jaapv Posted March 16, 2014 Share #41 Posted March 16, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ye Gods This is turning into a geeks paradise or a mere mortals' nightmare. Seems to me there are many contributers who have forgotten or never experienced developing and printing film. Post processing RAW or DNG files electronically to me is the same as processing film. You choose your own parameters regarding exposure and then 'develop' the electronic "neg' to your own satisfaction. I can't remember there being a auto setting for that - unless one counts polaroid. Osscat PS - Jaapv, can you tell me how to post an out of the camera DNG file from an M240 without breaching the file size limit? What do you call a DNG or RAW file that has not been manipulated in ACR or Lightroom (1) processed or (2) not processed (unprocessed)? It will always be processed in ACR or another raw developer. The way it will look is determined by the settings of the developer, either chosen by the user or the default settings, so it is always “manipulated” as you call it. A DNG file as such can not be displayed on a monitor, or printed for that matter. It is just a file containing the data without being an image in itself. What you do is loading it into ACR (Photoshop and Lightroom), Capture One, Aperture, etc. Then you hit the auto buttons and call it unprocessed. But the default buttons are just presets which can be changed by the user, so you are manipulating from the word go. I can guarantee you that a file that runs through my Photoshop looks different from the one run through yours, without touching any controls. I use an individual camera profile instead of the embedded or Adobe one, I changed the defaults to reflect my ideas of accuracy. And it will look different again if one uses another raw developer. The best you can do is post a file at LR factory defaults as that is the closest to a common denominator you can get. There is no way to post a DNG file other than copying it to for instance Dropbox and linking to it. Others can then download it and develop it in the raw developer of their choice. In film terms, a DNG file is the exposed but not yet developed film as it comes out of the camera. There is nothing to be seen - yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Our man Ken tells the true M240 story. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 16, 2014 Share #42 Posted March 16, 2014 False. You don't need JPEG to render a DNG on a display. JPEG is a lossy image compression algorithm used to reduce the data size. It comes after the rendering phase, and only serves the purpose of saving the image to storage in a very small file (and quickly, due to the small file size).In what format would you render a DNG file on a monitor before it is even demosaiced? It has to be turned into something a monitor can use.You need RGB, a colour space, etc, none of which is present in the raw file without processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 16, 2014 Share #43 Posted March 16, 2014 In what format would you render a DNG file on a monitor before it is even demosaiced? It has to be turned into something a monitor can use.You need RGB, a colour space, etc, none of which is present in the raw file without processing. Depends on the sensor type. For the M, you get bayer RGBG linear out of the sensor in the native sensor color space (wide gamut). To display it, you need at least demosaicing, gamma compression, and color space adaptation to match display gamut. None of these steps involves JPEG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 16, 2014 Share #44 Posted March 16, 2014 When your JPEG images will lack that extra realism in the future, remember I warned you. Sorry, I must have made a typo or something, but when did I say I used JPEG? Anyway, here's the deal, I tend to take most notice of people who can show a good picture and not just talk about equipment, so when there is something other than your virtual reality to look at I promise to consider if you are qualified to tell me what to do. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bla Posted March 16, 2014 Share #45 Posted March 16, 2014 Technically I'd think the closest representation of the DNG image before the processing would be an intensity image of the sensor output. (see image 1) better understandable is if you convert those intensities to the colors of their bayer filter element (see image 2) I think that representation helps much when checking for exact exposure/overexposure and also aids to better understanding what's going on with all the steps that have to be done to the DNG (white balancing, demosaicing, blacklevel subtraction, logarithmic scaling (gamma) ... ) before you open it the first time in your raw converter and start processing. There is actually quite a long way from sensor RAW to user RAW aka DNG. Cheers, Arvid PS: the images have been upscaled by factor 4 as to save the single pixels a bit from jpg compression... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223512-our-man-ken-tells-the-true-m240-story/?do=findComment&comment=2550625'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 16, 2014 Share #46 Posted March 16, 2014 Depends on the sensor type. For the M, you get bayer RGBG linear out of the sensor in the native sensor color space (wide gamut). To display it, you need at least demosaicing, gamma compression, and color space adaptation to match display gamut.None of these steps involves JPEG. Of course not. But you need a format to write the processed file in, be it jpg, tiff, bmp or whatever.In all cases you will be displaying processed data, not a DNG “unprocessed” which is all I am saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 16, 2014 Share #47 Posted March 16, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Of course not. But you need a format to write the processed file in, be it jpg, tiff, bmp or whatever. No, you don't need to. File formats are for files. Raw RGB gamma encoded values are for displays. The GPU hardware will just fetch the raw data from RAM, and pass them to the display. In all cases you will be displaying processed data, not a DNG “unprocessed” which is all I am saying. I think we all agree on that, but you actually said: "It cannot but be processed to arrive at the JPG to render on a display" Technical nonsense apart, the key point here is that you don't need (and really don't want) to horribly mutilate the original sensor data through JPEG compression in order to render it. Back to my original point, anyone using JPEG to assess camera performance is actually testing the different implementations of all cited algorithms that go from sensor RAW to JPEG, rather than the camera hardware. This algorithm chain is particularly bad on the M9, so bad that even a JPEG shooter like KR warns about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 16, 2014 Share #48 Posted March 16, 2014 Anyway, here's the deal, I tend to take most notice of people who can show a good picture and not just talk about equipment, so when there is something other than your virtual reality to look at I promise to consider if you are qualified to tell me what to do. I don't see how my pictures would be able to prove my technical explanation. Would you ask a mechanical engineer to prove he can win a F1GP to consider if he is qualified to tell your car needs an oil change ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osscat Posted March 16, 2014 Share #49 Posted March 16, 2014 Sorry folks I did not mean to set off all the above - all I wanted to do was add that I am happy with the M and my 1973 lens and that (Jaapv) having clicked on a DNG file, it then opened in ACR and without twiddling with any settings (definately NEVER auto) I opened it in PSCR6 reduced the file size to forum size and posted it with a crop from part of the PSCR6 file to show that the combination of lens and M is most satisfactory. But to save all that minute detail I just said unprocessed - I thought it was succinct enough for most people to comprehend the meaning. Next time I will have my thesaurus by my side and my copy of "How To Explain Stuff In Infinite Detail For Beginners Without Upsetting The Axxl Retentive - Volume ll Second Edition (Revised)" Osscat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 16, 2014 Share #50 Posted March 16, 2014 Leica M is an aspirational luxury product and as such, presentation (Packaging) is an integral part of the overall value proposition. Ken just likes to come off like he's too blasé to be affected by anything not directly associated with the image. The truth is, most people save for quite a while in anticipation of this acquisition and to receive their beloved German masterpiece in a canon box would be a letdown to say the least. I do enjoy reading his site, but you literally have to take it all with a huge grain (shaker?) Of salt because he contradicts himself constantly. I also find it incredibly pretentious that Rockwell sprinkles in German words and spellings any time he reviews German gear. It's as annoying as the white bread local anchorman who affects an accent whenever he is required to say anything that can be remotely construed as "Latino". I also found it amusing that he said "no one shoots with a noctilux, it's just for show". Tell that to Thorsten Overgaard. Yeah, right. What nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 16, 2014 Share #51 Posted March 16, 2014 I don't see how my pictures would be able to prove my technical explanation. Would you ask a mechanical engineer to prove he can win a F1GP to consider if he is qualified to tell your car needs an oil change ? I'd use the service interval to decide if my car needed an oil change, only a fool would employ a F1 engineer when the answer is in the instruction book. Which is sort of the point, you are trying to make something simple sound like something complicated that only you have insight into. And posting some photo's may just add some authority to your otherwise empty assertion that you know better than Ken Rockwell. He isn't such a bad photographer, he has his own style, but then so do many other reviewers, because if they didn't they wouldn't be experienced photographers, they would just be technicians desperate to say something purely technical to sound important rather than having the balls to show they can talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk (so to speak). It was just a thought, I don't expect anything to come from it. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 17, 2014 Share #52 Posted March 17, 2014 you are trying to make something simple sound like something complicated that only you have insight into. DNG and RAW processing is indeed simple matter. I just explained why your assertions were wrong. If the explanation sounds complicated to you, then I should have explained it better. [...] technicians desperate to say something purely technical to sound important rather than having the balls to show they can talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk (so to speak). It was just a thought, I don't expect anything to come from it. You are clearly irritated by my comments on your wrong assertions, and this is understandable: no one likes to be proven wrong. But I agree with you on one thing: don't expect anything to come from your provocation. Now relax, Steve, and go take some great photos ! I'm sure they'll be much better than mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2014 Share #53 Posted March 17, 2014 Sorry folks I did not mean to set off all the above - all I wanted to do was add that I am happy with the M and my 1973 lens and that (Jaapv) having clicked on a DNG file, it then opened in ACR and without twiddling with any settings (definately NEVER auto) I opened it in PSCR6 reduced the file size to forum size and posted it with a crop from part of the PSCR6 file to show that the combination of lens and M is most satisfactory. But to save all that minute detail I just said unprocessed - I thought it was succinct enough for most people to comprehend the meaning. Next time I will have my thesaurus by my side and my copy of "How To Explain Stuff In Infinite Detail For Beginners Without Upsetting The Axxl Retentive - Volume ll Second Edition (Revised)" Osscat I quite see where you are coming from and I do not intend to make life difficult- my point is you used the presets of ACR which inevitably add a bias. Not only are those presets user-customizable (for instance, which process did you use? 2012? or an earlier one?What camera profile? Embedded, Adobe or your own?, etc.), if you had used another raw converter the result would have been different. In that sense KR is right to use OOC JPGs, as those can be presumed to be a reflection of the way the manufacturer intends the image of his camera to look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted March 17, 2014 Share #54 Posted March 17, 2014 I quite see where you are coming from and I do not intend to make life difficult- my point is you used the presets of ACR which inevitably add a bias. Not only are those presets user-customizable (for instance, which process did you use? 2012? or an earlier one?What camera profile? Embedded, Adobe or your own?, etc.), if you had used another raw converter the result would have been different. In that sense KR is right to use OOC JPGs, as those can be presumed to be a reflection of the way the manufacturer intends the image of his camera to look. Finally. After all the hem-haw see-saw somebody utters the words "as the manufacturer intends the image of the camera to look". If you took a camera with a sensor and let the programmers and engineers from Leica, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus or any manufacturers set it up you would get as many different versions of the same image. A RAW Image from a sensor is not viewable without processing. It is simply ones and zeros until processed. People seem to think that a RAW image is what the sensor sees when it is not. It is what the engineers and programmers tell you that the sensor sees after they translate the data into an image the way they want by whatever parameters they choose. DNG, ORF, ARW ......whatever. They are ALL a processed image. The raw data from the sensor is not viewable unless processed. JPEG is just a further processed image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 17, 2014 Share #55 Posted March 17, 2014 ...DNG, ORF, ARW ......whatever. They are ALL a processed image... ...I just said unprocessed - I thought it was succinct enough for most people to comprehend the meaning... Yes because when we say "unprocessed" we think "unprocessed image" not "unprocessed data". As clear as i understand, a DNG file is the result of processing data but it remains an unprocessed image as long as we don't tweak it in PP. In that sense, i feel that i have an unprocessed image when i open the DNG file in Preview for Mac or ACR in Photoshop and when i save it as a TIFF file without any modification even if i know or suspect that some compression may have occurred in the process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 17, 2014 Share #56 Posted March 17, 2014 You are clearly irritated by my comments on your wrong assertions, and this is understandable: no one likes to be proven wrong. My 'assertions' were a) that Rockwell bashers were childish bandwagon jumpers who feel easy criticising somebody yet offer a vacuum of intellect as an alternative. And that he makes JPEG's to be on a level playing field and offering people the opportunity to partake on that same level and where the results are honestly reproducible. A style of presentation where people can discover things in a democratic fashion rather than exclude folks by the deceptive manipulation of RAW files where buying the camera cannot guarantee similar results. So, what has changed since my 'assertions' in post #22? Just why don't you like the idea of simple down to earth communication from Rockwell? If you don't like that style you can ignore him and go take your lead from a specialist image processing guru on another web site. So what is it that you want to change so badly on Rockwell's web site, and what gives you the right to say he's doing something wrong when clearly you don't read what he says anyway? God forbid we are all made in your image, people should have the right to choose if they want to read some light informative entertainment that the likes of Reichmann or Rockwell can present. I'd value being proven wrong if my mad ideas about honesty and choice are dangerous. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2014 Share #57 Posted March 17, 2014 That is fine - as long as you specify what program you use and with which presets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted March 17, 2014 Share #58 Posted March 17, 2014 , i feel that i have an unprocessed image when i open the DNG file in Preview for Mac or ACR in Photoshop and when i save it as a TIFF file without any modification even if i know or suspect that some compression may have occurred in the process. But, in the context of testing a camera or a lens, what if the closest thing we have to an unprocessed image was going the opposite way : opening the image in ACR and pushing all values to a minimum or maximum instead of the default values? For example : if I wanted to speak of the dynamic range of a sensor, I would consider an image with highlight recovery to the max, black point to the min, luminosity to around 60-70 and contrast to 0 to be my to be much more relevant than the ACR default image which might already have clipped out highlights and blocked out shadows... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2014 Share #59 Posted March 17, 2014 That is fine - as long as you specify what program you use and with what presets you have processed it. Yes because when we say "unprocessed" we think "unprocessed image" not "unprocessed data". As clear as i understand, a DNG file is the result of processing data but it remains an unprocessed image as long as we don't tweak it in PP. In that sense, i feel that i have an unprocessed image when i open the DNG file in Preview for Mac or ACR in Photoshop and when i save it as a TIFF file without any modification even if i know or suspect that some compression may have occurred in the process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 17, 2014 Share #60 Posted March 17, 2014 Is this the same Ken that said: 1. Spot metering is a useless feature 2. Pros don't use tripods 3. Only use P mode, never use aperture priority or shutter priority or manual 4. The M9 was the best camera ever 5. The Fuji X100 was the best camera ever 6. The Nikon 3100 was the best camera ever 7. The M8 was rubbish, but he never used or reviewed it 8. The X100S is faster then the M240. It is not. I use both. 9. Nikons are the best cameras ever, only use the ergonomically failed Canons for landscapes 10. Canons are the best cameras ever, don't use Nikons ergonomically failed ones I am surprised that anyone bothers to discuss his views. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.