Windoews iintegration for DCRAW available

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:29:11 -0800, paul wrote:

Yes I just typed "dcraw_c.bat" and it complained that BATCHCONVERT is
not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
batch file. goto was unexpected at this time.

Hmmm, BATCHCONVERT is a label inside the cdraw_c.bat. It works
perfectly in Win98se, no need to type anything, I can start the
conversion from Irfanview or fPicasa2 or even from Windows Explorer.

I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you have
to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format. It's an
unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic range with
high contrast images.

Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/technique..._raw/index.htm

Yes, correct (as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)

Ah ha, I has version 1. The link on your page was
not responding at the time.

Sure needs the strings v2.5, I tried the d/l link just now and it is
OK. I will look at the license of the freeware strings utility, it
could be possible for me to put it available from my site.

Timo Autiokari

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:29:11 -0800, paul wrote:

Yes I just typed "dcraw_c.bat" and it complained that BATCHCONVERT is
not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
batch file. goto was unexpected at this time.

Hmmm, BATCHCONVERT is a label inside the cdraw_c.bat. It works
perfectly in Win98se, no need to type anything, I can start the
conversion from Irfanview or fPicasa2 or even from Windows Explorer.

I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you have
to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format. It's an
unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic range with
high contrast images.

Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/technique..._raw/index.htm

Yes, correct (as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)

Ah ha, I has version 1. The link on your page was
not responding at the time.

Sure needs the strings v2.5, I tried the d/l link just now and it is
OK. I will look at the license of the freeware strings utility, it
could be possible for me to put it available from my site.

Timo Autiokari

Hi Bart,

I've uploaded a crw for the comparison:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm

Timo Autiokari

wrote in message
oups.com...
SNIP
I use dcraw myself and have noticed the aliasing artifacts you
mention. Do have pointers to postprocessing algorithms that
might help with the problem?

It is best handled at conversion time itself, so it should be part of
the converter software. Postprocessing the converted (and perhaps even
Gamma adjusted) result will only lose information.
I don't have specific pointers, although
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/crimmins.htm#1 may provide a
sense of direction.

I'd personally prefer some aproach that is based on Standard Deviation
rather than absolute difference. Standard deviation would come closer
in appearance to Photon shot noise, which is a driving force (and
physical limitation) in high signal to noise digital imaging.

Bart

wrote in message
oups.com...
SNIP
I use dcraw myself and have noticed the aliasing artifacts you
mention. Do have pointers to postprocessing algorithms that
might help with the problem?

It is best handled at conversion time itself, so it should be part of
the converter software. Postprocessing the converted (and perhaps even
Gamma adjusted) result will only lose information.
I don't have specific pointers, although
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/crimmins.htm#1 may provide a
sense of direction.

I'd personally prefer some aproach that is based on Standard Deviation
rather than absolute difference. Standard deviation would come closer
in appearance to Photon shot noise, which is a driving force (and
physical limitation) in high signal to noise digital imaging.

Bart

Timo Autiokari wrote:
paul wrote:

I just typed "dcraw_c.bat" and it complained that BATCHCONVERT is
not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
batch file. goto was unexpected at this time.

Hmmm, BATCHCONVERT is a label inside the cdraw_c.bat. It works
perfectly in Win98se,

I did try setting the compatibility mode from winxp to win98 without any
change.

no need to type anything, I can start the
conversion from Irfanview or fPicasa2 or even from Windows Explorer.


I tried again at a DOS command line in winxp with:
"dcraw_c.bat mypicture.nef"

and got only the last part of the error:
"goto was unexpected at this time"

I don't know if it works that way, previously I had simply called the
..bat file without specifying a raw file.



I also tried again by right-clicking a raw file & selecting Open-With
browsing to dcraw_c.bat & grabbed a screen shot before it blinked away.
There are no error messages, it simply shows the credits & closes. I've
had trouble with other bat files blinking away like that before. I don't
know much about DOS batch.


I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you have
to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format. It's an
unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic range with
high contrast images.

Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/technique..._raw/index.htm


Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...nversion.shtml
I couldn't find any documentation for dcraw command options other than a
few FAQ's.

I shoot in Adobe RGB but maybe that isn't being read and isn't
happening, you say it should be Linear & it looks like I need a profile
for photoshop to read that. I use a Nikon D70, not the D60 that you
show. Still I think we are talking about different types of "linear
conversion".



(as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)


Your link worked just now & I ran the above tests with the new version.
Overseas sites sometimes don't connect from california I've noticed it's
not unusual, nobody's fault. I appreciate your efforts.

paul wrote:

Timo Autiokari wrote:

I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you
have to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format.
It's an unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic
range with high contrast images.


Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/technique..._raw/index.htm



Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...nversion.shtml
I couldn't find any documentation for dcraw command options other than a
few FAQ's.

I shoot in Adobe RGB but maybe that isn't being read and isn't
happening, you say it should be Linear & it looks like I need a profile
for photoshop to read that. I use a Nikon D70, not the D60 that you
show. Still I think we are talking about different types of "linear
conversion".



I played some more at the command prompt with plain dcraw. Simply type
dcraw to get a list of the options Doh!

Your settings: set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3

-b 4 increases brightness to counteract the dark look of a linear
conversion that I mentioned. If I don't use this option, I can adjust
the levels in photoshop and get a more robust looking, less clipped
histogram than the Adobe RAW plugin. Also the less agressive
antialiasing filter in dcraw gives a sharper but noisier image which has
advantages. I did play with the hybrid approach as well since I have no
profile for the linear conversion the dcraw colors came out odd as well
as the color bayer artifacts mentioned above.

One strange thing is the dcraw conversion frames the image up about 20
pixels (portrait shot) so it doesn't match the adobe version. Very very odd!

Hi Paul,

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:18:31 -0800, paul wrote:
Your settings: set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3
-b 4 increases brightness to counteract the dark look of a linear
conversion that I mentioned.

Aha, I did not understand that it was _this_ issue. I scale the 12-bit
output of my D60 up using DCRAW because there will be less
quantization (or there are more different RGB values) than how
Photoshop Levels does it.

since I have no profile for the linear conversion the dcraw colors
came out odd as well as the color bayer artifacts mentioned above.

Yes, it is best to have profile(s). My understanding is that the
default color space that DCRAW does the linear conversion to is
Widegamut, D65 gamma 1.0 profile. This is the same as my AIMRGBpro
profile, available at:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/download/aim_profiles.zip
So daylight/sunlight shots should appear rather nicely if you just
Assign the AIMRGBpro profile.

One strange thing is the dcraw conversion frames the image up about 20
pixels (portrait shot) so it doesn't match the adobe version. Very very odd!

It is so with D60 conversion also, but just a few pixels, larger in
both x and y dimensions. I believe that what DCRAW outputs is the real
sensor size.

I'm sorry I am not able to help you with the batch at this time, as
soon as I have the possibility to test it on an XP machine I will take
a good look into this. But in addition of being logged as an
administrator I believe you still need to give the proper rights for
the dcraw_c.

Timo Autiokari

"Timo Autiokari" wrote in message
...
Hi Bart,

I've uploaded a crw for the comparison:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm

Okay. Before I give you the links to my conversion results, allow me
to make a introductory comment about the file. This file should be
almost perfect for DCRAW, because there is almost nothing in the file
that shows focused straight edges. The multicolored high contrast
edges are the Achilles heel of DCRAW.

However, even in this file the rainbow like colors are present in the
ring edges of the bridle. The good news is that the colored artifacts
don't have to show as prominently if they were worsened by sharpening.
Just apply the sharpening on a duplicate layer and use a Luminosity
blending mode.

Now for the results, I've prepared the following:
1. From Rawshooter essentials,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Canon-RSE.jpg .
The left window is unsharpened from RSE-2005, and the right window is
the same file but with USM 170 / 0.3 / 0 . I tried to achieve a
similar amount of sharpening as with your DCRAW examples.
2. From Adobe Camera Raw,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Canon-ACR.jpg .
The left window is unsharpened from Adobe Camera Raw, and the right
window is the same file but with USM 500 / 0.3 / 0 . Again, I tried to
achieve a similar amount of sharpening as with your DCRAW examples.

Different sharpening methods will also produce different looking
results.

To me, the ACR example shows a very slight advantage to both others,
due to less posterized shadows than DCRAW (but that posterization has
probably more to do with the profile you used), and the slightly
better shadow definition than RSE. Do note that in trying to match the
output in color and tonality of the DCRAW file, things may have been
lost. Straight conversion with these converters produces slightly
different output, at which point it becomes a matter of taste and it
makes a direct comparison more difficult. Different files/subjects
will also produce different results.

Nevertheless, DCRAW is a fine converter if it weren't for the
multicolored artifacts on high contrast edges, and spotty thin lines.
It would seem useful to search for a solution to solve that. A simple
method for profiling/color matching would be welcome as well.
The free "Rawshooter essentials 2005" is a very good tool, if the
current issues with other platforms than P4/Win XP are solved. The
workflow is well thought through, and the stand alone application
allows good sharp output, with very little color fringing (it seems to
suppress chromatic aberration to a certain extent). A little more
control in a payware version would be appreciated. It is also possible
to produce aliasing artifacts with extremely fine detail, it is
usually low in color moiré but visible as luminance moiré.
Adobe Camera Raw is an all purpose converter and offers lots of
control in a color-managed environment. It produces quality output,
but it requires Photoshop CS for a full capability version of the Raw
converter.

Bart

Hi Bart,

Thank you! Is it OK to put all the results side by side on the dcraw
page at my site?

This file should be almost perfect for DCRAW, because there is almost
nothing in
the file hat shows focused straight edges. The multicolored high
contrast edges
are the Achilles heel of DCRAW.

I agree that the edges in DCRAW conversion are not as soft as they are
from what ever other converter but really these artifacts that you
refer to do not show on the CRT at 100% zoom (at actual pixels size). A
CRT has about 100ppi so this means a printed image e.g. from my D60
(6MP) at the size of 50cm by 75cm (20 inch by 30 inch). Sure, if I need
to resample up from that then there will be a need to address to this
issue but there are several things that can be done. Do you truly see
rainbow like colors at the edges of those rings? At what magnification?
Also, where exactly do you see posterized shadows in my DCRAW
version??? I can not see any.

From these the DCRAW conversion is clearly the best (most sharp), ACR
is the second best but definitely more soft. The RSE conversion seems
to have also other problems in addition to the softness (e.g. blotchy
skin on the neck). The Canon software clearly is the worst (extremely
soft), one has to remember that it does not apply any sharpening in
linear the conversion mode so for a fair comparison one actually should
sharpen them much more ...but that does not help at all, just gives
more sharpening artefacts.

The color-managment is another kind of issue, I prefer DCRAW because
with it I have full control over that. I have currently 12 profiles for
my D60 (for different illumination situations) but the common 4 or 5
that there are in commercial/bundled converters is quite enough
normally. It is not a very big task at all to create these camera
profiles but the commercial products sure are easier to take into use
in regars to color-management, certainly not equally accurate, but more
easy. And of course the Windows GUI is an issue but the batch file now
makes things very very easy. On the other hand DCRAW workflow (once the
initial setup is ready) is very simple, straightforward and clear /
easily understandable, you get the raw image data into Photoshop,
engage the color-management and then finalize the image fully there
using those familar editing operations ...and there are quite many
operations to choose from in Photoshop. For me these "full-featured"
converters are like blackboxes ...and Photoshop acts as just as a mere
"SaveAs engine" or a JPEG converter behind them.

One thing btw should be very clear now: The conversion algorithm have a
paramount effect on image quality. E.g. one can find many Web pages
that focus on the lens quality, inspecting differences between the
lenses that are just a tiny fraction of that softness that a poor
conversion algorithm produce. Really there is no benefit in buying an
extremely expensive "sharp" lens in case one is using a "soft"
converison tool.

Timo Autiokari