|
admin
|
 |
« on: June 14, 2014, 10:19:51 PM » |
|
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-uv2014.235 Jun 14, 2014 Priority: Med v2014.235 includes the following: - Raw refine: Added ability to draw an exposure grid of any size, plus an ISO indicator to show "exposure push". Click red "v" button on refine dialog for video.
- Raw NR: Improved noise reduction for (very) high ISO raw photos via new adaptive grain and chroma NR algorithms.
- Bug fixes: Fixed some minor bugs.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2014, 10:11:40 AM » |
|
Click red "v" button on refine dialog for video. The video tells you about the new "make your own grid box" feature which gives you the ability to adapt your exposure setting to the exact level you desire from the area of the shot that you deem most important. You have to see it. For those of you still holding back.... still using Studio....or forgot to renew your 19.99 subscription, I suggest that you are missing out on an upgrade that is worth 3 times the renewal price/ Let us not forget the NEW, Brand spankin' new, auto noise reduction. All that Chroma noise that was discussed last week, is now treated and cured automatically. Then there's the item called the "PUSH" number. You will find this new feature very helpful to improve your digital PHOTOGRAPHY! This little baby will help you realize when you are underexposing your shots by a wide margin, and what it took in terms of RELATIVE ISO to process it to a comfort zone of usability. The higher that number, the more your image had to be PUSHED to get processed. The higher that number, the more noise you are generating from the camera. Example: You set your ISO to 4600 for a low light shot, but your exposure setting is underexposing, that number might show the REAL ISO of 28,000, with noise, and Chroma. Qimage will automatically turn on the noise filters to help, but you would get a cleaner digital image if you exposed the shot correctly. ** To whet your appetite for the new Refine Drag and Draw, there are three little screen snaps below. 014 shows a crop of a shot with a woman holding a child. See the blue box around her head? The exposure is set for her face. 015 shows the exposure reset to the face of the woman on the left. See the blue box! 016 shows a sample result. The video will show you how to use the Drag and Draw box feature on a larger scale to include multiple grid squares. Have fun!! Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonygamble
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2014, 11:41:52 AM » |
|
Indeed Fred.
That PUSH number is quite a revelation. Even your 'cocktail' shot is underexposed and that's a daylight image. I bet that even you did not spot it at the time!!
It is also good to see when the RAW NR slider is coming into action. On the * setting it seems to be off at 3200 and on at 6400 - which is probably what I'd chose with the Oly E-M5.
I shall really enjoy testing this new version on some old troublesome files.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2014, 12:19:44 PM » |
|
That PUSH number is quite a revelation. Even your 'cocktail' shot is underexposed and that's a daylight image. I bet that even you did not spot it at the time!! Tony, there's a danger of getting carried away with the numbers. Only when there's a big disparity between your setting and the PUSH number should you get concerned; like your 6400 Pushing to 28,420. My 400 to 1000 is normal, and besides, it depends where I placed my center of focus. Did I expose for the sky or the boats, and then change my intent? You should view the Push number as you would the temperature reading at your room thermostat (You can convert to Celsius) { -32, x 9/5) If my room temperature is 72 in the morning, and rises to 74 in the afternoon, I doubt it would cause me to adjust the setting to my thermostat. It depends on what you wanted in the first place... the sky, the boats, or halfway Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2014, 02:16:39 PM » |
|
I've now had a chance to look at v235 in action on my images. First, the new noise reduction, with the auto on-off for chroma noise is very good for those high iso images that were difficult to deal with. I like the fact I can set it on in raw options and forget about it so QU does the checking and correction for me. I rarely use iso values above 1600 but checks on images of 3200, 6400 and higher iso's have given me confidence to use higher values with confidence when the situation demands. The flexible "draw your own exposure" box is a real improvement too but it takes a little practice on those tricky shots. It's easy to re-draw to change the proportions of dark or light areas with in the exposure box. One thing I noticed is, you don't necessarily have to draw a large rectangle, it can be quite small and still do the job. I found some images where I had small areas of highlight where the detail was lost. Previously I had used a magenta rectangle over the area with the consequent loss of contrast. By making a small blue rectangle on such an area, the detail became visible with no loss of overall contrast. So, I suggest you have a "play" with this feature to learn how to use it to full advantage. Regarding the "pushed" iso value reported: on contrasty subjects where you have CORRECTLY exposed for the highlights to retain detail, you are bound to see to see a value higher than the camera setting as the conversion process pushes up the exposure in the darker areas. In lower contrast shots where you see a big push, you've may have underexposed in the first place  Terry Terry |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2014, 04:21:03 PM » |
|
Steady on chaps, it's ok pushing the ISO, but these constant upgrades are pushing the grey sells into overheat.  I am finding all my images are showing ISO pushing, some to very high levels. I can see some of my images are under exposed, but even those I considered about correct show a doubling of the ISO. What does this indicate? My general MO is to have camera set on 'P' at 100 ISO, it is then ready to take a quick shot. If I have the time - say shooting a landscape - I then inspect for blown highlights, (camera is set to show blown and black areas) I then move into manual and adjust until no badly blown areas this of course can lead to underexposing of darker areas. But EVERY image?? Noise filtering seems to be doing a hell of a good job. But I still cannot establish the best setting in Raw Options, well, nothing better than the default. Now going for wet towel to bonce.  Jeff |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Grumpy
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2014, 04:31:53 PM » |
|
One further comment regarding the WBalance. When selecting a white or grey area with the dropper it would be nice if the WB slider moved to the resulting position. This would indicate what adjustment had been made when returning to an image later, which with these constant upgrades I am doing more and more. OK. if I am talking out of the top of my hot head feel free so say so. Jeff |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Grumpy
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2014, 09:17:53 PM » |
|
Hi Jeff, I am finding all my images are showing ISO pushing, some to very high levels. I can see some of my images are under exposed, but even those I considered about correct show a doubling of the ISO. What does this indicate? There's no problem with this. As I said in my earlier post, I too often expose for highlights with high contrast scenes so QU needs to boost the darker areas to get a good overall balance without blocking shadows or blowing bright areas. The ISO "push" is an indication of how much boost had been required to do this. As you have noticed, under exposed images require more iso push and QU is telling you about it. I see the "push" value as information which could be useful, say, if you bracket exposures in tricky lighting conditions. I checked some images I took last week at a canal lock location ( http://www.pbase.com/tjm04/stocklocks0614) where contrast levels were high with bright sunlight, a lot of white components and the dark areas of the lock gates. All shot were at iso 200 and push values varied between iso 260 and 500. None had noise problems and all was normal. I then inspect for blown highlights, (camera is set to show blown and black areas) I then move into manual and adjust until no badly blown areas this of course can lead to underexposing of darker areas. Regarding shooting technique, I normally use Aperture priority at an iso to suit the light conditions to get reasonable shutter speeds. I always use the camera histogram view, noting that it is a little pessimistic since it's based on a camera jpeg. I make any adjustments with the exposure compensation control. But EVERY image?? Well, it can be quite a few depending on the subject contrast range and the exposure used. Terry |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2014, 01:25:55 AM » |
|
Wanted to just share a little background on the new features and where they came from. The "draw your own box" is obvious I guess: that comes from the fact that sometimes (although usually rare), the nine boxes overlap areas you don't want included in the exposure and none of the standard boxes cover just what you want.
On the ISO stuff, I actually got hit with that one. I'm using a Sony A7 which is relatively new to me and I activated some features I hadn't used before. One is the zebra function which I set to show areas in the viewfinder that were at 100% (or over). Since I had it set to only "zebra" at 100% I thought... I should avoid the zebra showing on the main part(s) of my subject. So when taking a macro of a flower, if I saw the marching zebra pattern on the petals, I'd go -EV until they just barely went away. Made sense to me: metering for just under 100%. I was often (almost always) using about -1 EV to crank down the exposure to avoid those marching zebras on my main subject.
Well, what I noticed was that some of my images were soft. Actually thought it was the lens. When I traced what QU was doing inside the code I found that the images were drastically underexposed at that -1EV. For example, what appeared perfectly exposed in the viewfinder ended up only using say 0-700 of the 0-4096 range. QU was "pushing" the exposure to the proper exposure so you couldn't tell it was underexposed as QU fixed the exposure. But what was happening is the "relative ISO" after the push was up over 4000 ISO and a lot of noise reduction was being used by the auto NR. I finally discovered that, at least on this particular camera, you can't go by the zebra function as Sony has left so much headroom (slack "above" what your normal JPEG might show as clipped) that it doesn't matter. The image is properly exposed without using -EV. So that feature actually fooled me as the zebra pattern might be (more) designed for JPEG's and doesn't take into account the headroom in raw photos. So with raw, at least on the A7, most of those zebra patterns were nowhere near overexposed or clipped!
So I came up with the idea that it's probably good that we all SEE exactly what is being done to the image so we'll know how we are shooting and how that affects the raw developing. If you always expose for sky and then take a picture in the shadows (thinking you might as well get everything, and "what if" you want to retain all cloud detail along with shadows), there are consequences. On most cameras, metering for your subject is best. If the sky is the subject, fine. But if not, meter for the subject and the raw headroom will take care of the rest.
Of course, I found some friends in our group (me included, with that zebra function) who were just simply underexposing for just lack of using the camera properly: not because they were trying to "save sky detail". A rather "dull" shot of a bird in the grass for example, which had no specular highlights, might have been taken at ISO 200 but had a lot of noise. When you look at it and you see the ISO is 200, pushed to 8800, you know the exposure wasn't right and it might be time to modify your shooting habits. For shots you've already taken, at least you know why an ISO 400 shot pushed to 25,600 might look soft.
So after all that, in come the new features to help us with those things.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tonygamble
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2014, 05:38:30 AM » |
|
you can't go by the zebra function as Sony has left so much headroom (slack "above" what your normal JPEG might show as clipped) that it doesn't matter.
As also are the Sigma Merrill software team doing. A couple of months ago I took advantage of the price drop of the DPxM range and bought all three. Sadly I can't use QU to process my RAWs but the Sigma Photo Pro software is a workable alternative.
I accidentally overexposed some shots and was surprised to see how recoverable the highlights were using SPP. Like Mike I had been using the Sigma equivalent of the zebra to set my exposure. On these shots I had hit the +3 EV button and not noticed before I hit the shutter.
As a matter of course I am overexposing my Sigma shots by +0.7 EV (+3 is overkill of course!). Now Mike has showed me/us what is happening with my E-M5 and Ricoh GR I will plan a similar strategy and no longer trust the zebra/histogram.
Thank you Mike
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 05:59:53 AM by tonygamble »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2014, 06:15:26 AM » |
|
Wanted to just share a little background on the new features and where they came from. Thanks Mike, that is very helpful. My Canon 600D has blown highlight indication which seems to work quite well for raw images but you do have to appreciate it's set for camera jpegs therefore make allowances for that. The camera histogram display is more reliable but you still have to make a judgement on the size of the spike at the top end. The RGB histogram can be used but I usually find the luminosity one is adequate. If in doubt, I bracket exposures. Terry |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2014, 03:46:42 PM » |
|
Still checking old shots, getting good results with images previously rejected.
This prev. reject now recovered by basing the exposure on a previously Blown area in the water.
Then able to adjust other areas to create a nice shot - I think.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Grumpy
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2014, 04:02:09 PM » |
|
Then able to adjust other areas to create a nice shot - I think.
Nice shot, yes! But that water is too cold for me to swim in. Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2014, 05:05:32 PM » |
|
Nice shot, yes!
But that water is too cold for me to swim in.
Fred
Fred, Aren't you too old to worry about "shrinkage"? Very nice shot! Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2014, 07:04:29 PM » |
|
Shot in San Sebastián Spain on a very hot day, water would have been just right. Beach full of Topless Lasses, Fred would have been jumping in for joy. Jeff |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Grumpy
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
