Rawzor beta release (lossless raw compression)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <e632d02f-a04a-4285-ac40-588d7e27a666@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> AA filters suck down the resolution by 30-40%.
>>>> no they don't. don't be misled in thinking that alias artifacts are
>>>> actual resolved details.
>>> The point is that you can't remove the artefacts without removing
>>> sensitivity to real non-artefactual detail as well. That's why AA
>>> filters are always a compromise, with some makers setting them strong
>>> enough to remove all aliasing artefacts, and others removing most, but
>>> not all, so as to get a higher real detail resolution.
>>
>> A properly designed AA filter removes no resolution at all.
>
>"The choice of spot separation for such a filter involves a tradeoff
>among sharpness, aliasing, and fill factor. " -Wikipedia.

Nothing like selective, and out-of-context, quotes to support your
case.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

"Sachin Garg" <sachingarg@c10n.info> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : g9ppv5$diq$1@aioe.org...
>
> "milsabords" <nospam@nowhere.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:48c04839$0$15997$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>> "Sachin Garg" <sachingarg@c10n.info> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
>> discussion : g9ouod$p5f$1@aioe.org...
>>> If you can you send me 1-2 sample images I can try to add support for
>>> your camera in next revision (you can just email me if they are smaller
>>> than 20MB, or if they are larger you can either send by
>>> rapidshare/yousendit or send me an email and I will send you an ftp
>>> login where you can upload them).
>>>
>>> Thanks for trying and my apologies that I missed your format :-)
>>>
>> Sachin, you can DL 3 zipped RAW files here: http://dl.free.fr/qKiRrVw7t .
>
> Thanks for sending in the images, I spent some time with them. This raw
> format is support by Rawzor but FZ18 seems to be doing some things that
> current version of Rawzor doesn't understands so it leaves the files
> alone.
>
> I will update the engine to handle this camera but it may take a few weeks
> before the update is released (core engine updates can't be as quick as we
> would like).
>
> While it should be ok to share major updates here, I don't think I should
> be announcing every update here (that may start to look like spam). You
> can subscribe to Rawzor's blog (by rss or email) to not miss the news.
>
> http://www.rawzor.com/blog/
>
> Thanks again for the samples.
>
> Sachin Garg [India]
> www.sachingarg.com | www.rawzor.com
>
Thanks for this, I'll stay tuned.
If this can help, this raw format is supported by dcraw, which is open
source.

Sachin Garg <sachingarg@c10n.info> wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message

>> Inconveniently ignored. DNG preserves the image without loss.

DNG can preserve the image without loss, but not necessarily the
metadata, which may or may not be a problem for you. It certainly
is a problem for some people.

Oh, sure, you can wrap DNG round your RAW, if you want *all*
of the drawbacks of DNG and proprietary RAW with none of the
benefits ...

> Alan, as long as you are using Adobe products (which are great BTW) you will
> be fine as all the information that Adobe products can use is transferred to
> DNG.

So what happens when one does not want to buy Adobe's products?
Is there not a vendor lock-in trap waiting to happen?

> To be clear, I have nothing against Adobe or DNG. Thanks to Adobe, Camera
> makers now have something great to pick when they decide to standardize on a
> format but (unfortunately) it just doesn't seems to be happening anytime
> soon.

And that surprises you why?
Adobe wants to commodize cameras and wants camera makers to jump
through /Adobes/ hoops --- so Adobe can sell more programs and
updates to programs.
Camera makers want to differenciate their products (and that
includes you getting used to their RAW converters, instead of
Adobe's) and use the RAW format they already have the firmware
code for and which can expressall their data with minimum fuzz
and work and compromises.

So why again should camera makers do extra work for the benefit
of Adobe and their own detriment?

Nor is it "great", it's got too many useless and too few
useful choices.

> My understanding of Adobe's purpose for creating DNG is reducing their own
> (and all software developers) pain when supporting all these large number of
> raw formats

Supporting DNG fully is like supporting TIFF fully ...
you can try it, but down that road lies madness. Which is
why practically noone does it. What they implement is basic
TIFF with undefined assumptions of how a 'sane' TIFF should
behave.

-Wolfgang

Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> You can easily carry out your own experiments with AA filters by
> downsizing a large sharp image which has patterned elements which will
> produce aliasing artefacts at the downsize.

No, you cannot, unless you use an incompetent downsampling
algorithm. But you can test your downsampling method for
incomptence that way.

-Wolfgang

nospam wrote:
> In article <6ibd3pFprl0vU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> AA filters suck down the resolution by 30-40%.
>>> no they don't. don't be misled in thinking that alias artifacts are
>>> actual resolved details.
>> The point is that you can't remove the artefacts without removing
>> sensitivity to real non-artefactual detail as well. That's why AA
>> filters are always a compromise, with some makers setting them strong
>> enough to remove all aliasing artefacts, and others removing most, but
>> not all, so as to get a higher real detail resolution.
>
> that's true. my point is you don't magically gain resolution by simply
> removing the anti-alias filter. you gain a little more real resolution
> (and nowhere near 30-40%) along with a whole lot of aliasing. some
> people like the look of alias artifacts, and worse, some think it's
> real detail.

And some people (per a quote in a newsgroup discussing this) would
rather have 99 images of sharp detail w/o aliasing and 1 with aliasing
in some part of the image.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...p/t-29967.html

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:


>> "The choice of spot separation for such a filter involves a tradeoff
>> among sharpness, aliasing, and fill factor. " -Wikipedia.
>
> Nothing like selective, and out-of-context, quotes to support your
> case.

Nothing like a strongly snipped rebuttal and suggestion of mis-direction
to support yours. Which fails (as usual).

The cute thing is guys like you with AA'd cameras defending them as
perfectly sharp where other people are showing non-AA cameras as being
sharper. Some people have removed the AA filters, amongst other things
for astronomy.

Did you read the posts at the link I added? Hmm?

Here it is again.
Among others, See:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...p/t-29967.html

here's another.

http://thegreenphotographer.blogspot...r-maximum.html

Hint: search around and you will find lots of people happy to not have
an AA filter; people looking to remove their AA filter; and people who
buy cameras that do not have AA filters...



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <6ibd3pFprl0vU1@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
>> <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> AA filters suck down the resolution by 30-40%.
>>>> no they don't. don't be misled in thinking that alias artifacts are
>>>> actual resolved details.
>>> The point is that you can't remove the artefacts without removing
>>> sensitivity to real non-artefactual detail as well. That's why AA
>>> filters are always a compromise, with some makers setting them strong
>>> enough to remove all aliasing artefacts, and others removing most, but
>>> not all, so as to get a higher real detail resolution.
>>
>> that's true. my point is you don't magically gain resolution by simply
>> removing the anti-alias filter. you gain a little more real resolution
>> (and nowhere near 30-40%) along with a whole lot of aliasing. some
>> people like the look of alias artifacts, and worse, some think it's
>> real detail.
>
> And some people (per a quote in a newsgroup discussing this) would
> rather have 99 images of sharp detail w/o aliasing and 1 with aliasing
> in some part of the image.
Without AA filter ... I had meant to add.

> http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...p/t-29967.html
>



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> Hint: search around and you will find lots of people happy to not have
> an AA filter; people looking to remove their AA filter; and people who
> buy cameras that do not have AA filters...

If you look around, you'll also find people who wanted to and
did immigrate to the "workers paradise", i.e. the eastern block,
during the cold war.

Hint: People looking for something doesn't prove that their
reasoning is sane, nor does it make their reasoning appliable
to other people --- there are lots of crackpots out there, and
freedom also mean the freedom to do what some may see as stupid.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:lee7p5-v64.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
[snip]
> Supporting DNG fully is like supporting TIFF fully ...
> you can try it, but down that road lies madness.

I agree with this (and the rest of your post), I have seen this madness up
close and its not pretty.

SG

Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>nospam wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm

>>>>> AA filters suck down the resolution by 30-40%.
>>>> no they don't. don't be misled in thinking that alias artifacts are
>>>> actual resolved details.
>>> The point is that you can't remove the artefacts without removing
>>> sensitivity to real non-artefactual detail as well. That's why AA
>>> filters are always a compromise, with some makers setting them strong
>>> enough to remove all aliasing artefacts, and others removing most, but
>>> not all, so as to get a higher real detail resolution.
>>
>> that's true. my point is you don't magically gain resolution by simply
>> removing the anti-alias filter. you gain a little more real resolution
>> (and nowhere near 30-40%) along with a whole lot of aliasing. some
>> people like the look of alias artifacts, and worse, some think it's
>> real detail.
>
>And some people (per a quote in a newsgroup discussing this) would
>rather have 99 images of sharp detail w/o aliasing and 1 with aliasing
>in some part of the image.

Most people haven't seen a photo without anti-aliasing. There's a
good reason that camera makers put it into their cameras.

More noise is, indeed, more detail, but not the good kind

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net