raw and nothing but raw sensor information - page 2 - RAW Shooting and Processing - CHDK Forum

raw and nothing but raw sensor information

  • 14 Replies
  • 4318 Views
Re: raw and nothing but raw sensor information
« Reply #10 on: 10 / August / 2011, 09:36:57 »
Advertisements
Thanks Keyman.

I have tried RAW therapee, but couldn't find vng-4......
Anyway one would assume that a Canon native raw would at least be converted best by DPP. But anyway, I more and more suspect the sensor to be broken, since the artefacts show up in every converter and only in the S95 files.....

Kind regards,
Bart

Re: raw and nothing but raw sensor information
« Reply #11 on: 10 / August / 2011, 14:05:07 »
All: You're welcome. I am happy that you found the post useful.

I have tried RAW therapee, but couldn't find vng-4......
In RawTherapee the demosaicing algorithm is selected under the RAW tab at the far right of the window.  There are 7 different algorithms from which to select.  If the window is too small, you may need to scroll the tabs right to see this one.  Alternately, the center frame can be narrowed in order to be able to see all the tabs in the right hand frame.

Anyway one would assume that a Canon native raw would at least be converted best by DPP.
I have not used DPP.  Thus, I can not make any comment as to its abilities to handle RAW conversion.  In addition, while I have used RAW a reasonable amount, I am far from what I would consider expert on the subject.

The software provided by Canon may, or may not, provide the best conversion.  There are many examples where software that is not from the manufacturer provides more, and better, features (e.g. CHDK).

But anyway, I more and more suspect the sensor to be broken, since the artefacts show up in every converter and only in the S95 files.....
Could you make the RAW files of the pictures you took (dog and person's face) available for download?  This would allow us to verify the problem.

The fact that you have artifacts in your conversion of the RAW file from dpreview which do not exist in either the conversion performed by dpreview, or the conversion I did of the same file, would indicate that there are definitely artifacts introduced in the process you are using to convert the RAW files. There may, or may not, be additional problems.  However, there are certainly problems there. 

If the example you provided of the dpreview file is from the jpeg of their raw conversion to which you applied "heavy sharpening", I could be wrong.  While the crop of that image which you put up has been heavily sharpened, I was unable to reasonably duplicate the issues shown by just applying an unsharp mask filter to the dpreview provided jpeg.

Having access to the RAW files for your two pictures would help to be able to verify the problem.

Alternately, if you could provide similar crops without the "heavy sharpening", that would be helpful.  As with many problems, this one might be easier to address if the multiple actions were looked at separately.

*

Offline vit40

  • ****
  • 276
Re: raw and nothing but raw sensor information
« Reply #12 on: 10 / August / 2011, 14:05:43 »
Anyway one would assume that a Canon native raw would at least be converted best by DPP ...

Unfortunately not. DPP is still using a kind of outdated gradient interpolation method and it did't change since I used it for the first time about 4 or 5 years ago ... and it seems to be the same with in-camera interpolation although there were several versions of Digic processor in the meantime. It's probably the main reason why I'm using raw with Canon cameras (but not DPP to develop it)

Re: raw and nothing but raw sensor information
« Reply #13 on: 10 / August / 2011, 17:19:03 »
Thanks again Keyman,

Obviously I'm also very grateful for your input :o) !
BTW, the artefacts are not there in the DPreview sample. But I did see it somewhere else too in a downloadable file: http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_powershot_s95/sample_images/canon_powershot_s95_13.cr2
My dogfur shot is here:
http://bartalexander.com/IMG_0026c.CR2 the artefacts in the fur show less, but are still there....
Those artefacts I don't like to see.
Thanks for pointing me out to the vng-4 conversion. I would have never gone that far to the right :o)
Must say, the conversion looks better on my face shot.
http://bartalexander.com/IMG_0001 (2).CR2  (Yeah, it's me..., with a wig on to be able to check for artefacts. Strangely the wig hair doesn't show artefacts, where the dogfur shot does. But strangely not in all the dog fur shots....
But I still see some artefacts there too. Still not as clean as the 100IS file. But I can understand many people can live with these artefacts on this small level. (But not me...)

Thanks again!

Bart
« Last Edit: 10 / August / 2011, 17:25:28 by bart100IS »


Re: raw and nothing but raw sensor information
« Reply #14 on: 13 / August / 2011, 10:20:10 »
After doing some extra post processing on the files I didn't like, adding noise and things like that, I can end up with a file that gives me a 4 x 5 Ft print now. The noise sort of eats up the pattern and from there on the file can be sharpened and abused as any other file. So, I'm happy. Will keep the S95 (if it ever returns  :D)
Thanks again to you all.
Kind regards,
Bart

 

Related Topics