Do You Wish Sony Had In Camera Processing?

Mathieu18 said:

Curious if others wish Sony had in camera processing. Recently started using Fuji for family and fun shoots and RAW processing was a big part of the decision. Can shoot RAW only, then convert and transfer JPEGs with tweaks to the tone curve to get about 90% of the way to a good finished image.

Click to expand...

Technical people tell me that today's ARM computers inside of MLCs, Smart Phones, and DSLRs are not as powerful as desktop PCs and Macs

Johann Kruger said:

Mathieu18 said:

Curious if others wish Sony had in camera processing. Recently started using Fuji for family and fun shoots and RAW processing was a big part of the decision. Can shoot RAW only, then convert and transfer JPEGs with tweaks to the tone curve to get about 90% of the way to a good finished image.

Click to expand...

Technical people tell me that today's ARM computers inside of MLCs, Smart Phones, and DSLRs are not as powerful as desktop PCs and Macs

Click to expand...

True in itself if one just looks at RAW general CPU power. But in a camera that part isn't used for creating JPEGs.

All cameras shot RAW internally and then produce a JPEG from it. If you have set your camera to not save the RAW it won't, but it still used it for the JPEG production.

Sony cameras can depending on model produce 5 - 20 JPEGS from the RAWs per second (= the fps frame rate) since they, as all cameras, have a special circuit (JPEG engine) dedicated for it (the one with the fancy name that they all have, like Venus Engine, Truepic etc). And it can be tuned with settings already today, like more or less colors, contrast, DRO or not etc. Many camera brands only let it run once, at the same time as taking the image.

But it can easily as well be ran on a saved RAW. Olympus cameras can do that and can even batch process all art filters (just under 10 different ones can't remember exactly) on one RAW file so you get multiple JPEGS to choose from. It does this rather quick, like a second. You can also crop and use the built in Keystone correction, put an adjustable tone curve on your image etc.

The problem I see is not the processing power in the camera due to the dedicated circuit but that the interface for changing settings aren't the best and that the screen normally is to small.

The Zeiss ZX1 might show the way here with a large touchscreen, Android OS and built in Lightroom.

--
Best regards
/Anders
----------------------------------------------------
42 Megapixels is the answer to life, the universe and everything.
You don't have to like my pictures, but it would help: http://www.lattermann.com/gallery

Johann Kruger said:

Mathieu18 said:

Curious if others wish Sony had in camera processing. Recently started using Fuji for family and fun shoots and RAW processing was a big part of the decision. Can shoot RAW only, then convert and transfer JPEGs with tweaks to the tone curve to get about 90% of the way to a good finished image.

Click to expand...

Technical people tell me that today's ARM computers inside of MLCs, Smart Phones, and DSLRs are not as powerful as desktop PCs and Macs

Click to expand...

But they have dedicated ISP blocks for demosaicing, JPEG compression, scaling, video compression, and other image-related functions that make them as capable as, if not moreso, than desktop PC general-purpose CPUs.

The GP CPU in most MILC/DSLRs are very weak, but all of them have powerful logic dedicated to image processing. GP ARM CPUs are nowhere near as powerful as current desktop CPUs, but they're well ahead of where desktop CPUs were back when people first started doing desktop panorama stitching/RAW development/etc.

lattesweden said:

But it can easily as well be ran on a saved RAW. Olympus cameras can do that and can even batch process all art filters (just under 10 different ones can't remember exactly) on one RAW file so you get multiple JPEGS to choose from. It does this rather quick, like a second. You can also crop and use the built in Keystone correction, put an adjustable tone curve on your image etc.

Click to expand...

Pentax has been doing it since 2009 or so, if not earlier. It's one of the few Pentax features that Sony is still missing. Interestingly, I never used it on the Pentax, but that's because Pentax doesn't do wifi transfer to a smartphone.

Once you have wifi to smartphone, you need either:

1) RAW transfer

2) Ability to redevelop a RAW to JPEG a la Pentax/Olympus

Sony has neither.

Entropy512 said:

lattesweden said:

But it can easily as well be ran on a saved RAW. Olympus cameras can do that and can even batch process all art filters (just under 10 different ones can't remember exactly) on one RAW file so you get multiple JPEGS to choose from. It does this rather quick, like a second. You can also crop and use the built in Keystone correction, put an adjustable tone curve on your image etc.

Click to expand...

Pentax has been doing it since 2009 or so, if not earlier. It's one of the few Pentax features that Sony is still missing. Interestingly, I never used it on the Pentax, but that's because Pentax doesn't do wifi transfer to a smartphone.

Once you have wifi to smartphone, you need either:

1) RAW transfer

2) Ability to redevelop a RAW to JPEG a la Pentax/Olympus

Sony has neither.

Click to expand...

All camera manufacturers needs to take this whole process more seriously and make it easy to quickly edit images with either automated batch settings (like auto exposure in Lightroom that adjusts each image individually with colors, contrast, shadow and highlight adjustment), and also let the user adjust uniquely per image.

And then output the result directly online either in batch or only uniquely chosen images.

So as Zeiss put it at Photokina: Shoot, Edit, Share.

If they don't improve in this field the smartphone will win in many cases lowering the use of "real" cameras and in the longer run impact sales of them.

Mathieu18 said:

Good in theory but how are you going to quickly move multiple 42mb files?

Click to expand...

42MB is not much. 5GHz wifi will move that in a few seconds. With a USB C cord it will be pretty much instantaneous, that can transfer ten such files a second.

Jesper

Entropy512 said:

But they have dedicated ISP blocks for demosaicing, JPEG compression, scaling, video compression, and other image-related functions that make them as capable as, if not moreso, than desktop PC general-purpose CPUs.

Click to expand...

So do PC general-purpose CPU's and GPU's today. There is no comparison in processing power; the PC will beat the pants off of any camera, even on dedicated tasks like image and video compression and scaling. Every PC sold today has dedicated, extremely powerful image and video management built into the silicon. In addition this silicon runs at much higher speed, and with much larger cache and memory.

Entropy512 said:

The GP CPU in most MILC/DSLRs are very weak, but all of them have powerful logic dedicated to image processing. GP ARM CPUs are nowhere near as powerful as current desktop CPUs, but they're well ahead of where desktop CPUs were back when people first started doing desktop panorama stitching/RAW development/etc.

Click to expand...

When people first started doing desktop panorama stitching and raw development, 2 megapixels was a lot.

Jesper

Not really; I tweak each photo differently and camera interfaces are terrible for processing.

And why use precious processor capacity for in camera processing when that can be done much faster and better in another processing environment?

Still dream of in camera intervallometer and focus stacking (just capturing, not stacking in camera). That would please me!

Trollmannx said:

And why use precious processor capacity for in camera processing when that can be done much faster and better in another processing environment?

Click to expand...

Because

1) the processor is doing absolutely nothing else at the time

2) you aren't working in another processing environment. because we don't yet have quantum entangled clones who can do what we need to do in another place with other equipment at precisely the same moment.

What about when I need to cull through 100-200 of them? Now it’s a few hundred seconds...

theswede said:

Mathieu18 said:

Good in theory but how are you going to quickly move multiple 42mb files?

Click to expand...

42MB is not much. 5GHz wifi will move that in a few seconds. With a USB C cord it will be pretty much instantaneous, that can transfer ten such files a second.

Jesper

Click to expand...

It’s already done on every shot regardless... you would just trigger it when you wanted it done and no capacity was otherwise being used.

Trollmannx said:

And why use precious processor capacity for in camera processing when that can be done much faster and better in another processing environment?

Still dream of in camera intervallometer and focus stacking (just capturing, not stacking in camera). That would please me!

Click to expand...

Mathieu18 said:

What about when I need to cull through 100-200 of them? Now it’s a few hundred seconds...

Click to expand...

10-20 seconds with USB C. And you can start reviewing the first ones after a fraction of a second.

And in wireless, you can start reviewing after a few seconds. In the order they upload, sure, but if you're so on your feet that you can't plug a cable in, that is unlikely to be much of a handicap.

Jesper

I find it a bit interesting, we’re split about 50/50 aside from the few not shooting RAW. Biggest thing I note is most of the “No” comments include some form of “Computers are faster, more efficient, easier to use and more feature rich” or its converse, “cameras and phones are too slow, hard to control and the screen is too small.” The only catch is, well it requires a computer as well, which is generally less convenient to carry or work on unless you have a desk or table.

My question wasn’t meant to ask if in camera RAW can replace computers, clearly it cannot. You can’t do local adjustments, layers, curve adjustments, dodging & burning, precise adjustments, etc. And if you want to put 100% of your shots through that I commend you, but I’ll posit that A) it isn’t making mediocre images great, or great images much greater and B) simple exposure and tone adjustments can still yield great images. I like editing landscape, and I love getting to edit a shot when I immediately know captured something special. But I’m also tired of working over bunches of casual images or family and events. A quick adjustment (especially with adjustments already in place from camera settings) and a couple clicks to export and share is frankly quite rewarding and relaxing.

Just my 2 cents, which is approximately what it’s worth.

Mathieu18 said:

Curious if others wish Sony had in camera processing. Recently started using Fuji for family and fun shoots and RAW processing was a big part of the decision. Can shoot RAW only, then convert and transfer JPEGs with tweaks to the tone curve to get about 90% of the way to a good finished image.

Click to expand...

You’ve completely changed the parameters of what was originally asked. First 5Ghz could do a image in a couple seconds and now we’ll need USB-C for a few hundred in 10-20. And the Adobe can batch edit 50 of them in 3 minutes, and JPEG mini can compress them, then I can use fiber broadband to upload to sharing services and archive them.

But I want to get a file ready for sharing from camera to device in 1 step, without digging a cable out of my bag.

theswede said:

Mathieu18 said:

What about when I need to cull through 100-200 of them? Now it’s a few hundred seconds...

Click to expand...

10-20 seconds with USB C. And you can start reviewing the first ones after a fraction of a second.

Jesper

Click to expand...

Mathieu18 said:

I find it a bit interesting, we’re split about 50/50 aside from the few not shooting RAW. Biggest thing I note is most of the “No” comments include some form of “Computers are faster, more efficient, easier to use and more feature rich” or its converse, “cameras and phones are too slow, hard to control and the screen is too small.” The only catch is, well it requires a computer as well, which is generally less convenient to carry or work on unless you have a desk or table.

My question wasn’t meant to ask if in camera RAW can replace computers, clearly it cannot. You can’t do local adjustments, layers, curve adjustments, dodging & burning, precise adjustments, etc. And if you want to put 100% of your shots through that I commend you, but I’ll posit that A) it isn’t making mediocre images great, or great images much greater and B) simple exposure and tone adjustments can still yield great images. I like editing landscape, and I love getting to edit a shot when I immediately know captured something special. But I’m also tired of working over bunches of casual images or family and events. A quick adjustment (especially with adjustments already in place from camera settings) and a couple clicks to export and share is frankly quite rewarding and relaxing.

Just my 2 cents, which is approximately what it’s worth.

Mathieu18 said:

Curious if others wish Sony had in camera processing. Recently started using Fuji for family and fun shoots and RAW processing was a big part of the decision. Can shoot RAW only, then convert and transfer JPEGs with tweaks to the tone curve to get about 90% of the way to a good finished image.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For me, quick snaps like these are shared on social media, which means the phone is in play.... that is a much easier device to make those kinds of quick changes on.

Having used most iPhone editors, and Fuji’s in camera conversions I have to disagree. With the shadow/highlight/exposure controls you can get a cleaner, better JPEG, and you can change profiles after the fact.

sportyaccordy said:

Mathieu18 said:

I find it a bit interesting, we’re split about 50/50 aside from the few not shooting RAW. Biggest thing I note is most of the “No” comments include some form of “Computers are faster, more efficient, easier to use and more feature rich” or its converse, “cameras and phones are too slow, hard to control and the screen is too small.” The only catch is, well it requires a computer as well, which is generally less convenient to carry or work on unless you have a desk or table.

My question wasn’t meant to ask if in camera RAW can replace computers, clearly it cannot. You can’t do local adjustments, layers, curve adjustments, dodging & burning, precise adjustments, etc. And if you want to put 100% of your shots through that I commend you, but I’ll posit that A) it isn’t making mediocre images great, or great images much greater and B) simple exposure and tone adjustments can still yield great images. I like editing landscape, and I love getting to edit a shot when I immediately know captured something special. But I’m also tired of working over bunches of casual images or family and events. A quick adjustment (especially with adjustments already in place from camera settings) and a couple clicks to export and share is frankly quite rewarding and relaxing.

Just my 2 cents, which is approximately what it’s worth.

Mathieu18 said:

Curious if others wish Sony had in camera processing. Recently started using Fuji for family and fun shoots and RAW processing was a big part of the decision. Can shoot RAW only, then convert and transfer JPEGs with tweaks to the tone curve to get about 90% of the way to a good finished image.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For me, quick snaps like these are shared on social media, which means the phone is in play.... that is a much easier device to make those kinds of quick changes on.

Click to expand...

Mathieu18 said:

My question wasn’t meant to ask if in camera RAW can replace computers, clearly it cannot. You can’t do local adjustments, layers, curve adjustments, dodging & burning, precise adjustments, etc.

Click to expand...

Olympus does curves. Uses the two wheels for control. Front wheel for highlights, back wheel for shadows.

I can live with several ways of doing it. The basic need I have is to shot on a FF sensor and then being able to do something better edit wise than straight in camera JPEG does. And lastly upload to web services or send to selected people.

I think the Zeiss ZX1 is rather interesting with the built in Lightroom: https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/28/zeiss-zx1-full-frame-compact-camera/

Trollmannx said:

And why use precious processor capacity for in camera processing when that can be done much faster and better in another processing environment?

Still dream of in camera intervallometer and focus stacking (just capturing, not stacking in camera). That would please me!

Click to expand...

Precious capacity?

The CPU is pretty much sitting idle during playback/review.

Mathieu18 said:

Having used most iPhone editors, and Fuji’s in camera conversions I have to disagree. With the shadow/highlight/exposure controls you can get a cleaner, better JPEG, and you can change profiles after the fact.

Click to expand...

Phone vs. camera is irrelevant for Sony anyway since you can't transfer RAW via wireless.