lot of controls). However, when adjusted in "parametric" mode, it can be used in a workable and repeatable manner. I usually set the bottom two control-sliders (in descending order) to -5 and -10 (or -6 and -12), in order to impose a very mild "S-Curve" in the lowest shadow-tones (that is similar, but a bit more reserved than the Lightroom 3.x "Medium-contrast" Tone-Curve Tool setting. This gets me close to what I want (without affecting the top-end of the tone-curve), then I use (some) LAB color-space Contrast in addition to that.

I think that I mentioned this already, but I have found through some experimentation that (I myself) like to zero-out the normal (RGB color-space) Brightness, Contrast, and Saturation controls when using the LAB color-space Brightness, Contrast, and Saturation controls. The Vibrance (new in 4.052) control makes adjustments in RGB color-space - so combining it with (small amounts) of the LAB color-space Saturation is an interesting "mix" of color-saturation adjustments being made in both color-spaces. A (LAB color-space) "Vibrance" would be even more interesting - but the existing combination still provides better results than the Version 4.042 (which does not have the "Vibrance control, at all).

Thanks for your help.

You bet ! ...

Member said:

Camera was handheld and sky was overcast - just starting to rain.

Click to expand...

That the camera was hand-held makes the fine-details of the far-field (small) foliage less definitive. They are a bit "fuzzy" - and I was wondering if this was possibly the result of some camera-motion (which it may in this case be).

Member said:

Of interest: I also converted the image to DNG (so that I could process in LR2). When I processed this negative with RT there were black-dot artifacts in the resulting jpeg output at the clipped-and-restored top of the waterfall. No such anomally when processed with LR (but not as good highlight recovery as with RT).

Click to expand...

There have been various anecdotes published on the internet with specific examples of the DNG converter chucking-out certain manufacturer meta-data in certain cases. The up-shot of these (and your reported) experiences just add stronger evidence to not convert to DNG (at all, if possible), or to convert to DNG only if the processing will be accomplished in Adobe applications.

Member said:

Does RT play well with DNG?

Click to expand...

(Perhaps) it is the other way around ?

Member said:

Perhaps my highlight recovery with this negative was too aggressive?

Click to expand...

Such things should not matter (if all was well) ...

(Thankfully), there is no need to send DNG-conversions of FZ150 RW2s to RAW Therapee 4.x.

I take it that you have Lightroom 2.x ? Is it Version 2.7 or higher ?

canuck dave said:

canuck dave wrote:

Thanks DM for your input. Yes, I'll be curious as to whether another version of FZ150 works better for me. Ooops; I mean for my wife, as it's her Xmas ...

Click to expand...

I hope so (for her sake). But, the numbers seem a bit stacked against that. Your first unit, the Imaging Resource unit, and Cole's unit seem to have similar characteristics.

Unfortunately, the Photography Blog RW2s identify as being FW Level 0.2 (according to Exif Tool) - so having a look at their test-unit would not be definitive relative to the shipped FW Level 1.0.

canuck dave said:

... gift.......LOL.....but I wind up doing most of her RAW editing!

Click to expand...

The "chickens will come home to roost in the end", eh ? ...

canuck dave said:

I should hasten to add that I'm not one of the 'my images look bad, must be bad equipment at fault'. The superb work from the likes of Kevin Coppalotti should be an inspiration for all of us!

Click to expand...

Kevin C has indeed been posting some nice material. However, he himself points out that it utilizes flash in order to be able to shoot at base ISO=100 (over which he has reported that he finds even the RW2-level output to be noisy).

Gary S has also done some nice (JPG-source) work. However, much of his work is using tripod-stabilization and low Shutter Speeds - once again allowing him to stay at base ISO=100.

I found the "RAW no better or worse than the JPG" phenomena with the FZ150 to be disappointing. However, when using Silkypix SE it is not unusual that one often has to work rather hard to best in-camera JPGs (due to Silkypix's poor results as a RAW processor, leading many to conclude that "RAW is no better than JPG", etc.). Using Lighroom 3.5 though, I expected more. Haven't used RT 4.042 to process any FZ150 RW2s. I'm not really that interested in FZ150 RW2s.

I only 'converted' or evolved to RAW a couple of years ago after I saw (for myself) that there were distinct advantages to be gained. I think many onboard JPG processors are far underated. It may be that the FZ150 has somewhat hit a wall with their RAWs, and that the near-optimum is achieved (without any fuss, and little or any loss) with the great results Panasonic engineers have tweaked from their onboard computers!

I take it that you have Lightroom 2.x ? Is it Version 2.7 or higher ?

I'm using LR 2.5 (ACR 5.5) and plan to upgrade to LR4 (when available). It took some effort yo get this to play with FZ100 (FZ150) which is why latest DNG converter is involved.

unfortunately the new 4 series does not have a model for 32 bit windows 7

All depends on the converter and how recovers it's jpeg for thumbnail vewing.

For example, Faststone output looks bad - washed out, but I think FS has a problem working with FZ100/150 raw output. Doesn't seem to retain .RW2 or .SR2 associations in its settings, so I'm not sure if it's reading camera info properly.

As for Silkypix, I probably need to invest some time learning to use it better.
--
Gerry

...

canuck dave said:

canuck dave wrote:

I only 'converted' or evolved to RAW a couple of years ago after I saw (for myself) that there were distinct advantages to be gained. I think many onboard JPG processors are far underated.

Click to expand...

Any specific examples in mind ? I am always interested in what in-camera JPG "engines" in what camera models people perceive as doing a good job. Do you personally like the FZ150's JPGs ?

canuck dave said:

It may be that the FZ150 has somewhat hit a wall with their RAWs, and that the near-optimum is achieved (without any fuss, and little or any loss) with the great results Panasonic engineers have tweaked from their onboard computers!

Click to expand...

The fact that the FZ150 JPGs look nice to a viewer(s) does not imply that the FZ150 RW2s should appear to be so marginal on image-detail (particularly in the case of a number of RAW processors):

See: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=39969771

My original thoughts wandered into the possibility that Panasonic may be performing some silent RW2-level NR in the FZ150 (which might well not be sent along to the in-camera JPG "engine").

However, (in terms of line-resolution, anyway), it (may) be harder to advance that theory due to:

Resolution [in LPH] as a function of ISO Sensitivity Gain (JPG and RW2) :

FZ150 :



From: http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced/panasonic-lumix-dmcfz150.aspx
.

.. since it appears that FZ150 RW2s have a higher RW2/JPG ratio of line-resolution than the FZ100:

FZ100 :



From: http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced/panasonic-lumix-dmcfz100.aspx

... and I recall a number of posters stating that FZ100 RW2s could be made to look significantly better than FZ100 OOC JPGs ... so something(s) is/are (perhaps) not "adding up" here ? ...
.

Your posting of the what appeared to be a dramatically more "sharp" rendition of your FZ150 RW2 image in FastStone (as compared to the Lightroom 3.x view that you also posted in the same post) points very clearly to the distinct possibility that the particular de-mosaicing algorithm that FastStone uses for FZ150 RW2s (happens) to yield (significantly) better results than the particular de-mosaicing algorithm that Adobe chose to use in LR-3.x/CR-6.x. Ditto where it comes to Silkypix.

The fact that the FZ150 RW2s appear (to me) to be even more "soft and mushy" in Silkypix SE 3.x does not surprise me a bit - as Silkypix has (always) done a crappy job of de-mosaicing (as well as other elements of the internal architecture that affect the rendering of image-detail) - with a recent Silkypix processing of a G3 RW2 being the sole exception to the (otherwise) universally rather mediocre results found (as seen when processing FZ50 RAWs, FZ28 RW2s, and LX3 RW2s).

In my previous post, I asked you if you had tried using the various options of the de-mosaicing algorithm used in the RAW Therapee 4.x that you included in your list of RAW processors that you had tried to use in order to process FZ150 RW2s. Have you (then or now) tried those possibilities ?

DM