Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u

v2012.219    07/04/12

Priority: Low

v2012.219 includes:

(1) A major raw update that adds support for 31 new camera models:

    Canon PowerShot G1 X
    Canon PowerShot SX220 HS
    Canon EOS 5D Mark III
    Canon EOS 650D / Digital Rebel T4i / Kiss Digital X6i
    Canon EOS-1D X
    Casio EX-Z8
    Fuji HS30EXR
    Fuji F600EXR
    Fuji F770EXR
    Fuji X-Pro1
    Fuji X-S1
    Nikon D4
    Nikon D3200
    Nikon D800
    Nikon D800E
    Nikon Coolpix P7100
    Olympus E-M5
    Panasonic DMC-GF5
    Samsung NX20
    Sigma SD15
    Sigma SD1
    Sigma SD1 Merill
    Sigma DP1
    Sigma DP1S
    Sigma DP1X
    Sigma DP2
    Sigma DP2S
    Sigma DP2X
    Sony NEX-7
    Sony NEX-F3
    Sony SLT-A37
    Sony SLT-A57
    
(2) Also included is a new feature to rebuild only the selected thumbnails (right click in thumbs to access)

Mike

Mike,

I'd suggest explicitly mentioning the D800E and not just the D800.

Corel's AfterShot Pro lists both but will not open the "E". The problem is that their converter sees D800E in the exif data (or where ever) and even though the 800 & 800E RAW files are the same, their converter refuses to recognize the "E" (because of the "E" in the name). Even though a work around (rename all of your filenames in the exif data) exists - no thanks to Corel - after nearly 3 months they still haven't issued a fix. I, for one, have better things to do than drag out ExifTool to rename files.

My reason for the suggestion is that folks have been bitten in the past by similar problems with RAW support for new cameras. I know several who will not buy or upgrade products that fail to handle their RAW files - until after the early adopters have their crack at it. They would assume that QU doesn't do D800E (even though it does as I just demonstrated to myself).

Gotcha.  Thanks!

Mike

Great 4th of July present! Now I'll have to compare it to the results I have been getting with Canon's software with my 5D Mark III files, which has been very good. I like the lens tuning in the Canon software that they just added for some of their lenses.

... and I just love the rebuild selective thumbs and raw cache files. When I play around with testing camera profiles or comparing monitor profiles, I can just rebuild the pertinent camera raw files, and don't have to wait for the whole folder to rebuild.

Thanks Mike
Fred

I have the Canon software and tried it with my more modest  (but very good) 600D. The lens correction is ok if it's covered in the database but with a reasonable lens, it's not often correction is needed.
You'll find with Qimage Ultimate it is much quicker to get an excellent result from a raw image - the raw refine interface is so easy to use and copy setting to multiple images. If you need any extra tweaks, the image editor is available with the amazing TTS.

I wish I had that feature a week ago when I was checking a Profile Prism profiles  I made for the 600D.
What a difference the camera profile makes, see http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/the-advantage-of-using-custom-camera-profiles-in-qimage-ultimate/

Terry

I downloaded and installed the new version, but it does not seem to pick up my D800 files. What do I need to do to install the D800 raw profile?
Thanks,
Chuck

Chuck,
Not sure what you mean; new version not picking up your D 800 files.
I have a feeling that all is OK with the images, but the color space is Adobe and you want a custom camera profile like Terry showed for his new Canon 600D

If I am wrong and you have a problem with Qimage Ultimate decoding the D800 images, please holler loud!

http://www.ddisoftware.com/shopping/index.html#cameraq

The camera profiles are created by one camera owner of that particular model (Nikon D800) based on an email instruction set from Mike Chaney. The camera owner also needs an IT-8 target.
You take the shot, and send it to Mike. Of course, the person who took the profile shot gets a free profile for his effort.

If you are interested in being the camera profile shooter for the D800, I would suggest that you email Mike at mchaney@ddisoftware.com, and mention it here too that you are interested.

Hope this helps!

Fred

Fred, you are correct; no problems with Q-U.  Interprets all my files as Adobe.  However, when Mike announced this update as including "A major raw update that adds support for 31 new camera models: ... D800..." I was thinking that what was included was the file necessary to work directly on my D800.  I guess not. So what is different/new as far as my camera (D800) is concerned?
Thanks,
Chuck

I am afraid I am disappointed with Qimage for RAW processing now compared to Canon's DPP software. The sharpness I am getting using Canon's software comparing some photos I took this morning with the 5D MArk III and the 400mm 5.6 L lens is so much better with Canon's software. It's like it was shot with two different cameras or a different lens. I hadn't noticed this much of a difference with the 5D Mark II or the 7D.

Chuck
As I understand it, some of the D 800 images were ok before the new DCRAW release, and some people found some images to contain errors.
Now that the D 800 has officially been incorporated and tested in the new DCRAW, all the potential header problems should be solved.

Just enjoy

Fred

Perhaps I can explain what is probably going on.
Each and every raw processing program including Photo Shop and Lightroom, Canon's raw processor, etc uses a default amount of sharpening and applies it to the raw image.
Of course, that includes Qimage Ultimate too.
So it is possible and likely that the lens you are using and the Mark III needs more sharpening than the your previous examples.
That's why Qimage Ultimate allows you to customize the sharpening and the noise reduction for each camera.

See snaps.
069 shows the settings for my 20D
070 shows the LOAD selection box with a few cameras for which I took the time to customize based on images I had to test.
072 shows the settings for the 5D Mark II. Notice less sharpening applied mainly because less noise reduction was used.
073 shows a GH1 Panasonic. Again customized. That one needed MORE noise reduction, and with the equalizer more to the left, it gets more sharpening too.

There are other factors involved too such as the amount of applied contrast for example.
As Terry pointed out, what a difference a camera profile can make too.
Your Canon software that came with the Mark III might have one in it.  You will have to explore to find out.

Fred

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.

and

To some extent it's a matter of taste. From my early days with a Canon DSLR, I always understood that Canon's DPP default processing is the same as the in-camera processing for jpg's.
After doing some comparisons, I think it is still the case - so why shoot in raw and merely use the Canon DPP defaults?
Fred said;
Not only sharpening but contrast too. The Canon default is for a higher contrast, higher levels of sharpening and higher levels of noise reduction. This is what I'd expect for in-camera jpg's to give an image, which on first impressions, appears to be more punchy and sharper.
My comparisons with a 1600 iso image showed significant artefacts with the Canon default sharpening and in general on other lower iso images, noise levels were not as good.

My own preference is to have modest levels of raw sharpening (close to the QU default) and then use the QU editor to be more selective with Tone Targeted Sharpening depending on the characteristics of the image. Most of my prints are from the raw image so there is no wasted effort and resources in producing another image for printing.
Terry

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.

Since I updated to V2012.219 I have noticed a magenta cast in the cloud area of images with sky in the scene. Olympus .orf raw files. This does not happen with if I use any of my other raw conversion software, LR 4.1; Capture One Express; SilkyPix 4; AfterShot Pro.  see the attached screen capture.

 

Hi Dennis,
I see it in your screen snap too.

As you know, 2012.219 incorporated the new DCRAW that was revised from previous releases.
So it is certainly to be checked out.

Is that .ORF file small enough to email?  If not you can send it free of charge using https://www.wetransfer.com/

You can send it me if you would. I'll see that Mike gets it as soon as he is available this morning.
You can send it to both of us, but he has such an elaborate email filtering system (as he gets tons of useless emails) (plus spam filters) that I am afraid that an email notice of a waiting to be DOWNLOADED file might slip through the cracks.

Thanks,
Fred

Thanks Fred.
I have sent the file via. yousendit.com and you should get the link to download shortly.

Got it.!!

Thanks,
Will make sure Mike gets it ASAP, but it will be 4 more hours before he gets to see it.

Fred

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.

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

The WB is from the memory card so I do not think its the white balance reading. I also sent Fred a screen shot from LR 4.1 processing which is done "as shot" he should have the e-mail I sent with it. Thanks for looking.

OK, but all versions of dcraw render it red.  Even ones from 2008.  Do all your ORF's from that camera have a color balance issue?  Did you update the firmware on the camera recently?  I still think that something with that particular ORF causes dcraw to not be able to read the WB values.

Mike

I had seen similar issues while I was working with Bibble 5 for a while but it finally got corrected in one of the later releases. I usually shoot with my WB set to auto and do not normally have problems, if necessary switch the lighting condition in post e.g. Daylight, shade, flash etc.   

Dennis, I think Mike needs the rest of the above info.
All the Orfs read on the warm side or just this one??
Fred

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. (?)

I said in an earlier post that the Canon DPP software applies much heavier sharpening by default.
See attached shot taken in low light: 1600 iso, 1/12th sec hand held, f5.6 with a 600D and  a Canon 15-85 lens. Screen shot for QU comparator at 100%.
You can see the difference, the DPP version has significant black halos around the white candles, that's over sharpened in my book.
The QU version did have some additional sharpening applied in the editor.
Terry

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.

1. No, 2. No, 3. Do you wish me to send some other raw files?

Additional info at 2.20pm. On making further checks, I agree with Mike, if appears that for some files Qimage is not reading the White Balance correctly, while other software do not display the same problem.

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.

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

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

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

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

Andy

Hi Andy,
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  :o  ;) 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.
(http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/image/144758088/original.jpg)
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!
(http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/image/144758709/original.jpg)
Terry

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

Hi Andy,
Yes, it's important to get that right and the default is a good starting point.
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

Andy,
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

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

You are correct, I checked again. Sorry if I confused anyone  ::)
Terry

Hi Dennis,
Going back a few posts 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