How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default" JPG?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lensis not good
Next: How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default"JPG?
From: Ray Fischer on 15 Jun 2010 03:29 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >>>Jon Smid <Varkensvoer(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>Floyd L. Davidson schreef: >>>>> And why do you supposed after all these years there is >>>>> no alternative? Could it just happen to be that dcraw >>>>> is such a killer implementation that nobody wants to >>>>> waste their time writing a "replacement" that will never >>>>> be more than an obscure "almost an alternative"? >>>> >>>>Probably assuming in vain that you really want an answer, yet trying : >>>> >>>>The *huge* value of dcraw is in the reverse engineering work that was >>>>put in deciphering all of those raw formats out there. This is a >>>>tremendous achievement. This is what it makes it practically impossible >>>>to come with an alternative. Nobody has a better understanding or track >>>>record in this respect. >>>> >>>>But nevertheless the result was put in a program that is crappy in >>>>software engineering terms. >>> >>>If the program was that crappy there would be half a >>>dozen alternative programs available within a few >>>months. Yet for years now nobody has bothered. >> >>Except for Adobe's RAW converter, and Apple's, and Canon's, and >>Nikon's, and all the other graphics programs. >> >>> Not >>>only that, but efforts such as UFRAW, which could easily >> >>You're an idiot. > >Your exception list doesn't include a single program >that duplicates what Jon and I agree is the purpose of >/dcraw/ as a program. Boo hoo. You're an idiot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Peter on 15 Jun 2010 09:11 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:140620102039363026%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <4c16c941$0$5496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >> I'm using PS 5, now. Formerly I used PS 7, then CS3. > > do you mean photoshop elements? photoshop 5 came out in 1998 and > predates camera raw by a few years. or do you mean photoshop cs5, which > supports camera raw 6? photoshop 7 came out in 2002 and photoshop > elements 7 was in 2008, if i recall. No. I meant CS5. > >> I have never found a >> satisfactory NR technique, I saw too much color blurring. My workflow has >> been to set ACR sharpening to 0 and then use either LAB color sharpening, >> high pass filter sharpening, or some combination of both, depending on >> the >> image. I have a feel for what I am doing, but am willing to change if >> there >> is a good reason. > > i would suggest doing as much as possible in camera raw, especially > since it's non-destructive. i never found the high pass sharpening > method to be that useful, but some people like it. It's good only for certain high contrast images. If I wanted to get details of the feathers on a bird, it doesn't work well. I switch to smart sharpen on the lightness channel in LAB color, so as not to get the halo effect -- Peter
From: Peter on 15 Jun 2010 09:16 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010061417420227544-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > > As Scott Kelby has noted the "Adobe Camera Raw" ACR 2003 process seemed to > have had little to no effect when it came to noise or sharpening > correction, and he recommended not wasting time with those adjustments. > With ACR 6.1 and the 2010 process, noise reduction and sharpening works, > and works well. Kelby now recommends it as part of the RAW conversion > process when needed. You guys have given me reason to try NR in ACR > > Also ACR 6.1 supports lens correction profiles so Distortion, CA, and > vignette correction for a particular lens can be applied during > conversion. I have the sticky feeling that Capture NX2 does a better job of correcting lens aberrations. I am not convinced that Nikon gives all specifications. -- Peter
From: Peter on 15 Jun 2010 09:24 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:140620102228251870%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <87o5oqFu5vU1(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> > wrote: > >> >>> That's not such a slow system. How much memory do you have? If it's >> >>> less than 2 gigs, that's probably the bottleneck. Memory is cheap. >> > >> >> Doubtful. It shouldn't take 2gb memory to convert a 12mp image! >> > >> > Vista alone uses 2GB, for example ... and the rest of the system needs >> > RAM as well. >> >> Many users are more intelligent than that. > > those are the ones that stuck with xp or bought a mac :) If I only used the machine for graphics and Internet BSing, I would probably have a Mac. But, I also need a machine for business. From a usability standpoint I have compared my HP with a Mac. At least for Photoshop I see no significant difference. Though on a Mac I have right click issues. -- Peter
From: Peter on 15 Jun 2010 12:07
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010061508494664440-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-06-15 06:24:19 -0700, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> said: > >> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:140620102228251870%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >>> In article <87o5oqFu5vU1(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> That's not such a slow system. How much memory do you have? If >>>> >>> it's >>>> >>> less than 2 gigs, that's probably the bottleneck. Memory is cheap. >>>> > >>>> >> Doubtful. It shouldn't take 2gb memory to convert a 12mp image! >>>> > >>>> > Vista alone uses 2GB, for example ... and the rest of the system >>>> > needs >>>> > RAM as well. >>>> >>>> Many users are more intelligent than that. >>> >>> those are the ones that stuck with xp or bought a mac :) >> >> >> If I only used the machine for graphics and Internet BSing, I would >> probably have a Mac. But, I also need a machine for business. From a >> usability standpoint I have compared my HP with a Mac. At least for >> Photoshop I see no significant difference. Though on a Mac I have right >> click issues. > > > Unless you have Windows specific SW at work there is no reason not to > consider a switch to Mac at home (or work for that matter). Office is > available for Mac and price difference for total package with any of the > optional processors is negligible. If you price out Macs, HP, Dell, etc > with similar specs and SW you will find very little price/value > differential. > The right click issues on a Mac have been a thing of the past for many > years now, and are a relic of Mac naysayers past repertoire. > Also with Intel Macs you have the option of running, in addition to OSX, > any version of Windows so you can run any of that Windows specific SW. > > Having said that if you are happy with your HP you might as well stay that > route. As a long time Mac user condemned to use Windows machines at work, > I think you might be surprised at what the Mac and OSX brings to the > table. > I will look next time. Meanwhile this machine does what I need and does it well. I thought my laptop was fast until I got that machine. -- Peter |