No problem. dcb is the important option to have. To be honest, even at 200% in RawTherapee I'm hard pressed to see much difference between amaze and dcb. I think I can see a slightly sharper result using dcb, and it seems that dcb also creates fewer artifacts than amaze, but those differences are exceedingly subtle, indeed. So I'm using dcb in "enhanced" mode with multiple iterations and false colour suppression steps.
I hope PL is using the latest version of dcraw because that version specifically includes support for my Panasonic LF1.
Now, if only PL can incorporate a better chromatic aberration correction method for RAW images (perhaps by doing the correction before demosaicing, which is what I think RT is doing), PL's RAW image tools would be superb....
Ken Yes, I think it can be eeeeeasily done....
Just take everything out on Highway 61.
No problem. dcb is the important option to have. To be honest, even at 200% in RawTherapee I'm hard pressed to see much difference between amaze and dcb. I think I can see a slightly sharper result using dcb, and it seems that dcb also creates fewer artifacts than amaze, but those differences are exceedingly subtle, indeed. So I'm using dcb in "enhanced" mode with multiple iterations and false colour suppression steps.
I hope PL is using the latest version of dcraw because that version specifically includes support for my Panasonic LF1.
Now, if only PL can incorporate a better chromatic aberration correction method for RAW images (perhaps by doing the correction before demosaicing, which is what I think RT is doing), PL's RAW image tools would be superb....
+1 for dcb and better chromatic aberration correction for RAW
photoken hat geschrieben:Layer Tool alignment icons not visible in "Black Mode"
This is another request that can almost be considered a bug: When the UI is in "Black Mode", the alignment icons at the bottom of the Layer Tool options are nearly invisible:
In the File Browser, using the conversion factors in Options...Extended...DigiCam Focal to show the equivalent 35mm focal length of a RAW image leads to gross inaccuracies, at least for the Panasonic DMC-LF1 camera.
Here's the PL EXIF display of the focal length:
PL EXIF data.png
The conversion factor of "6.03" gives a very inaccurate result.
It would be best to use the existing EXIF field which gives the correct 35mm equivalent focal length:
EXIF data.png
Du hast keine ausreichende Berechtigung, um die Dateianhänge dieses Beitrags anzusehen.
Ken Yes, I think it can be eeeeeasily done....
Just take everything out on Highway 61.
photoken hat geschrieben:It would be best to use the existing EXIF field which gives the correct 35mm equivalent focal length:
I have here one test raw image from LF1, but the EXIF values contain no such field. If you have an image with this data, send it to me: support@pl32.com
photoken hat geschrieben:It would be best to use the existing EXIF field which gives the correct 35mm equivalent focal length:
I have here one test raw image from LF1, but the EXIF values contain no such field. If you have an image with this data, send it to me: support@pl32.com
photoken hat geschrieben:I can do better than that -- this Web page:
from here I have my test image. This one doesn't have the "FocalLengthIn35mmFormat" value.
Strange. I just downloaded the first test image (http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... lf1_01.rw2), and exiftool shows a "FocalLengthIn35mmFormat" EXIF tag (and, under "Composite", also ScaleFactor35efl and FocalLength35efl).
I had a look on the raw file with an hex editor. It looks like there are several EXIF blocks inside the file. PhotoLine reads the first one at the moment. I will try to change this.
bkh hat geschrieben:and exiftool shows a "FocalLengthIn35mmFormat" EXIF tag (and, under "Composite", also ScaleFactor35efl and FocalLength35efl).
The image I posted of the EXIF data is a screen capture from the ExifToolGUI, which is using an ExifToolVersion of 9.39. I don't see the "Composite" section or those items you mentioned....
FWIW, I also happen to have a couple of sample RAW files from Canon and Nikon that I found somewhere on the Web and not all those RAW images have the "FocalLengthIn35mmFormat" item. I suspect it has something to do with the EXIF version used by the cameras: the LF1 is a relatively new model (released for sale in July, 2013) and has a more recent version of EXIF listed in its EXIF data....
Ken Yes, I think it can be eeeeeasily done....
Just take everything out on Highway 61.
bkh hat geschrieben:and exiftool shows a "FocalLengthIn35mmFormat" EXIF tag (and, under "Composite", also ScaleFactor35efl and FocalLength35efl).
The image I posted of the EXIF data is a screen capture from the ExifToolGUI, which is using an ExifToolVersion of 9.39. I don't see the "Composite" section or those items you mentioned....
"Composite" isn't part of the EXIF information – rather, it's data computed by exiftool from EXIF and possibly MakerNotes (see http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exi ... osite.html), to have important information available in a camera-independent way – e.g., it seens that not all cameras support FocalLengthIn35mmFormat. Maybe ExifToolGUI shows composite tags under "All".
bkh hat geschrieben:"Composite" isn't part of the EXIF information – rather, it's data computed by exiftool from EXIF and possibly MakerNotes (see http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exi ... osite.html), to have important information available in a camera-independent way – e.g., it seens that not all cameras support FocalLengthIn35mmFormat. Maybe ExifToolGUI shows composite tags under "All".
Aha! Thanks for providing that link -- it explains that the items you mentioned are not in the EXIF data, but are derived from existing EXIF data. It appears that the ExifToolGUI doesn't bother displaying those derived items, only the actual EXIF data.
You're right that not all cameras support the "FocalLengthIn35mmFormat" item, as I've described previously.
Ken Yes, I think it can be eeeeeasily done....
Just take everything out on Highway 61.
