Re: My workflow question
Locked
 
|
Gentlemen (and any other genders), I understand the format/depth issues. I just don't seem to be able to take a RAW
image, convert it to TIFF, and then make sure it's in 16 bit. I see those 8 to 16 and 16 to 8 options, but nothing more in line with Save As XXX Bit Depth. I did open my MRW in the old dImage Minolta program and it very easily saved it to a 16/48 bit TIFF. And identified as such back in digiKam. I'm sure this is a DOH! oversight in process that I'm missing! Paul Verizzo Message: 5 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:36:07 +0100 From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) Message-ID: <[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-01-09 20:16 GMT+01:00 Carl McGrath <[hidden email]>: >> I am fairly certain that JPG (the standard) is limited to 8 bit x 3 >> channels (RGB)= 24 bit depth. > JPEG photo => 8 bits > JPEG medical = 12 bits (pattented and not open source) > > digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. > > >> I believe there is a 16 bit TIFF standard, but that may not be universally >> implemented. > it's standard. libtiff support 16 bits and more. TIFF support more > color depth and floating encoding (HDR). > > digiKam support 8 and 16 bits in RGBA color space. > > PNG support 8 and 16 in RGBA. digiKAm support it too. > > JPEG2000 and PGF as similar encoding features than TIFF with wavelets > compression (that TIFF do not have). 8 and 16 bits are supported by > digiKam. > > Other image format are exotic and do not have any particular interest > in photography. > > For the future we plan to add WebP format support from Google which > use wavelets compression and 8/16 bits color depth. It's opensource. > > I take a look to M$ JPEG-XR (normalized by JPEG group to replace JPEG > in camera). Yes you read right, to replace JPEG. Read wiki page for > details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR > > ==> JPEG XR is supported by and "open source" libary from M$ but it's > a patented solution and M$ ask royalties. > So, we can forget for a while this format... > > Voil?... > > Gilles Caulier > > > >> >> On 01/08/2015 09:40 PM, Paul Verizzo wrote: >> >> I've decided to get out of my comfort zone and start experimenting with 16 >> bit large sRGB color spaces now that I have a new printer with a pretty wide >> gamut (Canon PRO-100.) >> >> So I take an MRW image, select to work in ProPhoto RGB (Why not go all the >> way? Been reading about it, especially on Luminous Landscapte.) I make a >> few adjustments, such as Levels, then select the 8>16 bit option in Depth. >> When I try to save it as either JPG or TIFF, the file is kept at 8 bits. >> When I try a PNG version, it fails. I'm sorry, I don't have the program up >> to tell you exactly what the failure message is. >> >> I've spent a lot of time in the online help and the Help PDF's, and I can't >> find anything that specifically address my simple workflow or why it doesn't >> work. >> >> Thanks, Paul >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 20:44:57 +0100 > From: jdd <[hidden email]> > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) > Message-ID: <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : > >> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. > and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is > only good for editing, then 8 bits for display > > jdd > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:45:54 +0100 > From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> > To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the > power of open source <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 2015-01-09 20:44 GMT+01:00 jdd <[hidden email]>: >> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >> >>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >> >> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is only >> good for editing, then 8 bits for display >> >> jdd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:48:11 +0100 > From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> > To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the > power of open source <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) > Message-ID: > <CAHFG6sF7Bu4nkBrv=[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > eyes + bran is able to show around 8 billion of colors. No more. > > But to perform colors correction without to degrade image quality, > it's always better to have more color depth to operate. So 16 bits is > ideally better. > > To resume : you change/improve/fix image in 16 bits, you export final > image in 8 bits. > > Gilles Caulier > > > 2015-01-09 20:44 GMT+01:00 jdd <[hidden email]>: >> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >> >>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >> >> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is only >> good for editing, then 8 bits for display >> >> jdd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-users mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users > > > End of Digikam-users Digest, Vol 116, Issue 11 > ********************************************** > _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
I just make the test, and get a 16 bits PNG with my raw file (fuji raw
file) without having to do anything special... Did you check in RAW processing settings the "16bits color depth" option ? Le Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:44:01 +0100, Paul Verizzo <[hidden email]> a écrit: > Gentlemen (and any other genders), I understand the format/depth > issues. I just don't seem to be able to take a RAW image, convert it to > TIFF, and then make sure it's in 16 bit. I see those 8 to 16 and 16 to > 8 options, but nothing more in line with Save As XXX Bit Depth. > > I did open my MRW in the old dImage Minolta program and it very easily > saved it to a 16/48 bit TIFF. And identified as such back in digiKam. > > I'm sure this is a DOH! oversight in process that I'm missing! > > Paul Verizzo > > > Message: 5 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:36:07 +0100 From: Gilles Caulier > <[hidden email]> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as > a professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) > Message-ID: > <[hidden email]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-01-09 20:16 GMT+01:00 Carl > McGrath <[hidden email]>: >>> I am fairly certain that JPG (the standard) is limited to 8 bit x 3 >>> channels (RGB)= 24 bit depth. >> JPEG photo => 8 bits >> JPEG medical = 12 bits (pattented and not open source) >> >> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >> >> >>> I believe there is a 16 bit TIFF standard, but that may not be >>> universally >>> implemented. >> it's standard. libtiff support 16 bits and more. TIFF support more >> color depth and floating encoding (HDR). >> >> digiKam support 8 and 16 bits in RGBA color space. >> >> PNG support 8 and 16 in RGBA. digiKAm support it too. >> >> JPEG2000 and PGF as similar encoding features than TIFF with wavelets >> compression (that TIFF do not have). 8 and 16 bits are supported by >> digiKam. >> >> Other image format are exotic and do not have any particular interest >> in photography. >> >> For the future we plan to add WebP format support from Google which >> use wavelets compression and 8/16 bits color depth. It's opensource. >> >> I take a look to M$ JPEG-XR (normalized by JPEG group to replace JPEG >> in camera). Yes you read right, to replace JPEG. Read wiki page for >> details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR >> >> ==> JPEG XR is supported by and "open source" libary from M$ but it's >> a patented solution and M$ ask royalties. >> So, we can forget for a while this format... >> >> Voil?... >> >> Gilles Caulier >> >> >> >>> >>> On 01/08/2015 09:40 PM, Paul Verizzo wrote: >>> >>> I've decided to get out of my comfort zone and start experimenting >>> with 16 >>> bit large sRGB color spaces now that I have a new printer with a >>> pretty wide >>> gamut (Canon PRO-100.) >>> >>> So I take an MRW image, select to work in ProPhoto RGB (Why not go all >>> the >>> way? Been reading about it, especially on Luminous Landscapte.) I >>> make a >>> few adjustments, such as Levels, then select the 8>16 bit option in >>> Depth. >>> When I try to save it as either JPG or TIFF, the file is kept at 8 >>> bits. >>> When I try a PNG version, it fails. I'm sorry, I don't have the >>> program up >>> to tell you exactly what the failure message is. >>> >>> I've spent a lot of time in the online help and the Help PDF's, and I >>> can't >>> find anything that specifically address my simple workflow or why it >>> doesn't >>> work. >>> >>> Thanks, Paul >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Digikam-users mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Digikam-users mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 20:44:57 +0100 >> From: jdd <[hidden email]> >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) >> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >> >> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >> >>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is >> only good for editing, then 8 bits for display >> >> jdd >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:45:54 +0100 >> From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> >> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the >> power of open source <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) >> Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> 2015-01-09 20:44 GMT+01:00 jdd <[hidden email]>: >>> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >>> >>>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >>> >>> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is >>> only >>> good for editing, then 8 bits for display >>> >>> jdd >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Digikam-users mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:48:11 +0100 >> From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> >> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the >> power of open source <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) >> Message-ID: >> <CAHFG6sF7Bu4nkBrv=[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> eyes + bran is able to show around 8 billion of colors. No more. >> >> But to perform colors correction without to degrade image quality, >> it's always better to have more color depth to operate. So 16 bits is >> ideally better. >> >> To resume : you change/improve/fix image in 16 bits, you export final >> image in 8 bits. >> >> Gilles Caulier >> >> >> 2015-01-09 20:44 GMT+01:00 jdd <[hidden email]>: >>> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >>> >>>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >>> >>> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is >>> only >>> good for editing, then 8 bits for display >>> >>> jdd >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Digikam-users mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >> >> >> End of Digikam-users Digest, Vol 116, Issue 11 >> ********************************************** >> > > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-users mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users -- Utilisant le logiciel de courrier d'Opera : http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
Turn on 16 bits for RAW image. By default it is in 8 bits for
performance on small computer. The rest is automatic. RAW will be open in 16 bits and saves automatically in 16 bits with TIFF, PNG, PGF, or JPEG 2000... Note : RAW are mostly 12 bits encoded or 14 bits (only some pro Canon or Nikon camera if i remember). Pure 16 bits do not exists in RAW yet. Gilles Caulier 2015-01-10 7:46 GMT+01:00 Photonoxx <[hidden email]>: > I just make the test, and get a 16 bits PNG with my raw file (fuji raw file) > without having to do anything special... > > Did you check in RAW processing settings the "16bits color depth" option ? > > Le Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:44:01 +0100, Paul Verizzo <[hidden email]> a écrit: > > >> Gentlemen (and any other genders), I understand the format/depth issues. >> I just don't seem to be able to take a RAW image, convert it to TIFF, and >> then make sure it's in 16 bit. I see those 8 to 16 and 16 to 8 options, but >> nothing more in line with Save As XXX Bit Depth. >> >> I did open my MRW in the old dImage Minolta program and it very easily >> saved it to a 16/48 bit TIFF. And identified as such back in digiKam. >> >> I'm sure this is a DOH! oversight in process that I'm missing! >> >> Paul Verizzo >> >> >> Message: 5 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:36:07 +0100 From: Gilles Caulier >> <[hidden email]> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a >> professional with the power of open source <[hidden email]> Subject: >> Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) Message-ID: >> <[hidden email]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-01-09 20:16 GMT+01:00 Carl >> McGrath <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>> I am fairly certain that JPG (the standard) is limited to 8 bit x 3 >>>> channels (RGB)= 24 bit depth. >>> >>> JPEG photo => 8 bits >>> JPEG medical = 12 bits (pattented and not open source) >>> >>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >>> >>> >>>> I believe there is a 16 bit TIFF standard, but that may not be >>>> universally >>>> implemented. >>> >>> it's standard. libtiff support 16 bits and more. TIFF support more >>> color depth and floating encoding (HDR). >>> >>> digiKam support 8 and 16 bits in RGBA color space. >>> >>> PNG support 8 and 16 in RGBA. digiKAm support it too. >>> >>> JPEG2000 and PGF as similar encoding features than TIFF with wavelets >>> compression (that TIFF do not have). 8 and 16 bits are supported by >>> digiKam. >>> >>> Other image format are exotic and do not have any particular interest >>> in photography. >>> >>> For the future we plan to add WebP format support from Google which >>> use wavelets compression and 8/16 bits color depth. It's opensource. >>> >>> I take a look to M$ JPEG-XR (normalized by JPEG group to replace JPEG >>> in camera). Yes you read right, to replace JPEG. Read wiki page for >>> details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR >>> >>> ==> JPEG XR is supported by and "open source" libary from M$ but it's >>> a patented solution and M$ ask royalties. >>> So, we can forget for a while this format... >>> >>> Voil?... >>> >>> Gilles Caulier >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 01/08/2015 09:40 PM, Paul Verizzo wrote: >>>> >>>> I've decided to get out of my comfort zone and start experimenting with >>>> 16 >>>> bit large sRGB color spaces now that I have a new printer with a pretty >>>> wide >>>> gamut (Canon PRO-100.) >>>> >>>> So I take an MRW image, select to work in ProPhoto RGB (Why not go all >>>> the >>>> way? Been reading about it, especially on Luminous Landscapte.) I make >>>> a >>>> few adjustments, such as Levels, then select the 8>16 bit option in >>>> Depth. >>>> When I try to save it as either JPG or TIFF, the file is kept at 8 bits. >>>> When I try a PNG version, it fails. I'm sorry, I don't have the program >>>> up >>>> to tell you exactly what the failure message is. >>>> >>>> I've spent a lot of time in the online help and the Help PDF's, and I >>>> can't >>>> find anything that specifically address my simple workflow or why it >>>> doesn't >>>> work. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Paul >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Digikam-users mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Digikam-users mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 6 >>> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 20:44:57 +0100 >>> From: jdd <[hidden email]> >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) >>> Message-ID: <[hidden email]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>> >>> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >>> >>>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >>> >>> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is >>> only good for editing, then 8 bits for display >>> >>> jdd >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 7 >>> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:45:54 +0100 >>> From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> >>> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the >>> power of open source <[hidden email]> >>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> <[hidden email]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>> >>> 2015-01-09 20:44 GMT+01:00 jdd <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >>>> >>>> >>>> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is >>>> only >>>> good for editing, then 8 bits for display >>>> >>>> jdd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Digikam-users mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 8 >>> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:48:11 +0100 >>> From: Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> >>> To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the >>> power of open source <[hidden email]> >>> Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] What am I missing? (16 bit, etc.) >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> <CAHFG6sF7Bu4nkBrv=[hidden email]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>> >>> eyes + bran is able to show around 8 billion of colors. No more. >>> >>> But to perform colors correction without to degrade image quality, >>> it's always better to have more color depth to operate. So 16 bits is >>> ideally better. >>> >>> To resume : you change/improve/fix image in 16 bits, you export final >>> image in 8 bits. >>> >>> Gilles Caulier >>> >>> >>> 2015-01-09 20:44 GMT+01:00 jdd <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>> Le 09/01/2015 20:36, Gilles Caulier a ?crit : >>>> >>>>> digiKam use libjpeg and is limited to 8 bits. >>>> >>>> >>>> and screens do not display more (not to speak about eyes), so more is >>>> only >>>> good for editing, then 8 bits for display >>>> >>>> jdd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Digikam-users mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Digikam-users mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users >>> >>> >>> End of Digikam-users Digest, Vol 116, Issue 11 >>> ********************************************** >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-users mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users > > > > -- > Utilisant le logiciel de courrier d'Opera : http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-users mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
"Canon has migrated to 14-bit on entry-level models since the 450D was launched." according to this page: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36092908 I remembered this as my first camera was a 450D (5 years ago).2015-01-10 7:59 GMT+01:00 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>:
-- _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
«
Return to digikam-users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |