Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
September 21, 2020, 01:08:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Download and develop photos from your flash cards with one click!
Get a trial of
FlashPipe today and stop fumbling with explorer windows to transfer photos and videos
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: v2012.219 issues/comments  (Read 21443 times)
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2012, 09:14:46 PM »

Sure, two recent and two a year old if you can

Ok I sent four additional raw files via Wetransfer, 2 are from the set of files shot along with the original problem file I sent. They also have similar problems but not as severe. Then one from one year ago that does not have any problems. The last one is a test done today and includes a mini greytagmackbeth color checker. Hope this can be of some assistance. Thanks for your help.
Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5323



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2012, 10:17:11 PM »

Quote
They also have similar problems but not as severe. Then one from one year ago that does not have any problems. The last one is a test done today and includes a mini greytagmackbeth color checker. Hope this can be of some assistance. Thanks for your help.

Dennis,
You have two excellent shots and two that are off some. You also have the chart which is not that good either (regarding color balance)
The commonality shows that the good shots are shot with ISO 200. The "off" shots are ISO 100.
I don't know if that means anything. Maybe you can look through and see if that follows through like that?
What this does say is that you did make at least one change to the settings.

Mike thinks what we will find is some difference in White Balance setting between earlier batch (Auto WB) and these from last week perhaps (Custom WB)
Something like that.
As long as you didn't do  Firmware update, and the same camera makes good orfs and ones that are "off" and the DCRAW (earlier and new) makes the same developing, all that is left are settings.
Either WB, or some custom setting in the camera...
Maybe the next step is to recheck all the settings, not taking anything for granted.

Fred
Logged
DdeGannes
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


Retired Banker; Golf; Photography; Travel.


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 14, 2012, 01:23:10 PM »

Thanks for the help Fred. Will do some more testing on the ISO 100 vs 200, 400 etc settings to optimize my files.
Logged

COMP EQP: iMac 27" mid 2015 5K Retina macOS 10.15.5, 24GB Ram; Scan Elite 5400 film scr.
CAMERA EQP: Oly OMD EM-1, Digital Zuiko & OM lenses.
Imaging Apps: PS CC 20; LR Classic CC 9.3; Qimage U & One; VueScan.
atodzia
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2012, 10:56:05 PM »

When I have time I'll see if I can put together a similar compare shot. I think what I am seeing is more than just a sharpness difference, but maybe not.

Fred,
Attached are two images. The Canon conversion is at 100% zoom. The Qimage is at a lesser zoom level (what you get when you click the magnifying glass). There is a difference in exposure with the two programs so disregard that. Look at the left birds leg, the left side, and there appears to be a halo which isn't present in the Canon image. Maybe you have an explanation.
Andy
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5323



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2012, 09:31:48 AM »

Quote
Fred,
Attached are two images. The Canon conversion is at 100% zoom. The Qimage is at a lesser zoom level (what you get when you click the magnifying glass). There is a difference in exposure with the two programs so disregard that. Look at the left birds leg, the left side, and there appears to be a halo which isn't present in the Canon image. Maybe you have an explanation.
Andy

Andy,
I am honored that I am mistaken for such a handsome and astute fellow as Terry, but you really have been working with Terry so I best let him continue. He has the Canon software, and I do not.
Terry will be busy for a few hours, but will return and reply later today.

What I can do to help is to explain how to use the Comparator in Qimage Ultimate so you can get the same zoom on both images, side by side.

1) Place both images into the queue (to the right side as if you were going to print)
2) Click the tab located below the large preview images, adjacent to the JOB PROPERTIES tab called Print Queue!
3) Using the CTRL key and the mouse, select both file names in the queue
4) Right click on the file names and select the last selection called Comparator.
5) When the screen opens, wait for both images to load. Then Right mouse button and click LOCK

Now If you drag or slide an image on the right, the left will move to the same location.
Roll the mouse wheel and both sides will change magnification at the same rate.

When you have what you want to show, Screen Snap it.

(Sometimes, it's a good idea to click SWAP in that Right click menu. LCD type monitors have been known to have varying brightness and contrast when comparing areas of the screen.)
Fred




Logged
atodzia
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2012, 04:07:15 PM »

Terry, see my post above with the two pics.
(Sorry Fred)

Andy
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2012, 05:26:27 PM »

Hi Andy,
Quote
Maybe you have an explanation.
I think your images are too small to make any reliable conclusions; you could say there's a halo against the black tail of the bird on the DPP image!
It seems to me that DPP's default gives inherently higher contrast, sharpening and probably noise reduction compared to QU. You can of course change QU raw preferences to increase sharpening and noise reduction. Contrast can be increased by reducing Fill in the refine screen.
DPP does a good job, just like the in-camera conversion but I find it very difficult to use to fine tune some some aspects and highlight recovery is not that good either. Still more practice in using any raw software will help the user to get their optimal results
Below is comparative versions of a semi macro shot which to me shows QU superiority  Shocked  Wink They are linked to may photo gallery.
The first shows QU version straight from raw refine with the DPP version on the RIGHT.
DPP has a little more contrast but has less detail on many of the yellow stamens at the bottom of the image.

The second comparison is the same except images had a little Tone Targeted Sharpening applied to the "saturated" colours. This has really brought out more detail in the stamens and else where on the QU image but not added anything to the DPP image. All very subtle I know!

Terry
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 05:28:33 PM by Terry-M » Logged
atodzia
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2012, 05:38:48 PM »

Terry,

I see what you mean. Do you do most of your Qimage RAW parameter settings in the preferences menu pick up on top? I am not sure the best way to tune Qimage for the 5D Mark III. I sold my other cameras and only have the Mark III so now all tuning would be for that camera.

Andy
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2012, 08:18:33 AM »

Hi Andy,
Quote
Do you do most of your Qimage RAW parameter settings in the preferences menu pick up on top?
Yes, it's important to get that right and the default is a good starting point.
Quote
I am not sure the best way to tune Qimage for the 5D Mark III
It's a matter of trial and error I think. I have a new camera and still trying different settings; I'm more-or less there now but they are not a lot different from the default settings. I've left the Noise reduction as default; if my memory is right, that mid position represents 400 iso above which noise reduction comes into play.
I have increased the sharpness equalisation to something higher than default and may try it a little higher. Also the USM % is up to 175%.
One new feature that is very useful for testing different raw settings and profiles is the ability to re-build the thumb and cache for a single a single thumb - right click menu. This can save a lot of time when fine tuning.
One other point, I prefer to have the raw sharpening to be "not enough" rather than "too much". That gives me scope to use the TTS feature in the editor when required.
I hope that helps.
Terry

« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 08:22:23 AM by Terry-M » Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2012, 09:07:47 AM »

Andy,
Quote
I have increased the sharpness equalisation to something higher than default
Just to be clear, I increased EQ to a point under the @ symbol. It's a pity there is no indicator markings on that scale (Mike note please!).

One feature in the refine screen that I had forgotten but is useful when checking settings and adjusting raw images in general, is the magnify feature. Roll your scroll wheel forward one click and a magnified area appears which can be moved around the image. This shows the effect of any noise reduction too, the full refine screen does not. (Fred correct me if I'm wrong).
Terry
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5323



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2012, 09:28:41 AM »

Quote
This shows the effect of any noise reduction too, the full refine screen does not. (Fred correct me if I'm wrong).
Terry

I don't see what you see. The noise reduction applies, and I can see the difference magnifier on or off.
Of course, y0ou have to rebuild the thumb if you change the Noise Reduction slider and Save it
I think what you might be referring to is the magnifier in the Editor.

That one will not show Noise reduction of sharpening at lower magnification selections>

Fred
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2012, 03:15:27 PM »

Quote
I don't see what you see. The noise reduction applies, and I can see the difference magnifier on or off.
You are correct, I checked again. Sorry if I confused anyone  Roll Eyes
Terry
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3196



View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2012, 03:29:28 PM »

Hi Dennis,
Going back a few posts
Quote
The last one is a test done today and includes a mini greytagmackbeth color checker
I have one of those (now XRite) and use it regularly to get a good white balance on raw shots.
I never use the Auto WB setting but prefer to use the nearest pre-set such as "daylight" or "cloudy". I will usually take one or two shots of the colour checker, especially if cloud cover changes during a session, and use those to WB the other shots from the session. Of course, if you change the camera pre-set, a new colour checker shot is required.
Terry
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!