Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: %&&!!@@@@ Haaarghhhh  (Read 4110 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« on: April 28, 2010, 12:39:58 PM »
ReplyReply

C1 5;  DNG files from Pentax are totally POP COLORED. Just did a screen calibration, everything's fine. It just happen with these files and only DNG, rest of cameras works properly.

edited post



« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 04:59:35 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2010, 03:22:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Again another C1 funny behaviour.
C1 5;  DNG files from Pentax are totally POP COLORED. Just did a screen calibration, everything's fine. It just happen with these files and only DNG, rest of cameras works properly.

What the hell is that?!!??

I tryed to go to Lightroom because of C1 instability, but I don't like LR and finally develop my files directly in Photoshop, but I would like to keep going using some great C1 features, like skin tones etc...C1 is my favorite but it is also the most impish software of the all galaxy.

Which Pentax camera? Isn't the native raw format PEF? I'll spare the forum from my thoughts about the usefulness of DNG and simply quote the C1 list of supported cameras:
"Pentax: K20D, K10D, K7, KX, K200D, K110D, K100D Super, K100D, K2000/K-m, *istDL2, *istDL, *istD, *istDS2, *istDS (Only PEF files supported)" (emphasis mine)

Do you have no such problems when using the true raw format of the camera?

See my response to you on your other thread about C1 stability. C1 5.1.1 is rock solid - if you're experiencing problems there is a specific cause and you can fix it.

No idea about "impish" but I bet if you took an online class from us you would change your mind. It's fast, efficient, flexible, powerful, and well laid out - on top of the fact the raw processing is the best you can use. It is NOT an Adobe product and therefore you have to learn new software/ways-of-thinking compared to photoshop/lightroom.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 03:22:53 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2010, 04:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dougpetersonci
Which Pentax camera? Isn't the native raw format PEF? I'll spare the forum from my thoughts about the usefulness of DNG and simply quote the C1 list of supported cameras:
"Pentax: K20D, K10D, K7, KX, K200D, K110D, K100D Super, K100D, K2000/K-m, *istDL2, *istDL, *istD, *istDS2, *istDS (Only PEF files supported)" (emphasis mine)

Do you have no such problems when using the true raw format of the camera?

See my response to you on your other thread about C1 stability. C1 5.1.1 is rock solid - if you're experiencing problems there is a specific cause and you can fix it.

No idea about "impish" but I bet if you took an online class from us you would change your mind. It's fast, efficient, flexible, powerful, and well laid out - on top of the fact the raw processing is the best you can use. It is NOT an Adobe product and therefore you have to learn new software/ways-of-thinking compared to photoshop/lightroom.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
Doug,

Thank you for your frank repply.

This problem only occurs with DNG files, with the native Pentax RAW, everything is perfect. But as DNG is not an exotic exclusive Adobe format, it is also used by Leica, Pentax as an option and some others so I thought that it was another C1 4 unstability reminisence.
As I shooted some DNG files with the Pentax, I went crazy when I saw the pop colors.

According to you that's normal, and that's just what I wanted to know. No problem. C1 has experiment some issues in some versions, but I have no doubt that it is my favorite as I pointed before.
I'll keep using it. Very delighted with the features in the 5 version. It's serious software.

To be fair  I've erased the complain part of my entry post.

Thanks again for your always usefull precisions.

Cheers.

ps: By the way Doug, why do you think DNG is useless?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 05:03:12 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2010, 05:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
ps: By the way Doug, why do you think DNG is useless?

Useless is probably too strong a word for sure. I appreciate the sentiment and purpose I just don't love the implementation or the compromise.

Without getting too technical here are three major issues:
#1 Makes photographers believe that any raw file can be processed equally well in any program. DNG (usually) ensures a file can be opened by XYZ raw processor but being able to open a file is different than having the raw processor optimized and refined for processing that file.
#2 Generally involves leaving out proprietary sets of data which can enhance image quality. Data like internal thermostat readings during the exposure period, dark frame readouts of the sensor etc. Even if they were included in the DNG they would be ignored by every other raw processor (see #1).
#3 Uneven or inconsistent implementations. Whether it's unclear standards, Adobe's own ignoring of the standards, or individual companies' bugs/mistakes I don't know and I don't really care, but I've seen a lot of real-world DNG-related problems which were not present when you read the original raw format in that program (pink highlights in Aperture, sensor-artifacts in LightRoom, weird colors in C1, black frames etc).

DNG is a good idea, but I think it was a more pressing matter 5-10 years ago when many raw formats could ONLY be opened in their own software and there was a vanishingly small number of users using that program. With the advent of widespread digital imaging, programs like LightRoom and Aperture and many "little guy" image processing programs (RPP, RD, Bibble, etc etc) it's hard to imagine not being able to open your raw files from any major brand in 15-20 years. I'd bet 100 bucks I will be able to access/buy a program that can read my raw files from any major current brand in 20 years and that the process will take under 10 minutes; as a similar example I can pull up, purchase ($20), and download an emulator for the Nintendo Atari and then load in my favorite Atari games to play on any modern computer in about 5 minutes using google and a credit card.

Beyond 20 years? Frankly it's so hard to predict what will happen in 20 years of computing advancements that I don't think any raw format or DNG is a 100% guarantee of anything. With this in mind I archive my final retouched select images as 16-bit TIFFs alongside the original raw files (using Aperture for organization and cataloging). I will be a million bucks that my 16 bit TIFFs will "open" on any "computer" long after I'm dead (the quotes indicate my doubt that we would even recognize the devices/methods/terms involved in looking at your digitally recorded images in 100 years). If nothing else because the code required to read a TIFF can be written by a smart 6th grader.

In other words, DATA future compatibility does not worry me (much). Especially in comparison to close hardware systems.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I fully respect anyone who disagrees with me on the topic - it's a very important one and since it involves the future there are no right/wrong answers just educated guesses.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 05:38:16 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2010, 03:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

More info,

In the DNG saga, I've discover something yesterday. C1 shows the DNG files pop colored, BUT if you save a Tiff it's just perfect. No pop but accurate.
So the problem is located in the C1 visor (compatibility), does not affect the file itself.
Even more interesting is the fact that the algorithms are superior to LR. The same tiff developped in both LR and C1 from a DNG file shows that C1 is capable of rendering more details. It's 100% magnification; doubt it will be visible in printing, but it's nice to see. Colors are also in another league IMO. These differences are very subtle but exist.

So, no DNG with C1, it does not make sense because what you see is not what you get, but C1 5 is a beast.
Logged
David Hufford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2010, 06:24:19 AM »
ReplyReply

An interesting perspective on the DNG argument. I just started converting mine a few months ago (after backing them up as NEFs) believing that it would save space as DNG is supposed to be smaller. Well, not always.

Thom Hogan posted his views on DNG last month http://www.bythom.com/dng.htm, and he isn't all impressed either. I may quit bothering with it, as I see no real advantage.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 06:26:53 AM by drichi » Logged

*Never fall in love with anything that can't love you back*
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2010, 06:39:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drichi
An interesting perspective on the DNG argument. I just started converting mine a few months ago (after backing them up as NEFs) believing that it would save space as DNG is supposed to be smaller. Well, not always.

Thom Hogan posted his views on DNG last month http://www.bythom.com/dng.htm, and he isn't all impressed either. I may quit bothering with it, as I see no real advantage.
Yes, the Thom article point mainly about non-dng cameras. That makes sense. The workflow is just dobled. But Pentax and Leica are dng cameras.
I've been shooting the same object with both native-pentax/dng to see: there is abolutly no difference that I'm able to perceive in RAW.
There are just the same: no more details, no different colors, etc...To be honest, may I use DNG or native raw seems to me exactly the same.
The funny thing is C1 does not support DNG from Pentax while ACR does, and my ACR version (cs3) does not support properly native PEF while C1 does...
Enjoy !
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 06:39:29 AM by fredjeang » Logged
gullevek
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2010, 06:01:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Until C1 supports the camera with DNG there is no luck. Same with Ricoh GR III. It uses DNG, but C1 doesn't know what it is, so it all looks horrible over saturated and wrong. LR3 can handle them perfectly.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad