RAW file formats and observations
anir...@gmail.com
They range from 5 MB (Nikon D40 - NEF format) to 35 MB (Mamiya ZD -
MEF format).
The downloaded files are from Canon CR2 format (5D), Nikon NEF format
(D40, D200 and D3X), Panasonic RAW (DMC-L1), Panasonic RW2 (G1), Fuji
RAF format (S2, S3 and S5), Kodak DCR format (DCS Pro), Sony ARW
format (A700), Sigma X3F (SD14), Pentax DNG (K10D), Olympus ORF format
(E3) and Mamiya MEF format (ZD).
I am using a Mini Mac computer, equipped with iphoto and Preview.app
to view and compile images. I also have a Fuji FinePix Viewer that
comes with my S5.
Observations
1. My Fuji FinePix Viewer can only open RAF format (Fuji cameras).
2. My Preview.app and iPhoto from Apple Mac can open Canon CR2, Nikon
NEF (except from D3X), Panasonic RAW (but not RW2), Fuji RAF, and
Pentax DNG. It cannot open Kodak DCR, Olympus ORF, Mamiya MEF,
Panasonic's RW2 and Sony AEW and Sigma X3F
There is possibility that the files that I downloaded for the Nikon
D3X, Kodak DCS and Sony A700 may be corrupt. I am not certain and may
try to download them again.
When I changed the extension of the Mamiya NEF and Nikon D3x NEF, the
photos can be viewed only as thumbnails.
I wonder if any version of Adobe Photoshop can open all of the above
files, or does it depend on the version of the software?
I am also curious as when was the first RAW file introduced to the
market. I recall that the first professional digital camera was
introduced by Kodak in early 1990s (DCS system), and I believe that
Nikon did not introduce the D1 until 1999 and Canon EOS-1D until
2001?
nospam
<1d14a029-7d6f-42ef...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
<anir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I downloaded a number of sample RAW image files from the internet.
> They range from 5 MB (Nikon D40 - NEF format) to 35 MB (Mamiya ZD -
> MEF format).
> The downloaded files are from Canon CR2 format (5D), Nikon NEF format
> (D40, D200 and D3X), Panasonic RAW (DMC-L1), Panasonic RW2 (G1), Fuji
> RAF format (S2, S3 and S5), Kodak DCR format (DCS Pro), Sony ARW
> format (A700), Sigma X3F (SD14), Pentax DNG (K10D), Olympus ORF format
> (E3) and Mamiya MEF format (ZD).
wow, that's quite a list. any reason for such a huge variety?
> I am using a Mini Mac computer, equipped with iphoto and Preview.app
> to view and compile images.
that's not really the best way to experiment with raw.
> I also have a Fuji FinePix Viewer that
> comes with my S5.
> Observations
> 1. My Fuji FinePix Viewer can only open RAF format (Fuji cameras).
that's not surprising.
> 2. My Preview.app and iPhoto from Apple Mac can open Canon CR2, Nikon
> NEF (except from D3X), Panasonic RAW (but not RW2), Fuji RAF, and
> Pentax DNG. It cannot open Kodak DCR, Olympus ORF, Mamiya MEF,
> Panasonic's RW2 and Sony AEW and Sigma X3F
here's the list of what os x supports as of 10.5.7:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475>
> There is possibility that the files that I downloaded for the Nikon
> D3X, Kodak DCS and Sony A700 may be corrupt. I am not certain and may
> try to download them again.
> When I changed the extension of the Mamiya NEF and Nikon D3x NEF, the
> photos can be viewed only as thumbnails.
that's the embedded thumbnail.
> I wonder if any version of Adobe Photoshop can open all of the above
> files, or does it depend on the version of the software?
here's what camera raw supports:
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html>
you can download the free dng converter which will use camera raw and
output it to a dng file or you can download a trial version of
photoshop or lightroom. there are plenty of guides online about how to
use the various controls.
> I am also curious as when was the first RAW file introduced to the
> market. I recall that the first professional digital camera was
> introduced by Kodak in early 1990s (DCS system), and I believe that
> Nikon did not introduce the D1 until 1999 and Canon EOS-1D until
> 2001?
the dates sound right. raw files are basically sensor dumps so unless
the cameras outputted tiff (as some did early on) or jpeg, then they
were raw or some proprietary format (i think kodak might have done
that).
Trev
The latest Lightroom 2.3 and the Photoshop raw Plugging open the biggest
range only models released in the last few months or some very old Camera's
will not be Included. All camera makers software is designed for there
models only.
Not that it maters unless you want to open every know make going as When you
buy a Camera you get the software to handle its Raw format, some have a more
advanced version that can be bought.
trouble
However different raw viewers/converters perform different operations on the
data prior to opening so that the first view of a raw image that you get can
vary between raw viewers/converters.
It may exist somewhere on the internet but I have not seen it. I would be
interested to see how raw images made with cameras from different
manufacturers that use the same Sony sensor using comparable lenses and the
same subject appear when first opened in the Adobe converter using identical
settings as the Adobe converter tends to open images somewhat flatly with
minimal adjustments. Theoretically the images should be more or less
identical, but that is theory.
David Kilpatrick
>
> I wonder if any version of Adobe Photoshop can open all of the above
> files, or does it depend on the version of the software?
> I am also curious as when was the first RAW file introduced to the
> market. I recall that the first professional digital camera was
> introduced by Kodak in early 1990s (DCS system), and I believe that
> Nikon did not introduce the D1 until 1999 and Canon EOS-1D until
> 2001?
>
Photoshop Elements - whatever the latest version is, 5 maybe - will open
all of them. So will ACR.
By 1999 Kodak DCS files are regular raw files not TIFFs and process
extremely well using Adobe Camera Raw. I'm just selling a DCS 760/720
kit and ACR 5.4/5.5 - as well as Kodak's own software - give a great
degree of control and fine quality. I'd put the 6 megapixel DCS 760 with
current ACR processing and upscaling fairly against any 8-10 megapixel
recent DSLR.
Here's a gallery of infra-red DCS shots (I'm eBaying the outfit with
lots of stuff adapted for infra-red work) and at the end of the gallery,
I added an Alamy-size ACR 48 megabyte up-scaled export.
http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/kodak_ds
I did use the earlier DCS models but I don't think any kind of raw
processing was involved. I also used the first Nikon and Fuji DSLRs and
I'm sure that what we got was a TIFF.
David
nospam
<icon...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> Photoshop Elements - whatever the latest version is, 5 maybe - will open
> all of them. So will ACR.
it's up to 7 and elements uses camera raw.
> By 1999 Kodak DCS files are regular raw files not TIFFs and process
> extremely well using Adobe Camera Raw. I'm just selling a DCS 760/720
> kit and ACR 5.4/5.5 - as well as Kodak's own software - give a great
> degree of control and fine quality. I'd put the 6 megapixel DCS 760 with
> current ACR processing and upscaling fairly against any 8-10 megapixel
> recent DSLR.
you think the 760 would outperform a modern camera???
> I did use the earlier DCS models but I don't think any kind of raw
> processing was involved. I also used the first Nikon and Fuji DSLRs and
> I'm sure that what we got was a TIFF.
the nikon d1 had tiff, jpeg and raw. the fuji s1 had tiff and jpeg only.
David Kilpatrick
> you think the 760 would outperform a modern camera???
Yes, it will outperform any of the later 1.5X format 6 megapixel cameras
when used at ISO 80 to 160. The absence of an AA filter, and the 1.3X
sensor, and the dense narrow-cut RGB filters produce an intense and very
sharp 6 megapixel image.
http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/112939797
This has the IR filter removed so colours are not quite an intense as
the camera can manage, also it's ACR processed - Kodak's own software
with film-looks really brings the images to life.
I do not have a very sharp lens for the camera, only a 28-85mm Nikkor AF
which is OK enough for general use. Of course, it shoots painfully
slowly, high ISO is not an option and the crisp colour rendering
combined with no AA filtering tends to boost noise along with detail
(and occasional moir�) even at ISO 80.
But the previous owner was shooting with this all the way until the D3
arrived - seven years of solid service for weddings etc. And the Nikon
F5 AF system was just amazing. We did a side-a-side test, with my son
using the Nikon D3 and DCS760c to track me walking straight towards the
camera, both with the Sigma 24-70mm new HSM lens. The DCS's simple F5 AF
system wiped the floor with the D3's MultiCam 3500 for speed of response
and keeping up with a moving subject.
Richard's comment was that he wished the D3 had been built round the F5,
with the interchangeable prism and waist level finder etc options, and
that focusing module - but not, thanks, with the huge battery extension
of the Kodak!
> the nikon d1 had tiff, jpeg and raw. the fuji s1 had tiff and jpeg only.
I meant much earlier cameras had TIFF (or maybe JPEG too) only - 1995!
N-2 or E-2 or something. Odd things. We shot the 1996 Paterson
Photographic catalogue using one of these and Leaf Lumina.
David
nospam
<icon...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> > you think the 760 would outperform a modern camera???
>
> Yes, it will outperform any of the later 1.5X format 6 megapixel cameras
> when used at ISO 80 to 160.
so it will outperform it only at isos that are below many other
camera's base iso?
> The absence of an AA filter, and the 1.3X
> sensor, and the dense narrow-cut RGB filters produce an intense and very
> sharp 6 megapixel image.
and full of alias artifacts, like with the 14n series.
> http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/112939797
and this proves what? where are the comparison photos?
the camera may take decent pictures but if you are going to claim it's
better than other cameras there needs to be some pictures taken under
the same conditions so we can see exactly how much better it really is.
> This has the IR filter removed so colours are not quite an intense as
> the camera can manage, also it's ACR processed - Kodak's own software
> with film-looks really brings the images to life.
>
> I do not have a very sharp lens for the camera, only a 28-85mm Nikkor AF
> which is OK enough for general use. Of course, it shoots painfully
> slowly, high ISO is not an option and the crisp colour rendering
> combined with no AA filtering tends to boost noise along with detail
> (and occasional moir�) even at ISO 80.
slow, no high iso, moire and noise at iso 80? so much for being
better. it's also raw only. no jpeg or tiff.
> But the previous owner was shooting with this all the way until the D3
> arrived - seven years of solid service for weddings etc. And the Nikon
> F5 AF system was just amazing. We did a side-a-side test, with my son
> using the Nikon D3 and DCS760c to track me walking straight towards the
> camera, both with the Sigma 24-70mm new HSM lens. The DCS's simple F5 AF
> system wiped the floor with the D3's MultiCam 3500 for speed of response
> and keeping up with a moving subject.
are you actually claiming that the autofocus system in the nikon d3 is
worse than what was in the f5??
> Richard's comment was that he wished the D3 had been built round the F5,
> with the interchangeable prism and waist level finder etc options, and
> that focusing module - but not, thanks, with the huge battery extension
> of the Kodak!
sounds like richard doesn't fully understand his d3.
> > the nikon d1 had tiff, jpeg and raw. the fuji s1 had tiff and jpeg only.
>
> I meant much earlier cameras had TIFF (or maybe JPEG too) only - 1995!
> N-2 or E-2 or something. Odd things. We shot the 1996 Paterson
> Photographic catalogue using one of these and Leaf Lumina.
oh yea, the one with the focal length reducer in it. it's best
forgotten.
tmo...@wildblue.net
> In article <MrqdnRt2s5mc_7nXnZ2dnUVZ8jWdn...@bt.com>, David Kilpatrick
>
> <iconma...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> > > you think the 760 would outperform a modern camera???
>
> > Yes, it will outperform any of the later 1.5X format 6 megapixel cameras
> > when used at ISO 80 to 160.
>
> so it will outperform it only at isos that are below many other
> camera's base iso?
>
> > The absence of an AA filter, and the 1.3X
> > sensor, and the dense narrow-cut RGB filters produce an intense and very
> > sharp 6 megapixel image.
>
> and full of alias artifacts, like with the 14n series.
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/112939797
>
> and this proves what? where are the comparison photos?
>
> the camera may take decent pictures but if you are going to claim it's
> better than other cameras there needs to be some pictures taken under
> the same conditions so we can see exactly how much better it really is.
>
> > This has the IR filter removed so colours are not quite an intense as
> > the camera can manage, also it's ACR processed - Kodak's own software
> > with film-looks really brings the images to life.
>
> > I do not have a very sharp lens for the camera, only a 28-85mm Nikkor AF
> > which is OK enough for general use. Of course, it shoots painfully
> > slowly, high ISO is not an option and the crisp colour rendering
> > combined with no AA filtering tends to boost noise along with detail
>
> slow, no high iso, moire and noise at iso 80? so much for being
> better. it's also raw only. no jpeg or tiff.
>
> > But the previous owner was shooting with this all the way until the D3
> > arrived - seven years of solid service for weddings etc. And the Nikon
> > F5 AF system was just amazing. We did a side-a-side test, with my son
> > using the Nikon D3 and DCS760c to track me walking straight towards the
> > camera, both with the Sigma 24-70mm new HSM lens. The DCS's simple F5 AF
> > system wiped the floor with the D3's MultiCam 3500 for speed of response
> > and keeping up with a moving subject.
>
> are you actually claiming that the autofocus system in the nikon d3 is
> worse than what was in the f5??
>
> > Richard's comment was that he wished the D3 had been built round the F5,
> > with the interchangeable prism and waist level finder etc options, and
> > that focusing module - but not, thanks, with the huge battery extension
> > of the Kodak!
>
> sounds like richard doesn't fully understand his d3.
>
> > > the nikon d1 had tiff, jpeg and raw. the fuji s1 had tiff and jpeg only.
>
> > I meant much earlier cameras had TIFF (or maybe JPEG too) only - 1995!
> > N-2 or E-2 or something. Odd things. We shot the 1996 Paterson
> > Photographic catalogue using one of these and Leaf Lumina.
>
> oh yea, the one with the focal length reducer in it. it's best
> forgotten.
Wow, forgot about a Leaf Lumina worked in a studio where we used it
for mostly jewelery photography, though camera (scanner) to use. We
replaced it with two Kodak DCS460, using Kodak PhotoDesk to process
the files, we became much more productive. Those were stolen and we
bought a DCS760, another boost in production.
If the OP is looking for a program that can open most RAW files,
Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Elements V7 and PhaseOne's Capture 1 will all
do the trick.
Tom
You Fools Don't Have One Clue
>> > (and occasional moir�) even at ISO 80.
Actually, Photoline from www.pl32.net opens more RAW file formats (with the
most advanced interpolation algorithms) than any other program in
existence. It will even open and process RAW file formats that haven't even
been deciphered yet by other program authors. I've yet to see just one new
camera RAW file format that this program has failed to open and display
properly before all other programs even bothered to support it. Photoline
is so far ahead of the curve that other programs can't even keep up. (If
you understood the program and all its options you'd know why.)
Now comes the pretend-photographer nay-sayers that never even tested it and
don't want to believe it is true. Their sad and pathetic loss. Doesn't
bother me one bit. Their amazing amount of ignorance makes for multitudes
of laughs. Some people follow. Some people lead. And others just say, "Get
the fuck out of my way you useless piece of shit moron!"
Been gone two days on a mountain-bike photo-trek. And what do I see? Tomes
of senseless non-productive posts arguing over the most picayune of things
that won't change anyone's life nor make anyone's photography better,
posted by pretend-photographers that never shot even one photo in the last
few days. The total of their posts proves it all.
Heading out again, this newsgroup crap is NOwhere for losers.
David Kilpatrick
> sounds like richard doesn't fully understand his d3.
>
Not that old chestnut again!
Any slight criticism of the D3, and out it comes '...do not fully
understand it'. That is probably the most damning condemnation of a
camera you could get.
Does it detract anything from your life that not all new things are
perfect and some older products had interesting features?
David
nospam
Don't Have One Clue <yfd...@address.com> wrote:
> Actually, Photoline from www.pl32.net opens more RAW file formats (with the
> most advanced interpolation algorithms) than any other program in
> existence.
actually it doesn't, troll boy.
> It will even open and process RAW file formats that haven't even
> been deciphered yet by other program authors.
uh huh.
> I've yet to see just one new
> camera RAW file format that this program has failed to open and display
> properly before all other programs even bothered to support it.
sigma dp1 & dp2
> Heading out again, this newsgroup crap is NOwhere for losers.
so don't participate.
You Fools Don't Have One Clue
"Now comes the pretend-photographer nay-sayers that never even tested it
and don't want to believe it is true. Their sad and pathetic loss. Doesn't
bother me one bit. Their amazing amount of ignorance makes for multitudes
of laughs. Some people follow. Some people lead. And others just say, 'Get
Thanks for playing, now crawl back into your troll-hole, you useless piece
of shit moron.
nospam
<icon...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> > sounds like richard doesn't fully understand his d3.
>
> Not that old chestnut again!
yes, that old chestnut. the 51 point autofocus in the d3 is far more
sophisticated than what's in the f5 and which setting to use in which
condition is not entirely obvious nor is there one answer in every
case. it's very possible that how the camera was set was the factor in
its performance, not the entire system itself. or maybe the test
itself was flawed.
what settings did he use? 51 point with 3d tracking will obviously be
a little slower than 9 point (the closest to the f5's 5 point). what
kind of lighting? what lenses? how long did it take to lock focus?
how accurate was it? how consistent was it? any specific performance
numbers so we can see just how much better it really is and under what
conditions?
saying a is better than b without any supporting evidence is worthless.
> Any slight criticism of the D3, and out it comes '...do not fully
> understand it'. That is probably the most damning condemnation of a
> camera you could get.
>
> Does it detract anything from your life that not all new things are
> perfect and some older products had interesting features?
nice straw man. i never said that new things are perfect.
i'm simply saying that the autofocus in the d3 is *much* better than
what was in the f5.
Anon
- that's your very own quote from a few lines before.
It takes a special kind of brainless idiot to shoot yourself in the head
as you have just done.
David Kilpatrick
>
> i'm simply saying that the autofocus in the d3 is *much* better than
> what was in the f5.
Cleverer, no doubt. It just didn't track a person walking towards the
camera with a fairly normal lens on a normal day from a normal sort of
distance, as smoothly as the old F5. The focus on both cameras was on C,
the D3 a3 setting was probably in 21 or 9 point mode (either should work
fine with such a simple subject not moving laterally) because that's
what it gets left on normally, and release priority a1 would have been
irrelevant (no pix were taken) same applies to a4, nothing was moving in
front of me as I walked.
Actually, we were not testing the two cameras. The DCS760 came out as a
curiosity, what was being tested was the Sigma 24-70mm HSM. Because the
DCS760 AF refused to operate with a Tamron G-type Nikon fit lens (the
10-24mm - had to be focused manually) we put the Sigma on the 760 to see
whether the HSM (AF-S) functioned. It did, perfectly, proving that the
issue lay with Tamron's implementation of in-lens motor protocol (the
DCS760 also worked with all new Nikon lenses tried).
There was no intention to compare the cameras, but Richard was really
struck by the ultra-fast response and instant focus lock-on of the 760,
compared to the leisurely decision made by the D3. That's why we put
both cameras to similar C focus settings and spent all of about a minute
seeing if it was an illusion. It was not, the lens focused faster on the
old camera.
It didn't make Richard unhappy with the D3, which is a fantastic working
camera. He liked the retro aspects of the F5, the detachable prism
especially, for much the same reason he is in danger of buying three old
American cars this afternoon...
David
Bob Larter
[much squealing snipped]
> Been gone two days on a mountain-bike photo-trek. And what do I see? Tomes
> of senseless non-productive posts arguing over the most picayune of things
> that won't change anyone's life nor make anyone's photography better,
> posted by pretend-photographers that never shot even one photo in the last
> few days. The total of their posts proves it all.
>
> Heading out again, this newsgroup crap is NOwhere for losers.
Still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S photos, kid.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> "Now comes the pre[*SLAP!*]
I notice that you couldn't address a single one of his points. What a
surprise.
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:07:18 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <akaa25doj0c4smlac...@4ax.com>, You Fools
>> Don't Have One Clue <yfd...@address.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, Photoline from www.pl32.net opens more RAW file formats (with the
>>> most advanced interpolation algorithms) than any other program in
>>> existence.
>> actually it doesn't, troll boy.
>>
>>> It will even open and process RAW file formats that haven't even
>>> been deciphered yet by other program authors.
>> uh huh.
>>
>>> I've yet to see just one new
>>> camera RAW file format that this program has failed to open and display
>>> properly before all other programs even bothered to support it.
>> sigma dp1 & dp2
>>
>>> Heading out again, this newsgroup crap is NOwhere for losers.
>> so don't participate.
nospam
<icon...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> There was no intention to compare the cameras, but Richard was really
> struck by the ultra-fast response and instant focus lock-on of the 760,
> compared to the leisurely decision made by the D3. That's why we put
> both cameras to similar C focus settings and spent all of about a minute
> seeing if it was an illusion. It was not, the lens focused faster on the
> old camera.
calling the d3's focus 'leisurely' is laughable.