Dual Pixel RAW

vchapran · Oct 25, 2016

I noticed that the size of RAW files is much bigger than I expected comparing to Mark III. The older model had 24MP sensors and RAW files were around that value. The new model is 30MP, but the file size is between 60 and 90 megapixels. I suspected that it is because I set Dual Pixel RAW to ON. I made a couple of shots, one with Dual On, another without. Yes, it doebles the size. After converting both files to TIF format via Capture One Pro I've got the same sizes for both TIF files.

I do not understand yet Dual Pixel RAW feature yet, but if it doebles the size of file, then the RAW file contains pairs of pixels, am I correct? If the companion pixels are lost during conversion then why they are saved in the file?

Thaank you

David Burren · Oct 25, 2016

This is outlined on page 175 of the manual. And the issue of the files being bigger is on page 171.

Read page 175 "Setting the Dual Pixel RAW Function" and see if that answers your questions.

PWPhotography · Oct 25, 2016

Why don't spend some time to read 5D IV reviews? You just bought it without even knowing what new features and improvements over previous models? ;-)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/6

Even I have not owned 5D IV, but I have played several DP RAW files in DPP, and concluded it's a gimmick feature, not that useful to me when I own the camera.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Rdefen · Oct 25, 2016

I shoot both Canon and Nikon though I am by far a Canon guy. That dp feature sounds gimmicky to me too from what I've read.

Sometimes I'd like to chuck both C and N and move to Sony but for the fact that Sony has appalling customer service in my experience when compared to Canon.

BEGIN RANT

I was complaining to a Sony rep at the recent photoPlus Expo about my trouble getting through to tech support and hat they need to get serious about support and they noted in the last year I think the guy said they have a CPS-like support program. But you have to buy a certain amount of gear to qualify and, you know what, I think I should be able to get a human being on the line if I have a question about their gear regardless of the amount. Which I have tried and failed to do.

END RANT.

Rick Knepper · Oct 26, 2016

Rdefen said:
I shoot both Canon and Nikon though I am by far a Canon guy. That dp feature sounds gimmicky to me too from what I've read.

Sometimes I'd like to chuck both C and N and move to Sony but for the fact that Sony has appalling customer service in my experience when compared to Canon.

Over a feature that, if you do not find useful, can be turned off? You can't get more gimmicky than Sony and the rest of the mirrorless brands especially if you have pro level needs.

Dual Pixel Raw and micro-adjustment involves the heavy manipulation of pixels. What seems to be lost on the good folks at DPR is that any process (HDR, focus stacking etc) which introduces heavy pixel manipulation reduces the resolution of the image. Each instance of manipulation and its effects has to be judged on its own merits.

The good folks at Rawdigger discovered a possible good use for Dual Pixel Raw. The RAW contains two frames each with its own distinct exposure which when blended can act as an HDR. I tried this on the Kamera Bild image that was used in that magazine's article to review the MA feature but using the Rawdigger software to extract both exposures where the sky was blown in the main frame, blended it using Frame #2 a darker rendition and it worked pretty well in producing an overall well exposed image. What's the difference in this and shooting two images via bracketing in regards to file size?

BTW, in the 13 years I have used DSLRs, I've never had to talk with a Canon or Nikon CS rep.

Rdefen said:
BEGIN RANT

I was complaining to a Sony rep at the recent photoPlus Expo about my trouble getting through to tech support and hat they need to get serious about support and they noted in the last year I think the guy said they have a CPS-like support program. But you have to buy a certain amount of gear to qualify and, you know what, I think I should be able to get a human being on the line if I have a question about their gear regardless of the amount. Which I have tried and failed to do.

END RANT.

George Zip · Oct 26, 2016

Rdefen said:
I shoot both Canon and Nikon though I am by far a Canon guy. That dp feature sounds gimmicky to me too from what I've read.

Sometimes I'd like to chuck both C and N and move to Sony but for the fact that Sony has appalling customer service in my experience when compared to Canon.

BEGIN RANT

I was complaining to a Sony rep at the recent photoPlus Expo about my trouble getting through to tech support and hat they need to get serious about support and they noted in the last year I think the guy said they have a CPS-like support program. But you have to buy a certain amount of gear to qualify and, you know what, I think I should be able to get a human being on the line if I have a question about their gear regardless of the amount. Which I have tried and failed to do.

END RANT.

I gave up on Sony years ago based on their useless warranty support. So I just voted with my feet.

Graham Meale · Oct 26, 2016

I'm grateful for dual pixel technology as it, along with the touch screen, enables me to get focus much more easily in videos. I've had the 5DIV for about seven weeks and used it a lot, but I haven't taken any dual pixel raw images. I'm not in a hurry. I've seen what it can do on this site and elsewhere and so far I'm underwhelmed.

As I'm using Photoshop CS6, I've been forced to convert all my CR2 files from the IV to DNG before Bridge and Camera Raw will recognise them, and this, along with the extra megapixels, means that I'm already needing around 240 megabytes to store each shot (30 for the CR2, 30 for the DNG and 180 for a 16-bit TIFF), as against around 150 with the 5DIII (25 for the CR2 and 125 for the 16-bit TIFF). If I were to decide that dual pixel raw was worth the fuss, each raw file would be around 60 megabytes and I would need to process in Canon's DPP, which I don't particularly like.

I reserve the right to change my mind in the future and rave about dual pixel raw files. But it's looking unlikely.

--
http://www.grahammeale.info

ppage · Oct 26, 2016

Rick Knepper said:
Rick Knepper said:

BTW, in the 13 years I have used DSLRs, I've never had to talk with a Canon or Nikon CS rep.

Click to expand...

This is a bit off topic, but as it's come up... I've owned Canon gear for about the same amount of time and did have to call Canon once a couple of years ago about a battery problem. I had no trouble getting through to a human being who was actually able to solve my problem by walking me through a few steps with my 70D. I hope I never have to call them again, but it's nice to know that if I do I'll get help.

Peter

gimp_dad · Oct 26, 2016

Rick Knepper said:
Rdefen said:

I shoot both Canon and Nikon though I am by far a Canon guy. That dp feature sounds gimmicky to me too from what I've read.

Sometimes I'd like to chuck both C and N and move to Sony but for the fact that Sony has appalling customer service in my experience when compared to Canon.

Click to expand...

Over a feature that, if you do not find useful, can be turned off? You can't get more gimmicky than Sony and the rest of the mirrorless brands especially if you have pro level needs.

Dual Pixel Raw and micro-adjustment involves the heavy manipulation of pixels. What seems to be lost on the good folks at DPR is that any process (HDR, focus stacking etc) which introduces heavy pixel manipulation reduces the resolution of the image. Each instance of manipulation and its effects has to be judged on its own merits.

The good folks at Rawdigger discovered a possible good use for Dual Pixel Raw. The RAW contains two frames each with its own distinct exposure which when blended can act as an HDR. I tried this on the Kamera Bild image that was used in that magazine's article to review the MA feature but using the Rawdigger software to extract both exposures where the sky was blown in the main frame, blended it using Frame #2 a darker rendition and it worked pretty well in producing an overall well exposed image. What's the difference in this and shooting two images via bracketing in regards to file size?

This extra highlight latitude does seem like the most legitimate use for DPRAW so far. However, it blows me away that this is possible (if it is). It implies that Canon who is in last place with low ISO DR and knows it, is stupid enough to throw away part of the dynamic range just because of the format of their data. If they have higher dynamic range, they don't need an extra file to make it available, they just need to encode the data properly (and with the right number of bits) in the one file. If it is true, it breaks my heart and makes me question whether Canon is as good as I have always thought they were.

Rick Knepper said:
BTW, in the 13 years I have used DSLRs, I've never had to talk with a Canon or Nikon CS rep.

Rick Knepper said:

BEGIN RANT

I was complaining to a Sony rep at the recent photoPlus Expo about my trouble getting through to tech support and hat they need to get serious about support and they noted in the last year I think the guy said they have a CPS-like support program. But you have to buy a certain amount of gear to qualify and, you know what, I think I should be able to get a human being on the line if I have a question about their gear regardless of the amount. Which I have tried and failed to do.

END RANT.

Click to expand...

--
Once you've done fifty, everything else is iffy.

BiondoPhoto · Oct 26, 2016

Vlad,

The sole purpose of Duel Pixel Raw, is to allow you to refocus the image after it is shot. I speculate that only the Canon DPP software enables that feature. I myself prefer Canon's DPP software, as unpopular as that may be in certain circles. I can tell no quality difference in the files, only minor color differences, when processed out with the other widely adapted RAW processing software.

In any case, the ability to refocus is very very minute. It can be discerned, but don't expect to pull focus more than a small fraction of an inch. It can not nor is it meant to sharpen something that is really blurry, to sharp.

I personally manually focus my images, I mostly use tilt shift lenses, so autofocus is not an option, but I'm good at focusing, I'm a former view camera guy, almost always still life work, in studio setting, always on a tripod.

For me, it is a feature I will need, or use.

But a good tech idea, and good to have as an option, nonetheless.

Rdefen · Oct 26, 2016

No, not "over it." How can you possibly draw that inference ? I merely said I too find the feature gimmicky. It has no bearing on my evaluation of the camera. As you said, don't use it if you don't like it.

i was musing on a Sony move to segway into that I find Sony support sucks. They don't seem serious about support.

That you never needed to speak to a rep or rely on support services is irrelevant to whether those companies have good support. And that you never wanted or needed to borrow equipment from them also not relevant. Many people including me find customer service very important. If you don't then obviously it won't be a factor for you.

Rdefen · Oct 26, 2016

What's you video workflow with the 5DMKIV ?

24Peter · Oct 26, 2016

ppage said:
Rick Knepper said:

ppage said:

BTW, in the 13 years I have used DSLRs, I've never had to talk with a Canon or Nikon CS rep.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is a bit off topic, but as it's come up... I've owned Canon gear for about the same amount of time and did have to call Canon once a couple of years ago about a battery problem. I had no trouble getting through to a human being who was actually able to solve my problem by walking me through a few steps with my 70D. I hope I never have to call them again, but it's nice to know that if I do I'll get help.

Peter

Canon's tech support is GREAT. I've had printer issues and camera/DSLR issues and they are far and away the best in this area (though I admit I've never called Nikon). But compared to Sony, Panasonic (for cameras) and all the major computer manufacturers, Canon is tops. Really, really great to deal with them.

Graham Meale · Oct 26, 2016

Rdefen said:
What's you video workflow with the 5DMKIV ?

Convert raw files to DNG with Adobe's Digital Negative Converter.
Import through Bridge into Camera Raw running in Photoshop.
After processing, transfer as 16-bit TIFF to Photoshop for further processing.
Incorporate into a book in Adobe InDesign.
Publish through Blurb. (See my website.)

If I ever get to the stage where the DNG step drives me mad, perhaps I'll give in and move to the cloud. But I haven't yet.

I just re-read your post, and see that I answered the wrong question. :-O

I take so few videos that I don't do anything with them other than watch them. Almost all my photography is related to travel, and I'll only make videos when the situation calls for them, such as live dancing, an organ recital, buskers or something. I've fiddled with the video editing features in Photoshop but haven't really ever used them. And I'm perfectly happy with 1080 video and probably will never use the 4K.

Rdefen · Oct 26, 2016

And I forgot to specify 4K workflow, which I now know you don't do.

Rick Knepper · Oct 27, 2016

Rdefen said:
No, not "over it." How can you possibly draw that inference ? I merely said I too find the feature gimmicky. It has no bearing on my evaluation of the camera. As you said, don't use it if you don't like it.

i was musing on a Sony move to segway into that I find Sony support sucks. They don't seem serious about support.

That you never needed to speak to a rep or rely on support services is irrelevant to whether those companies have good support.

Good or bad customer service is irrelevant not only to the original post but to the one you actually replied to. We were talking about Dual Pixel Raw in this thread. Instead of pointing out the irrelevancy of your post to the topic, I proceeded as if you had started a new topic and shared my personal experience based on your new topic instead.

Characterizing your so-called segue as a "musing" is amusing. You are posting to a forum populated by mostly adults and we know ridiculous statements (or segues) when we see them.

Rdefen said:
And that you never wanted or needed to borrow equipment from them also not relevant. Many people including me find customer service very important. If you don't then obviously it won't be a factor for you.

John Sheehy · Oct 27, 2016

vchapran said:
I noticed that the size of RAW files is much bigger than I expected comparing to Mark III. The older model had 24MP sensors and RAW files were around that value. The new model is 30MP, but the file size is between 60 and 90 megapixels. I suspected that it is because I set Dual Pixel RAW to ON. I made a couple of shots, one with Dual On, another without. Yes, it doebles the size. After converting both files to TIF format via Capture One Pro I've got the same sizes for both TIF files.

I do not understand yet Dual Pixel RAW feature yet, but if it doebles the size of file, then the RAW file contains pairs of pixels, am I correct? If the companion pixels are lost during conversion then why they are saved in the file?

Dual Pixel RAW is basically a RAW with two images within it.

One is what the whole lens sees (normal), and the other is what half of the lens sees, as if you held a piece of cardboard in front of the entrance pupil, blocking the left (or right?) side of the lens. Software can calculate from these two what the other, missing half would be.

When you are able to have the two halves of what the lens sees, you can see differences in the exact focal plane, and you get different bokeh, but the main focal plane is pretty much the same on both sides. Any given point in a scene could potentially be sharper in one half-image than the other. DPP makes some use of these facts, and other software may eventually make further use of them. The two images, for example, could be entered into a focus stacking program, and the sharpest pixel from either image used in an output pixel, making the center of the DOF sharpest part) slightly deeper. Also, the half-image has more RAW headroom, so programs may appear that use this extended DR.

If you don't need these potentials, then Dual Pixel RAW is just going to give you huge files that may be a burden to your storage system.

gavin · Oct 27, 2016

The regular RAW combines the same colour pixel into one. The dual pixel keeps them separate so hence the much bigger file size. Lightroom can process both but do not have any functionality that uses the dual pixel info for now. DPP can do the focus adjustment etc with the dual pixel RAW files. My motto is storage is cheap and getting cheaper.

AlephNull · Oct 27, 2016

vchapran said:
I noticed that the size of RAW files is much bigger than I expected comparing to Mark III. The older model had 24MP sensors and RAW files were around that value. The new model is 30MP, but the file size is between 60 and 90 megapixels. I suspected that it is because I set Dual Pixel RAW to ON. I made a couple of shots, one with Dual On, another without. Yes, it doebles the size. After converting both files to TIF format via Capture One Pro I've got the same sizes for both TIF files.

I do not understand yet Dual Pixel RAW feature yet, but if it doebles the size of file, then the RAW file contains pairs of pixels, am I correct? If the companion pixels are lost during conversion then why they are saved in the file?

Thaank you

Dual Pixel RAW

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Graham Meale

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Graham Meale

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts