Show Posts
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
|
6
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Jpeg conversion options
|
on: August 02, 2012, 03:16:47 AM
|
If I have large TIF files and I want to convert them to Jpeg as 1,100 pixels wide (other dimension will default to keep aspect ratio) and a resolution of 72 can I set these options some how? I see there is a quality setting which I have set at 60 but I don't see any other place to specify output settings. I can convert and then open in photoshop and easily set this in image size, one by one, but was hoping to eliminate that step.
Thanks, Andy
|
|
|
7
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2012.219 issues/comments
|
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
|
|
|
9
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2012.219 issues/comments
|
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
|
|
|
11
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2012.219 issues/comments
|
on: July 13, 2012, 03:53:23 PM
|
When you do a 100% zoom on files with good exposure taken with the 5D Mark III at ISO 1600 and below do they look sharp to you? I tried a few files and compare it to Canon's software and they didn't look sharp at all. It looked like a different camera or lens was used. (?) P.S. I think something is really screwed up with the the latest version of Dcraw for some new cameras.
Not at all. I've tested it on the 5D Mark III, the D800, and a folder with hundreds of raws from dozens of cameras to compare results of the latest version with previous versions and it performs as well on those as it always has. In fact, that's the first test I always perform when updating dcraw: I go to my folder of raws I've collected from many cameras over the years and develop all of them with the new version. Of 216 raw photos from roughly 100 cameras, the new dcraw rendered 214 of 216 exactly the same as the previous version (and I don't just mean "visually": files were a 100% match). And the two it didn't: whatever bit level changes were present were not visible. Only down side is that files from cameras like the D800 are so large that they can take 30 seconds or longer to develop on pretty capable machines. BTW, Dennis, I tried your ORF from this thread in an older version of Studio: it renders it the same way; too red. Looks like a white balance problem since it has nothing to do with the latest update. The embedded JPEG is also red, but not as bad. Has the ORF been modified/resaved in any way? It's possible that dcraw can't find the white balance values if the ORF isn't straight from the memory card. Mike
|
|
|
12
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2012.219 issues/comments
|
on: July 13, 2012, 02:09:32 PM
|
Fred,
The Canon 5D Mark III has this new, extremely useful feature of in camera HDR taking 3 exposures either in Auto mode or +1, 2, or 3 EV increments. It does the processing immediately for Jpegs but you can choose to save all three exposures if shooting RAW and then combine them in the Canon DPP software. It really works well and if it has a self align feature which I always leave on so if you are hand holding the camera the three frames are correctly aligned during processing. It is one of the greatest features Canon has added in a while besides the usual expected features such as auto-focus speed, shots per sec, etc. It works really well and can produce shots that in the past had to be attempted using clumsy HDR tools from other companies. I use this feature much more than I ever tried to use after the fact HDR tools.
Andy
P.S. I think something is really screwed up with the the latest version of Dcraw for some new cameras.
|
|
|
13
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2012.219 issues/comments
|
on: July 10, 2012, 06:10:47 PM
|
Fred,
I agree, prior to the 5D Mark III, I preferred Qimage for my 5D Mark II and 7D. Not so with my new 5D Mark III. Something has changed. Either Dcraw, or Qimage, or else the Canon software is significantly improved for this camera. I know what you mean about the sharpening, and I do less sharpening in photoshop on my final output file then I used to do when I used Qimage with the other cameras. But there is also a shapening slider in the Canon software to turn it down if you want to.
|
|
|
15
|
Mike's Software / Qimage Ultimate / Re: v2012.219 issues/comments
|
on: July 09, 2012, 12:43:46 PM
|
Thanks for the info. Fred. It's a little complicated to experiment with when Canon's software gets it so right. I expect a RAW conversion program to get it right if it supposedly supports a particular camera. I will still use Qimage for printing but it seems that using it for a RAW converter for Canon 5D Mark III just doesn't produce good results and I will not use it for that. Disappointed but not entirely surprising. I think the better RAW converter programs probably do have profiles included for each specific camera they support.
|
|
|
|