Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sandymc

CornerFix 0.9.1.0 (aka 16-bit Cornerfix) available for download

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Sandy!

Yes, those are the differences between the DMR and the M8 - but the question is what the differences are between the CornerFix 8-bit (which C1 works with) and CornerFix 16-bit files (which C1 doesn't work with). And the answer is only the BitsPerSample, and the absence of the LinearizationTable entry.

 

The intent of CornerFix is not, and will not be, to emulate the DMR.

:-) If you want to 'develope' 16-Bit DNG, you have to emulate DMR (with the exception that you can also use Model = "M8 Digital Camera" and use the appropriate profiles).

 

You can also create a 8-bit DNG from a DMR source, but you have to use the correct tags to make C1 think it is a M8.

I have tried to explain it in my last message, it does not primary depend on Make and Model tag, it is mainly dependent on the outfit (which tags are used and which tags are omitted) of the DNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Sandy!

 

:-) If you want to 'develope' 16-Bit DNG, you have to emulate DMR (with the exception that you can also use Model = "M8 Digital Camera" and use the appropriate profiles).

 

You can also create a 8-bit DNG from a DMR source, but you have to use the correct tags to make C1 think it is a M8.

I have tried to explain it in my last message, it does not primary depend on Make and Model tag, it is mainly dependent on the outfit (which tags are used and which tags are omitted) of the DNG.

 

Harald,

 

Yes - understood that. But I'll still leave emulating the DMR to someone else. The current version works in "16-bit" mode with all the mainstream RAW developers (Photoshop, LR, Aperture), and works in 8-bit mode with C1. If I start trying to write a non-M8 DNG just to accommodate C1, I'd probably break compatibility with the mainstream apps. Certainly, the metadata would be wrong and/or reduced. And to me, getting the right metadata in the mainstream apps is more important than C1. Really, Phase One needs to sort out their DNG code.

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet another M8 workaround.... looks like leica need to get their shit together and bring out a revised model which actually works according to the specification. why not make a digital back for older M models ( with a full sized sensor) ??

Not trying to be a smart arse, just find it kind of outrageous that such an expensive camera has so many faults. I might buy one otherwise. Can anyone convince me that I am wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

.......... they're all lined up with their note pads.................. Yea it really is a shame......doesn't seem to stop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yet another M8 workaround.... looks like leica need to get their shit together and bring out a revised model which actually works according to the specification. why not make a digital back for older M models ( with a full sized sensor) ??

Not trying to be a smart arse, just find it kind of outrageous that such an expensive camera has so many faults. I might buy one otherwise. Can anyone convince me that I am wrong?

 

Well, in fairness to Leica and Phase One, I don't think that there is anything here that isn't to spec, except for the original IR issue, and that's pretty much been beaten to death on these forums. Admittedly, Phase One's C1 doesn't seem to be able to read what pretty much every other raw developer regards as a valid DNG file, but C1 has never claimed to be able to read any valid DNG, just DNGs for specific camera models. And a decompressed M8 DNG is not really a M8 DNG anymore.

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sandy, sorry for jumping in so late, but I've been following this thread with great interest. One question that comes to mind is: why not make CornerFix work on TIFF files instead of DNGs? After all what comes out of the various RAW converters will be a 16 bit TIFF file and thus one can avoid all the problems with compatibility etc. mentioned above and everyone can choose the RAW converter they prefer. Just a thought. Thanks for the great effort you've put into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Sandy, sorry for jumping in so late, but I've been following this thread with great interest. One question that comes to mind is: why not make CornerFix work on TIFF files instead of DNGs? After all what comes out of the various RAW converters will be a 16 bit TIFF file and thus one can avoid all the problems with compatibility etc. mentioned above and everyone can choose the RAW converter they prefer. Just a thought. Thanks for the great effort you've put into this.

 

Arne,

 

Yes, doing this with TIFFs was an option that I thought about a lot. I didn't because the devignetting process really belongs as the first step of a workflow, so you'd end up having to convert to TIFF, export and devignette, then reimport into PhotoShop or LR, or whatever. And a lot of people have very fixed preferences for one or another raw developer.

 

However, CornerFix has all the code in it to do Bayer interpolation and generate a TIFF, although that's not enabled in the current version. I might enable it as an "Export TIFF" option if there's user demand though.

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carsten,

 

You actually need the TIFF/EP specs, which is the extension of the TIFF 6

 

But most of it is in the DNG spec

 

Sandy

 

Argh, that spec costs something like 150 Euro. The DNG spec seems to say that you don't need to stay compatible with TIFF/EP, just with TIFF 6.0, and outlines alternatives for the cases where TIFF/EP is mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argh, that spec costs something like 150 Euro. The DNG spec seems to say that you don't need to stay compatible with TIFF/EP, just with TIFF 6.0, and outlines alternatives for the cases where TIFF/EP is mentioned.

 

Carsten,

 

Yes - but there are a few places that DNG uses TIFF/EP specs. How Bayer patterns are defined is one example of that.

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know of anywhere this is described that would allow me to avoid shelling out for the actual spec?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know of anywhere this is described that would allow me to avoid shelling out for the actual spec?

 

Carsten,

 

Don't know anywhere that has the full spec, but there is a draft version here that is very close to the final:

 

Downloads

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, something just occurred to me: I see that some people are having some trouble fitting Cornerfix into their workflow, and I was wondering if it were possible, after running it a few times to determine the optimal parameters and save them, to allow Cornerfix to run in batch mode, from the commandline. This would allow, in some cases, to use it automatically as an import step, or to set up actions from central tools, to call Cornerfix to process a picture, and then bring the result back. It must then either be necessary to have Cornerfix find the lens information in the EXIF, or to have it specified on the commandline, so that Cornerfix can automatically apply its corrections.

 

What do you think (or is there some way to do this already)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in fairness to Leica and Phase One, I don't think that there is anything here that isn't to spec, except for the original IR issue, and that's pretty much been beaten to death on these forums. Admittedly, Phase One's C1 doesn't seem to be able to read what pretty much every other raw developer regards as a valid DNG file, but C1 has never claimed to be able to read any valid DNG, just DNGs for specific camera models. And a decompressed M8 DNG is not really a M8 DNG anymore.

 

Sandy

 

Hi Sandy,

 

C1 does a lot of custom color profiling for every camera they support. If they haven't tested a couple examples to develop custom color profiles, they don't support the camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy, something just occurred to me: I see that some people are having some trouble fitting Cornerfix into their workflow, and I was wondering if it were possible, after running it a few times to determine the optimal parameters and save them, to allow Cornerfix to run in batch mode, from the commandline. This would allow, in some cases, to use it automatically as an import step, or to set up actions from central tools, to call Cornerfix to process a picture, and then bring the result back. It must then either be necessary to have Cornerfix find the lens information in the EXIF, or to have it specified on the commandline, so that Cornerfix can automatically apply its corrections.

 

What do you think (or is there some way to do this already)?

 

Carsten,

 

I've thought about doing something like that, although so far I haven't really received many requests. EXIF data is a problem, because if the lens isn't coded there isn't anything there, and some of the coding e.g., the WATE seems to be inconsistent. One possibility that I have considered is have a "folder per lens" structure - so each folder would have a profile in it, and whatever image files were taken with that lens. Then CornerFix could run through all the folders, using the profile in each to convert images. But as I said, so far not much (actually none at all) demand for that.

 

Development effort right now is going towards Mac, as 9.0.1.0 seems to be production stable......

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Sandy,

 

C1 does a lot of custom color profiling for every camera they support. If they haven't tested a couple examples to develop custom color profiles, they don't support the camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

Yes - its a pity in this case in that all their color profiles would work fine. I've done some additional work on this issue, btw, and it seems pretty conclusive that what C1 does is to just look for the Leica M8 tag, and then assume 8-bit coding. So there is no way to simultaneously have C1 read high-res data and also recognize the file as an M8 file, and so pull in the profiles. Even if you write 16 bit data rather than 14-bit data and have a M8 tag in the file, what C1 does is just to look at the upper 8 bits(!)

 

However, their website does claim that V4 will have full DNG support, rather than camera specific DNG support in the current version. So when that comes out, in theory C1 will be able to handle hi-res....

 

Sandy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, with all the techno blah here I am officially lost.

 

Two simple questions:

 

1. Does it work for Mac OS X?

2. Does it work with Lightroom?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harald, this is a Windows only version. Someone was meant to look at the porting to the Mac, as Sandy has no Mac, but nothing has come of it so far. What do you mean with question 2? This is a standalone, not a plugin.

 

Sandy, no demand does not necessarily mean it isn't useful. On the Mac, for example, you can associate scripts with folders, and the script could run your program. Then you could have a folder per problem lens, as well as a folder for coded lenses which can be recognised, all of which would batch the files dropped on it, and move the result to the Lighroom (or whatever) hot folder. This would make it very easy to use. Sometimes you have to drive the demand via intelligent features

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harald, this is a Windows only version. Someone was meant to look at the porting to the Mac, as Sandy has no Mac, but nothing has come of it so far. What do you mean with question 2? This is a standalone, not a plugin.

 

 

Thanks Carsten.

Hope the Mac version will be available soon.

 

Regarding my second question, with all the talk about C1 I figured it's something like a plugin. That's what happens when you guys talk tech-chinese ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any of our Chinese is Greek to you, I will be happy to translate

I wish I spoke Chinese or Greek as well as tech, but alas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...