![]() Not sure if the file renaming is such a big deal, I use Renamer which does a lot of complex shtuff based on metadata and replacements and patterns. Yup, thanks Iliah! I was referring to the screen/visuals, I am sure there are many improvements under the hood. Just in case, FastRawViewer v.1 will be fully supported till January 31, 2022 No difference as far as I can tellīut always good to be on the latest, supported version. A free trial is available:Ĭool, thanks, I did not know. 100% views are available by clicking Ctrl+1 for any (or all subsequent) images. It works well (at least since I purchased it last night) and, though it's not free, it is inexpensive ($19.99 with the current discount) for what you get. The new version 2 of FastRawViewer was just released. Great tool for culling, and I think you can flag keepers. What this person is pointing out is readily apparent with my non-modified Sony A6500 and I suspect on my Sony A7iii too, but I haven't looked for it there yet.Hi there, I use FastRawViewer, not free, but usually fast, very customizable screen, and you get the full raw beauty. Most of the light/dark pixels survive.Īfter reading your comments, I went looking for more on this topic and found this: I have also used RawTherapee to process the RAW file, and to use the mono option where the various demosaicing choices are located and to allow it to produce a TIFF file. Since the DNG file is a mono file, there should be no demosaicing applied. I haven't figured out exactly what Affinity is actually doing with them. But if using Affinity, it makes many of them disappear. If I edit the mono DNG file, I have noticed that Photoshop keeps them as they are. First time around, I did not select any options called out in the installation Read Me, and it connected no issues. In fact, even at 100% view they cannot be seen as in the 1:1 magnification in Lightroom. Sony A7iii X64 bit driver I set up for the first time using the Chose Device option in ASCOM Diagnostics tool. They also are so tiny that the image has to be blown up to the pixel level in order to even see them. This seems to make good sense what you are saying. That would also explain why they disappear with demosaicing. If you ask me, what you've got there are simply the phase detect pixels. Also, the alternating dark/bright pattern in the pixels is not typical for cRAW artifacts. In your image, there does not seem to be that amount of DR. They only appear, when there is more than 11 bits of dynamic range within those 8 pixels. Second, these do not look like the usual cRAW artifacts, which are lines of (as far as I remember) 1 pixel height and 8 pixels width. And if this had been a camera that supported uncompressed RAW, this problem wouldn't even had been there.įirst of all, you have a modified camera, so comparing with it introduces new variables. Now the benefit of a mono sensor is that image detail greatly exceeds the detail that an image that has been demosaiced will have. But they are also small enough that that at lower magnifications you won't see them. And if I do a demosaic on that RAW file, they will go away. Notice the alternating light and dark pixels on the tops of some letters. I hung up a newspaper and backed of far enough that the lettering was small, and I had to crop a lot for this up close image. But I also can show that demosaicing hides this problem. ![]() And the sharper the lens, the more likely to see the problem. What I find is that horizontal lines with high contrast are susceptible to showing this problem. And to process the RAW file, I use a utility called monochrome2DNG which generates a mono DNG file which can be then processed with any photo editor you want.īut it also exposes some compression artifacts. As this is a mono camera now, there is no need to do a demosaicing on the RAW file. I had this camera modified to be a mono sensor by having the RGB CFA scrapped off. But I can show you what compression artifacts look like on a Sony A6300, which does not provide a way to do non-compressed RAW files. I have a Sony A7iii, and I have not been using uncompressed RAW files yet. Is it worth shooting in uncompressed raw in any scenario - landscape maybe? I just got my A73 a couple of weeks ago and have not shot in uncompressed raw so can't offer any opinion. So I shoot compressed raw, but am curious to know what other non-pros do. I'm not a pro and will never have any need to print big or small. Just curious to know if you shoot compressed or uncompressed raw.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |