4 ways to convert RAW--and different results

[walter38787]

Walt,

Where can you get WinImages?
Sounds interesting as far as orf files go.

Walter

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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

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.

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 ;-(

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.

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

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.

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

Exactly my point.

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

--walter

 

[dwrobin]

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

Walt

I looked on the above site and could find no mention of ORF as a supported format. Does the current 7.0 support this.

Also is there a demo available. $199.00 is alot for a package I have heard little about and do not know the capabilities of.
--Dave Robinson http://www.davesphotopage.com

 

[Walt Richmond]

Where can you get WinImages?

Follow the link in my signature:

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

 

[Walt Richmond]

I looked on the above site and could find no mention of ORF as a
supported format. Does the current 7.0 support this.

Yes. e10/e20 loading is part of a free update to the software, we point those out on the web board. The message is there almost at the top of the most recent threads. This capability is a very recent addition. Another feature for folks who already have it, you can select a menu item in the software and it'll tell you specifically what's new since the version you have, leaving out anything you already have. You can see what was done in the latest update by hitting this link:

http://www.crystalpixels.com/cgi-bin/wiupdates.pl?ver=7&rev=1&lev=e

Also is there a demo available.

Not at this time. The product download is about 60 megabytes; they're working on a demo archive that uses the online docs instead of bringing the docs along in the archive, that'll be much smaller - when that's ready, they'll post a demo archive. Until then, a demo would take too much of the our available bandwidth and would compromise customers who are downloading the main package after having bought it.

The docs, however, may be looked at any time. If that's of interest, you can begin here:

http://www.dojang.com/bbs/html_docs/f_welcome.html

There are tons of images (and animations) in the docs that were made using the package.

$199.00 is alot for a package I have heard little about and do not know the capabilities of.

It's actually $399 - that $199 is a temporary price, FYI. I understand your reluctance, believe me. I'm not a salesman, and I'm not trying to sell it to you. I'm one of the programmers, and my interest is in making it be the best it can be, particularly with regard to the e10/e20, as I own an e20.

That's why I was asking about people's expectations for raw file loading, and why I (somewhat smugly, I admit) point out the difference in speed in loading e10/e20 raw files.

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

 

[Walt Richmond]

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.

Dianne, here's some info that may enlighten you re this issue:

The camera produces an image that is more than 8-bits per R, G and B channel deep. This information results in many times the number of levels you end up with in the final 24-bit (8 bit per channel) image you see on screen.

In order to show you that higher bit-count image in your lower-bit-count screen, this requires that some information be thrown out or at least hidden. There are a number of ways that can be done:

o Linearly: 12 bits in (4096 levels) 8 bits out (256 levels) by dividing by 16.

o Windowed, but linear: Find out how many levels are actually used in the image (lets say it was 3000 from darkest to lightest), then adjusting the result for 256 equally-spaced levels among the 3000 that were used.

o Equalized: again, let's say there were 3000, we'll say from 100 to 3100, but let's also say there are very few down at 3000-3500. Just like "levels" in photoshop, the importer can "move the shadows slider" past those very few levels, and they'll be gone. Now there are only 2500 levels, and so those are divided up into 256 equal steps.

o Other, more exotic ways.

Personally, I think the mechanism that is truest to the way that most people work with a photograph - what they want and expect to see - is to do it windowed, but linearly. Find the used dynamic range within the camera's entire dynamic range, divide that into 256 equal steps, bang, that's the result.

Or else provide a choice; that's fine too. But if there is no choice, then linear seems to be the thing to do. It will almost always provide the closest match to what you remember seeing through the viewfinder.

There is one more step that has to be done before you see a picture you can recognize. The image has to be changed from the square sequence:

RG
GB

...that is imposed upon it by the Bayer mask over the CCD. That requires filtering, and at least in the fine detail, the kind of filtering chosen (either by you or by the software if it doesn't give you a choice) will make a difference in how the photo turns out. There's really no way around this issue other than a camera with 3 CCD's, one for each color, instead of one with a colored mask over it, as the E20 uses.

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

 

[Diane B]

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!

Thanks for the nice compliment.

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?

Kim, I have not used NR previously for my own personal images. A lot of my prints are duotones and noise either hasn't been a problem or I've deemed it acceptable. I haven't printed above 8 x 10 until recently (just got an Epson 1280), and for the little bit of commercial work I've done, they've only printed 8 x 10 as far as I know (they are out of my hands when I give them the disk). However, for that same commercial work this year, I plan to do a bit of NR if necessary--this is the first time I've used the E10 for this--used my Canon G1 last several times. I don't do any studio work at all and don't use strobes--so I'm using an Oly flash on a frame most of the time--and they also have some natural light in some areas of the showroom---which doesn't make things easy in some cases (my main client has used another photographer for years for their catalog shots in studio and he did their market shots too until a year ago, but they prefer my showroom shots). I know that I will get deep shadowing in some areas (the lighting is VERY dramatic) and a lot of flat surfaces in the walls so expect some noise and am preparing to do some NR this market. The shots will be viewed on a monitor in many cases--they very well won't even notice noise, but I will try to give them as clean a shot as possible. The prints will be 8 x 10.

I'd suggest that you start a new thread on here asking other people about shooting as you plan to do since they will have more experience than I have had with what you are asking--and see what their limits are. Radu is certainly much more knowledgable than I am--and I thank him for stepping in here.

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