Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Yeah - the digital is free mantra sounds a bit hollow as you punch in you charge card numbers into the Adobe site - but it's worth it! I just bought my second 1 gig card today. Thats over a hundred rolls of film, bought, processed and printed just on memory alone. Anyone who thinks digital is even remotely inexpensive was shooting a hell of a lot of pictures on film. William Robb
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
On 25 Feb 2004 at 21:28, William Robb wrote: I just bought my second 1 gig card today. Thats over a hundred rolls of film, bought, processed and printed just on memory alone. Anyone who thinks digital is even remotely inexpensive was shooting a hell of a lot of pictures on film. Lucky sods, a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 135-36 RVP here is AU$20.61 (Vanbar), E-6 DD processing without mounting is AU$8.80, 1GB Ridata Ultra-Pro 52x CF card is AU$401.50 (Power in Numbers). So here 1GB card is equivalent to 13.5 rolls of Velvia processed and unmounted (or about 15 rolls if you buy 5 roll pro-packs). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 February 2004 22:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Based on Herb and Paul's comments, I downloaded and installed the Photoshop CS update today. I am _really_ impressed. A while back I took a shot that was calculated to overwhelm the resolution of the *ist-D. It was basically a wider-angle landscape shot with lots of branches, twigs, dried leaves, etc in it. After processing it with the Pentax RAW converter, upsampling it to 12x18 in Genuine Fractals 2.0, and then sharpening, I found the print to be unacceptbale in terms of detail. Trees looked plastic and the areas with lots of branches resolved into a sort of haze. With the CS RAW converter I upsampled and sharpened the image as part of the RAW processing, and then just made some color adjustments. It's considerably better than the first attempt, though I still would not consider it to be acceptable. The 35mm film exposures (Velvia) taken at the same time are still better. The shot I used as a test was packed with tons of info - I really went out a picked a scene that I expected would need more resolution that the *ist-D could possibly deliver. But other scenes that are not so demanding - like some lighthouse shots were there is just not much fine detail - have been fine with the *ist-D and Pentax converter, and look really outstanding with the CS converter. I'd rate Photoshop CS as a 'must have' utility, if you want to print larger images. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Just to add another angle to the discussion; I found myself seriously disappointed with the photoshop plugin. As far as I can see, the bayer interpolation is based on dcraw's vng code, which is dodgey, at best. Having said that, Pentax's raw convertor is possibly worse, but compared to Canon or Nikon's tools, the photoshop plugin (and dcraw) are dreadful quality. It generates horrible edge aliasing and artifacting, not to mention nasty colour interference in some cases. As always, this is just an opinion. YMMV. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: RE: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 February 2004 22:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Based on Herb and Paul's comments, I downloaded and installed the Photoshop CS update today. I am _really_ impressed. A while back I took a shot that was calculated to overwhelm the resolution of the *ist-D. It was basically a wider-angle landscape shot with lots of branches, twigs, dried leaves, etc in it. After processing it with the Pentax RAW converter, upsampling it to 12x18 in Genuine Fractals 2.0, and then sharpening, I found the print to be unacceptbale in terms of detail. Trees looked plastic and the areas with lots of branches resolved into a sort of haze. With the CS RAW converter I upsampled and sharpened the image as part of the RAW processing, and then just made some color adjustments. It's considerably better than the first attempt, though I still would not consider it to be acceptable. The 35mm film exposures (Velvia) taken at the same time are still better. The shot I used as a test was packed with tons of info - I really went out a picked a scene that I expected would need more resolution that the *ist-D could possibly deliver. But other scenes that are not so demanding - like some lighthouse shots were there is just not much fine detail - have been fine with the *ist-D and Pentax converter, and look really outstanding with the CS converter. I'd rate Photoshop CS as a 'must have' utility, if you want to print larger images. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:34:03 +1030, you wrote: Just to add another angle to the discussion; I found myself seriously disappointed with the photoshop plugin. As far as I can see, the bayer interpolation is based on dcraw's vng code, which is dodgey, at best. Having said that, Pentax's raw convertor is possibly worse, but compared to Canon or Nikon's tools, the photoshop plugin (and dcraw) are dreadful quality. It generates horrible edge aliasing and artifacting, not to mention nasty colour interference in some cases. As always, this is just an opinion. YMMV. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software Thank you for the opinion, Peter. Do you have a comparison or two to show? I have a Nikon system in addition to Pentax so I may be able to generate a few myself later this week, but I probably don't have the expertise to know what to look for. Do you know of any better tool than the plugin? -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:43:04 -, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! Phew! The price of Photoshop CS is really out of sight. I started with a used but legal copy of PS 3.0 way back when, and paid for upgrades 4.0, 5.0, free 5.5 I think, and 6.0. I figure I have paid Adobe about the cost of an MZ-S for Photoshop over the past few years. Now they want me to operate some OS newer than my old standby Win98 just to be able to use CS. What a hassle. I for one am shopping for a less expensive alternative. The idea of paying Adobe through the nose again for another upgrade is starting to tick me off. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
RE: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
At 11:43 AM 2/24/2004 +, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! Yeah - the digital is free mantra sounds a bit hollow as you punch in you charge card numbers into the Adobe site - but it's worth it! - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Hello John, I know the feeling - so far, I have resisted buying it. You should really take a look at Picture Window Pro (http://www.dl-c.com) Here is the site of an advocate: http://www.normankoren.com/ -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 4:27:24 AM, you wrote: JM On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:43:04 -, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! JM Phew! The price of Photoshop CS is really out of sight. JM I started with a used but legal copy of PS 3.0 way back when, and paid JM for upgrades 4.0, 5.0, free 5.5 I think, and 6.0. JM I figure I have paid Adobe about the cost of an MZ-S for Photoshop JM over the past few years. Now they want me to operate some OS newer JM than my old standby Win98 just to be able to use CS. What a hassle. JM I for one am shopping for a less expensive alternative. The idea of JM paying Adobe through the nose again for another upgrade is starting to JM tick me off. JM -- JM John Mustarde JM www.photolin.com
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Hi, Mark Cassino wrote: At 11:43 AM 2/24/2004 +, you wrote: Sshhh Mark - or you will be costing me a lot of money! I am desparately stopping myself downloading the trial CS because of the UK price of the thing! Yeah - the digital is free mantra sounds a bit hollow as you punch in you charge card numbers into the Adobe site - but it's worth it! I don't think so. There is a country where the enforcers of copyright have come to an agreement with pirates. In exchange for agreeing to hand over some of the income, the copies are now legitimate. Proper serials numbers, contact addresses and emails on the packets. My copy of PS7? £4. The exchange rate is shifting too fast for me to give a dollar figure. I understand there are development costs but production of software is a virtually no-cost operation. If the retail price was more reasonable, many more people would buy it and the piracy market would collapse. As the producers have decided to make a deal where I buy mine, I will continue to combine holidays with software purchases. mike
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
i have Nikon and Pentax cameras producing RAW and i find that the Photoshop CS plugin significantly better than both the vendor packages, especially at chroma noise reduction and edge accuracy without artifacts from oversharpening and aliasing. Herb... - Original Message - From: Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:04 AM Subject: Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter Having said that, Pentax's raw convertor is possibly worse, but compared to Canon or Nikon's tools, the photoshop plugin (and dcraw) are dreadful quality. It generates horrible edge aliasing and artifacting, not to mention nasty colour interference in some cases.
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
the documentation says that it is an adaptive slope algorithm called variable gradients. if it isn't, then you should look at the paper referenced from his site that shows the results and see if that is what he really implemented. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter That's why I'm still looking at other algorithms. I'm becoming convinced that just about *any* pre-selected algorithm is a bad idea, and more control should be left in the hands of the operator (surprise, surprise!).
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
the documentation says that it is an adaptive slope algorithm called variable gradients. if it isn't, then you should look at the paper referenced from his site that shows the results and see if that is what he really implemented. Yep it is, as we said, it uses the VNG (Variable Nunber of Gradients) algorithm. This is a relatively well established technique. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
On 25 Feb 2004 at 9:31, Peter Loveday wrote: the documentation says that it is an adaptive slope algorithm called variable gradients. if it isn't, then you should look at the paper referenced from his site that shows the results and see if that is what he really implemented. Yep it is, as we said, it uses the VNG (Variable Nunber of Gradients) algorithm. This is a relatively well established technique. Has anyone developed an adaptive decoder using a combination of algorithms as yet? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Photoshop CS RAW Converter
Has anyone developed an adaptive decoder using a combination of algorithms as yet? Not that I specifically know of... hard to say, though. Neither Canon or Nikon really say what they do. But its certainly quite good; I expect its adaptive... especially given how slow it is. There was that SharpRaw thing that used some neural interpolator, which I suppose was adaptive in some fashion... but it was even worse than dcraw. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
