Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

As a long time capture nx user I am very satiesfied with QU raw conversion results.

The only thing I miss is 48 bit tiff output.

Sometimes it's necessary for me to make further edits in other programmes (e.g. True Grain for black/white conversion) and only 48 bit files will secure the best possible quality then. The result will be printed in QU of course.

Since Windows is still 8 bit when it is printing, Qimage makes  the output files 8 bit when they get printed.
Most all printer drivers are still 8 bit.
Fred

Fred, believe me I know that a bit depth of 8 bits per channel is enough for printing the final result.

But during the image editing process 48 bit files can really make the difference, especially when making further edits in other programs and using a wider gamut than srgb.

IMHO it's a waste of space to use 48 bit files for archiving purposes, so I convert the final result in 24 bit.

48 bit TIFF output from raw is on the list of to-do's for Ultimate.  While 24 bit is enough for a final image and for printing, I understand the benefits of being able to output 16 bit/channel if you intend to do further work (outside of Qimage).  

That said, Qimage Ultimate does give you a lot of control and the ability to create images from raw that should be very near what you need for a final photo... so may I ask what it is that you are doing where you need 16 bits/channel?  Here's why I ask: most of the areas where you typically need 16 bits/channel are already handled in Qimage in 16 bit/channel (or better) before the final 8 bit/channel image is created: things like exposure changes, fill light, white balance, and application of color space.  Basically everything you see in the raw refine dialog in Qimage is already being done at 16 bit/channel or better and I find that there is rarely a need beyond that for anything but 24 bits.

Only asking because knowing how/why people do things in their various workflows just helps me make Qimage better.

Regards,
Mike

That's great. Thanks for your answer, Mike.


I need it for special things I can't do in Qimage (and which shouldn't be included to not overload it):

Black and white conversion: I use TrueGrain which simulates classic b/w films. From their website: In terms of color resolution, the quality of the image brought into TrueGrain for processing significantly affects the results. For example, when computing the spectral response of a given film, if the information is not in the source image, the conversion cannot be accurate. The more information in the original image the better the conversion, meaning that at an unfiltered image with 16 bits per channel is preferable.

Noise reduction: For heavily noised images I have to use Neat Image. As above the more information - the better the result.

Creative contrast enhancements with Contrast Master: 24 bit files can lead to banding, especially when used with a wider gamut like Adobe-RGB.

For everyday image conversion and printing QU already has everything needed.

Best regards, Markus

In the same sense, if 16 bit becomes available, will there also be a choice to assign ProPhotoRGB etc in the RAW development phase?

For studiowork is there a chance that the use of a ColorChecker target is supported/automated? More and more targets appear right now, not just the X-rite ones so some flexibility in using the target/reference data may be nice.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

In my case, I normally use QTR (QuadToneRIP) for monochrome prints rather than the Epson print driver, having 16 bit data before the data is partitioned between the inks may give a slight further gain. at present I put up with the 8 bit output, rather than put up with Adobe's sharpening  ;)

has this been added yet, or do you have a vague estimate of when it might be added, please?

I don't see anything else so far in 'Ultimate' that makes it worth upgrading, as I use Qimage almost exclusively for layout and final resizing, both of which I find it does a better job than the other tools I use, and for printing if I'm printing colour.

No.  Windows does not support 48 bit printing and I have no plans to support this until Windows natively supports it (without add-ons).  The difference between 24 and 48 bit printing is not demonstrable.  To put it simply, no one has ever been able to produce a 48 bit print that I cannot reproduce exactly (to the eye) in 24 bits (and yes, some of the "pros" have tried).  16 bit/channel for printing is just marketing.

You say you only use Qimage for layouts and you see nothing in QU that would entice you to buy, but... optimal color accuracy is not important to you via the new color management engine?  That alone would be worth the change for many, even if you do nothing but print and you would never use the enhanced raw support, tone targeted sharpening, and the dozens of other enhancements.

Mike

I thought your previous comment meant that you saw the benefits of 16 bit output where people were not going direct to the printer, and had put 16 bit on the roadmap for Qimage Ultimate.

I use other tools for editing - I've tried to use Qimage (Pro and Studio) for this in the past and it doesn't work the way I want to, and there are some things it simply didn't allow. This isn't a complaint - I bought Qimage to do a specific job - layout, resize, and prepare for print - and that it does very well. Of the things you list, the only one that might be of interest to me is tone targetted sharpening.