Anybody know of a free Windows utility that shows the raw pixels of a
RAW image? The individual pixels are all grayscale before the Bayer
conversion. I'm giving a talk and would like to be able to show these
gray pixels and also show them in the red, green and blue colors each
pixel represents. The utility would take a small area of a RAW image
and show the pattern of gray dots and also convert them to the color
they represent before Bayer conversion.
If such a program is not available it is perfectly legitimate to deconstruct
an image and use it to illustrate what you want to convey to your audience.
This is a standard method for science textbook illustrations.
On Aug 16, 12:53 am, jim evans <jimsTAKEOUTne...@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
> Anybody know of a free Windows utility that shows the raw pixels of a
> RAW image? The individual pixels are all grayscale before the Bayer
> conversion. I'm giving a talk and would like to be able to show these
> gray pixels and also show them in the red, green and blue colors each
> pixel represents. The utility would take a small area of a RAW image
> and show the pattern of gray dots and also convert them to the color
> they represent before Bayer conversion.
Also dcraw (which IRIS uses) can take a raw file and output the
uninterpolated data (either gamma corrected or not). do
dcraw -D -T filename
for example (or whatever the appropriate form is for the switches
under DOS).
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:58:01 -0700, acl
<achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>IRIS:
>http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm
>
>Also dcraw (which IRIS uses) can take a raw file and output the
>uninterpolated data (either gamma corrected or not). do
>dcraw -D -T filename
>for example (or whatever the appropriate form is for the switches
>under DOS).
>
>IRIS probably does the job you want, though.
Thanks. It looks like IRIS is doing what I want. I got the
grayscale, but haven't figured out how to get the respective RGB
pixels. I figure that will come. Somehow it shows combinations of RG
GB RB instead of the basic Rs, Gs and Bs
jim evans <jimsTAKEOUTnews2@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:0iu6c3d6pnuer76mhe00pvvt5vqcbed26v@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:58:01 -0700, acl
> <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>IRIS:
>>http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm
>>
>>Also dcraw (which IRIS uses) can take a raw file and output the
>>uninterpolated data (either gamma corrected or not). do
>>dcraw -D -T filename
>>for example (or whatever the appropriate form is for the switches
>>under DOS).
>>
>>IRIS probably does the job you want, though.
>
> Thanks. It looks like IRIS is doing what I want. I got the
> grayscale, but haven't figured out how to get the respective RGB
> pixels. I figure that will come. Somehow it shows combinations of RG
> GB RB instead of the basic Rs, Gs and Bs
I don't think IRIS has any way to color the pixels according to their
filters. You have to load the image into photoshop and color them.
If you use IRIS to interpolate color, the options have to be set to the
correct camera, or one that has the same CFA pattern. Most cameras will
have a cyanish-green cast when the correct CFA pattern is used for color
interpolation (which is the natural response of most digitals).
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
acl <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Aug 16, 12:53 am, jim evans <jimsTAKEOUTne...@houston.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> Anybody know of a free Windows utility that shows the raw pixels of a
>> RAW image? The individual pixels are all grayscale before the Bayer
>> conversion. I'm giving a talk and would like to be able to show these
>> gray pixels and also show them in the red, green and blue colors each
>> pixel represents. The utility would take a small area of a RAW image
>> and show the pattern of gray dots and also convert them to the color
>> they represent before Bayer conversion.
>
>IRIS:
>http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm
>
>Also dcraw (which IRIS uses) can take a raw file and output the
>uninterpolated data (either gamma corrected or not). do
>dcraw -D -T filename
From the man page for dcraw,
-d Show the raw data as a grayscale image with no
interpolation. Good for photographing black-
and-white documents.
-D Same as -d, but totally raw (no color scaling).
The output is a greyscale image (pgm format), not at
all a pattern that looks like a colored pre-Bayer
conversion.
I'm not sure what you meant for -T, as dcraw has no -T
option.
>for example (or whatever the appropriate form is for the switches
>under DOS).
>
>IRIS probably does the job you want, though.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Aug 16, 12:19 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 12:53 am, jim evans <jimsTAKEOUTne...@houston.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Anybody know of a free Windows utility that shows the raw pixels of a
> >> RAW image? The individual pixels are all grayscale before the Bayer
> >> conversion. I'm giving a talk and would like to be able to show these
> >> gray pixels and also show them in the red, green and blue colors each
> >> pixel represents. The utility would take a small area of a RAW image
> >> and show the pattern of gray dots and also convert them to the color
> >> they represent before Bayer conversion.
>
> >IRIS:
> >http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm
>
> >Also dcraw (which IRIS uses) can take a raw file and output the
> >uninterpolated data (either gamma corrected or not). do
> >dcraw -D -T filename
>
> From the man page for dcraw,
>
> -d Show the raw data as a grayscale image with no
> interpolation. Good for photographing black-
> and-white documents.
>
> -D Same as -d, but totally raw (no color scaling).
>
> The output is a greyscale image (pgm format), not at
> all a pattern that looks like a colored pre-Bayer
> conversion.
Yes, but it could still be useful for him. Apologies for the
inaccuracy.
>
> I'm not sure what you meant for -T, as dcraw has no -T
> option.
Well the one I have on my laptop does, and it outputs tiff. I don't
remember the version, probably less than a year old. I am sure that
didn't add the tiff output myself.
acl <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Aug 16, 12:19 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> acl <achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On Aug 16, 12:53 am, jim evans <jimsTAKEOUTne...@houston.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Anybody know of a free Windows utility that shows the raw pixels of a
>> >> RAW image? The individual pixels are all grayscale before the Bayer
>> >> conversion. I'm giving a talk and would like to be able to show these
>> >> gray pixels and also show them in the red, green and blue colors each
>> >> pixel represents. The utility would take a small area of a RAW image
>> >> and show the pattern of gray dots and also convert them to the color
>> >> they represent before Bayer conversion.
>>
>> >IRIS:
>> >http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm
>>
>> >Also dcraw (which IRIS uses) can take a raw file and output the
>> >uninterpolated data (either gamma corrected or not). do
>> >dcraw -D -T filename
>>
>> From the man page for dcraw,
>>
>> -d Show the raw data as a grayscale image with no
>> interpolation. Good for photographing black-
>> and-white documents.
>>
>> -D Same as -d, but totally raw (no color scaling).
>>
>> The output is a greyscale image (pgm format), not at
>> all a pattern that looks like a colored pre-Bayer
>> conversion.
>
>Yes, but it could still be useful for him. Apologies for the
>inaccuracy.
Well, it doesn't appear that you were inaccurate. It is
a greyscale image (while the OP asked for color), but it
is indeed a direct representation of the sensor pixel
values on a greyscale.
I haven't thought of an easy way to convert it to color,
though. But if nothing else, converting it to a text
based PPM format should make it possible to do with just
text editing tools.
One thing that I did do which was interesting, at least
to me, was cut out a 75x50 pixel chunk of an NEF file,
and resample it to 750x500 for easy viewing.
>> I'm not sure what you meant for -T, as dcraw has no -T
>> option.
>
>Well the one I have on my laptop does, and it outputs tiff. I don't
>remember the version, probably less than a year old. I am sure that
>didn't add the tiff output myself.
Yep, you're right on that. I tend to upload Coffin's
source code on a fairly regular basis (I had Version
8.76 and just now downloaded 8.77), but since I rarely
ever actually use /dcraw/ itself for anything other than
looking at the source code (I use /UFRAW/ to convert NEF
files) I didn't have a recent binary installed. When I
checked your suggestion against a binary (that was a
year old) I was thinking I'd installed a newer binary,
but that wasn't so.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Aug 16, 8:25 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
> I haven't thought of an easy way to convert it to color,
> though. But if nothing else, converting it to a text
> based PPM format should make it possible to do with just
> text editing tools.
Yes I also haven't thought of a simple way to go from the grayscale
file to what he wants, at least under windows. PPM looks simple
enough to do it without wasting time to code complicated input/output
stuff. But "simple" and "complicated" are relative terms!
> Yep, you're right on that. I tend to upload Coffin's
> source code on a fairly regular basis (I had Version
> 8.76 and just now downloaded 8.77), but since I rarely
> ever actually use /dcraw/ itself for anything other than
> looking at the source code (I use /UFRAW/ to convert NEF
> files) I didn't have a recent binary installed. When I
> checked your suggestion against a binary (that was a
> year old) I was thinking I'd installed a newer binary,
> but that wasn't so.
Did you try Raw The****e? http://www.rawthe****e.com/download.html
It's not open source, though. It's free otherwise (beer). It's just
excellent, one of the best (and has very convenient sharpening
controls, too).
As for reading dcraw code, am I the only one who finds it very hard to
understand Coffin's code? I'm no expert coder, of course.
acl <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Aug 16, 8:25 pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>>
>> I haven't thought of an easy way to convert it to color,
>> though. But if nothing else, converting it to a text
>> based PPM format should make it possible to do with just
>> text editing tools.
>
>Yes I also haven't thought of a simple way to go from the grayscale
>file to what he wants, at least under windows. PPM looks simple
>enough to do it without wasting time to code complicated input/output
>stuff. But "simple" and "complicated" are relative terms!
I diddled with a bash shell script long enough to know
1) I can do it and 2) I don't want to... :-)
>Did you try Raw The****e?
>http://www.rawthe****e.com/download.html
>It's not open source, though. It's free otherwise (beer). It's just
>excellent, one of the best (and has very convenient sharpening
>controls, too).
I'd never heard of it before; so I downloaded and played
with it just now, for a few minutes. It has a *very*
nice histogram. It lacks at least two things (or at
least in 5-10 minutes I didn't find them).
First was some type of black or blink where over exposed
and white or blink where under exposed. UFRAW has that
and I find it extremely useful, along with a percentage
indication of how much of the image is all white or all
black.
The other missing feature is not being able, apparently,
to give it a command line working directory argument, or
even having it default to the current directory. It
appeared me that each time is is invoked the GUI
selector has to be used to access the desired directory.
That's a royal pain. (I didn't read the docs, so I
might have missed the obvious...)
I have no use for features like sharpening in a raw
converter program. At that stage I can't tell how much
sharpening is needed, plus since sharpening is the last
edit done before making a production copy (for printing,
or web site use, or whatever) it just is not useful in
any tool than a full blown image editor. (I have at
least two other program, xv and convert from
ImageMagick, that also provide a sharpening feature that
I virtually never use.) Whatever, there are several
similar features, such as noise reduction, distortion,
c/a correction, that I would never use in a raw
converter. (UFRAW also has a couple of those..., but
they don't clutter the interface as much.)
I didn't mess with it a whole lot, but it appears
possible to re-arrange the display layout too, which I
find to be of significant value. I'm trying to talk the
UFRAW people into adding that feature to their program.
They haven't quite caught on the the value yet, as it
appears they are all used to using a single monitor (and
I'll bet they have one virtual desktop and run
everything "fullscreen"). The program works fine that
way. But I have two monitors and never run anything
full screen. They've got the control panel on the left
side. I need it on the right side (the monitor with a
digital interface is on the left, and that's where I
want the image display). As it is, when I increase the
size of the image, the first part that overflows onto
the right monitor is *not* the control panel, but the
right side of the image. So thats the size I'm limited
to. If I could put the controls on the right side, I'd
be able to have a slightly larger image display window.
(They'll see the light at some point though..., and I'm
about to replace my 19" monitors with 22"ers, so it won't
be as restricting.)
>As for reading dcraw code, am I the only one who finds it very hard to
>understand Coffin's code? I'm no expert coder, of course.
Well... he writes in C++, and I don't. That does make
it rough.
Otherwise, his style is pretty much similar to what I
use. He obviously came from a UNIX world, with K&R at
heart, but changed to using 2 spaces for indents instead
of a full tab. He uses underscores_instead_of
CapitalsForVariables. And two of the nicest things are
the brace style and putting a space between operators
and parens and none between a function name and parens
if (condition) {
expression();
}
I always use braces, even for one liners like that, and he
doesn't, but I'm not bothered much by that.
He could also sprinkle blank lines into things now and
then, and make it much more readable! ;-)
I'm very finicky about my own coding style, but as long
as someone is consistent with a logical style I don't
mind if it's not like mine.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Free Utility That Displays RAW Pixels? 
Linear Mode
