Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 10 bit RAW converters and editors  (Read 12699 times)
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2014, 05:39:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters.  I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.

There are one or two comments here from sharks (or snarks?):

"Please read up on this before commenting."
"Some responders had no clue."
"Some askers had difficulty asking their questions coherently."

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9298



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2014, 09:52:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters.  I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
Say's a lot about Google! Look. Let's be honest here and examine the responses you got. This is the Other Raw Converter forum where presumably one asks questions about raw converters. You asked this exactly within this forum: Are there any besides Photoshop CS6 and CC? The question was so vague someone had to ask for further clarification and you then wrote: 10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors. Another preson answers and you write: No no no no. Output to monitor.  Please read up on this before commenting.
Your question was unclear and in the wrong forum, then you told the person trying to help you to 'read up before commenting'. Any wonder the sharks are biting at your feet? Finally we figured out you're referring to the bit depth of the display path. You write: Yes, that's what I was always talking about. Some responders had no clue.

Maybe English is your second language. No worries. Just title and state your question clearly and ideally in the right forum and you'll get assistance. But we can't as yet read your mind, that's why we don't have a clue. Take some responsibility for your inability to clearly ask the question please.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
elied
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2014, 04:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters.  I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
Hmm, maybe it says that Lula responders are human beings.
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2014, 09:55:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters.  I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.

It says your approach and attitude here pretty much sucks...(that and the fact you didn't really have a clue what question you were actually asking–and that's on you bud).

If you had asked, "what applications offer a 10-bit display path?", you would have gotten the correct answer far earlier-Photoshop CS5+ on Windows.

:~)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 09:59:29 PM by Schewe » Logged
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2014, 11:45:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters.  I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.

You might find that Lula has bigger sharks than on other sites. And some of those sharks can be less friendly than others. There could even be a couple of Great Whites here  Wink

from a fellow minnow . . .
Logged

best regards,

Ted
FranciscoDisilvestro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 569


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2014, 03:55:20 PM »
ReplyReply

You might find that Lula has bigger sharks than on other sites. And some of those sharks can be less friendly than others. There could even be a couple of Great Whites here  Wink

from a fellow minnow . . .

Just don't take it personally and move on. Some of those "sharks" are known experts in the industry, willing to share advanced knowledge at no charge. I'd rather have good advice from a rude individual than a load of BS from a polite one.

Regards
Logged

xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2014, 11:03:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Just don't take it personally and move on.

Nothing here for me to take personally. I am not the one being torn to shreds in this thread  Grin

Quote
Some of those "sharks" are known experts in the industry, willing to share advanced knowledge at no charge. I'd rather have good advice from a rude individual than a load of BS from a polite one.

At my age, I'd rather have good advice politely delivered. Advice offered provocatively or condescendingly has no place in these fora, no matter who gives it, IMHO.

Toujours la politesse,

« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 09:15:07 PM by xpatUSA » Logged

best regards,

Ted
Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2014, 01:29:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Oh, I'm used to rough handling, not that I'm loving it or anything. I've electronically known Schewe and Rodney for about 18 years.  Also I was in the Adobe Photoshop forum for about that long, until all the interesting and snarky people left a couple years ago. I rarely go there now. Moderators have a way of driving off the fun stuff.
This is one of the good forums left.  I have routinely seen the path referred to as 10 bit and thought more people would be hip.
I'm about to jump into the wide gamut monitor pool at the shallow end regardless of the fact that the Mac path doesn't do 10 bit, so we'll see how much good a 14 bit LUT does.  Maybe Tim Cook will wake from his iPhone dream and do something for his desktop worshippers next year. Doesn't look like this year.
BTW I believe you can do 10 bit in CS 4 on Win.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2014, 02:49:02 AM »
ReplyReply

At my age, I'd rather have good advice politely delivered. Advice offered provocatively or condescending has no place in these fora, no matter who gives it, IMHO.
My experience is that the people who are able to improve my knowledge tends to be polite (though not all polite people are experts, of course). Perhaps that reasonable amount of self confidence allows them to continually absorb new knowledge, as well as interpret questions so as to give the relevant answers?

I think that the thread starter steered this thread away from topic by choice of words. If that was not intended, I think he would be well adviced to choose differently in future threads.

-h
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9298



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2014, 09:10:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm about to jump into the wide gamut monitor pool at the shallow end regardless of the fact that the Mac path doesn't do 10 bit, so we'll see how much good a 14 bit LUT does. 
It will be fine. It would be kind of nice if the Mac would fully support a high bit video path. Maybe in the next OS. But the higher data path in the panel itself should be just fine for editing wide gamut data without showing banding due to the limitations of the OS. 10-bit, 14-bit, it's all a bit of marketing hype once you get past 8-bits per color which is useful.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2014, 09:20:21 AM »
ReplyReply

It will be fine. It would be kind of nice if the Mac would fully support a high bit video path. Maybe in the next OS. But the higher data path in the panel itself should be just fine for editing wide gamut data without showing banding due to the limitations of the OS. 10-bit, 14-bit, it's all a bit of marketing hype once you get past 8-bits per color which is useful.
There seems to be widespread agreement that 8 bits per channel is the point where adding more bits adds little or no benefit.

According to Poynton, 8 bits (gamma) is sufficient for 50:1 DR. Most (printing) photographers adjust their display for a moderate brightness, where peak contrast may not be possible. If I was a marketing-guy trying to "sell" the idea of 10-bit display connections, I might suggest things like:
-State-of-the-art PC monitors can reproduce 1000:1 or more of DR
-Doing calibration in PC software as opposed to in display firmware is more convenient
- A bit of overkill is seldom negative, especially if it comes at low cost

-h
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1078



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2014, 10:43:07 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm about to jump into the wide gamut monitor pool at the shallow end regardless of the fact that the Mac path doesn't do 10 bit, so we'll see how much good a 14 bit LUT does. 

I don't think you'll be missing much. I tried a 10-bit (if you're an engineer) or 30-bit (if you work in product marketing) display path a while back:

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=668

And ended up going back to eight bits.

One thing that's changed since then is the so-called retina displays. That kind of pixel density makes 8-bit with dither a serious competitor to 10 bits, as long as you've got a LUT in your display.

Jim
Logged

Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2014, 11:49:04 PM »
ReplyReply

2011 is long ago for technology, isn't it Jim?  I guess all that could be done in a few clicks for a tenth the money now. Do you think you'll repeat something similar?
I think color management is a mess myself. Rendering intents are a farce. I don't see why a monitor with a 14 bit LUT shouldn't be delivered perfectly profiled, what would it cost 20 bucks? By whuppin up on it for quite a while and reading voraciously, including our forum friends Schewe and dd, I have got a path that makes sense for my equipment and the workflow/image path.  I usually convert from RAW in Photoshop CS 5 to Pro Photo 16 bit tiff, make my tweaks, and print to my Epson using matte in perceptual with PS manages colors. Matches my sRGB screen well and is visually pleasing.
I'll be getting a Dell WG in about ten days, so I'll have to see if any appreciable changes need to be made to the process.
 I have lots of image editors and RAW converters, and just added Lightroom. I was amazed to see that it opened with one of my RAWs in place, apparently with lens correction. I have an old Fuji EXR and a lot of the apps don't know from Fuji lenses. I don't really trust what I saw yet because I don't know LR, but it's encouraging. I usually use DxO Perspective for geometry when needed.

About the attitudes and ragging. Two stints in the military, 50 years in aerospace with at least two insane bosses, and 55 years of marriage, I know something about taking a hit.  I remember one outfit where I was proposals manager and the boss said he wanted a full section of this big deal to be a description of the company capability, so I wrote up pages of all this glowing bullshit, bunch of pictures, all that jazz. Before it went out, he cut it all out and put in two sentences saying the company had all the necessary facilities and expertise required. This same nutcase fired the manager of the only department that was making money, and the poor guy had a heart attack and died. That's what happens when you internalize the values of the culture, as any Marxist could tell you.  In my career I saw other capable men take their own lives when the company didn't recognize their ability. You just can't take things that seriously.  I had one boss rate me average. I told him, no, you mean terrible, don't you, because average means you don't have to explain why to upper management and then I get to say something about you, you are the guy who couldn't get a capacitor bracket through a shake test after three weeks of redesigning.
Talk about taking a hit, the first time I flew with my first project pilot, he showed me how to bail out and said you have to go before I do or I can't get out. Then he he patted his sidearm and said, "You will leave, one way or the other".
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9298



WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2014, 09:25:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Rendering intents are a farce.
You just have to explain that one to us, please.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2014, 10:44:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you were the one who explained that to me.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2014, 02:26:53 AM »
ReplyReply

...Two stints in the military, 50 years in aerospace with at least two insane bosses, and 55 years of marriage, I know something about taking a hit...
Fascinating. Did you also learn something about how to accomplish your goals (i.e. getting info on 10 bit rendering path) without drowning the topic in noise?

-h
Logged
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2014, 08:05:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you [digitaldog] were the one who explained that to me.

That's a bit hard to swallow! Do you have a link to where he explained that?

cheers,
Logged

best regards,

Ted
Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2014, 01:25:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been using Photoshop since 1996. Back then, I was usually scanning photo prints with a Umax and adjusting them for print on an Apple printer (actually a Canon inside). Then Adobe created RGB 1998 and I began to use it as a working space. Eventually RAW came along and I would convert to Pro Photo and print from it using Photoshop manages colors. I would select Perceptual as the rendering intent. The prints matched my sRGB screen well enough and I had the advantage of a six color printer. I have never used soft proof because I've never sent anything to a commercial printer.   After doing RAW for a year or so I decided to revisit rendering intents, That's when I came across some article or blog post by either Schewe or dd that said you only get relative when converting from Pro Photo to aRGB or sRGB working space and seen on the screen.
I proved it to myself, and also proved that I could actually get all four intents in print by printing from Pro Photo.  The reason you only get relative is that as I believe Schewe explained, it is the receiving profiler that has to contain the intents and the profiles installed in Photoshop only have relative. You can go to ICC and get an sRGB that has other intents and install it if you want. One of the  members of this forum also posted a profile that will allow you to make an intermediate step to get other intents, too.
I might use it when I fire up my wide gamut sometime soon.
Logged
xpatUSA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2014, 01:33:45 AM »
ReplyReply

After doing RAW for a year or so I decided to revisit rendering intents, That's when I came across some article or blog post by either Schewe or dd that said you only get relative when converting from Pro Photo to aRGB or sRGB working space and seen on the screen.

Oh, that. I thought everybody knew that . .

Try RawTherapee   Wink
Logged

best regards,

Ted
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9298



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2014, 08:56:20 AM »
ReplyReply

The reason you only get relative is that as I believe Schewe explained, it is the receiving profiler that has to contain the intents and the profiles installed in Photoshop only have relative. You can go to ICC and get an sRGB that has other intents and install it if you want. One of the  members of this forum also posted a profile that will allow you to make an intermediate step to get other intents, too.
Simple matrix style working space profiles only have a Colorimetric table. That's by design, no farce about it but some reader misunderstanding yes. 
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad