Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Mirrorless Files Look Great: but could they look better?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

A couple of weeks ago I delved into the mirrorless world with a Panasonic G85. I had some issues with the camera (not the picts it took) so I returned it. But it got me wondering about something.

 

With my Nikons, I have used 4 different RAW converters:

Adobe ACR

Apple Digital Camera RAW

Infinity Photo

Nikon Capture

 

The fact is… on calibrated monitors, I see noticeably better results with Nikon Capture.

 

Where is Panasonic's RAW conversion software? Fact is they have none, and point you to SilkyPix (a train wreck of an app - even when compared to Nikon Capture). So does Fuji.

 

I have not shot with Olympus or Sony so have no idea what they might supply for RAW conversion, but find it hard to take Panasonic (or even Fuji) seriously when they don't supply their own conversion software. 

 

I must confess I don't fully understand just why Nikon's software gives better results than the other RAW converters I've tried, or how those other converters support Nikon .nef files. I assume Nikon (and the other OEMs) provide something to devs for the parsing of their RAW file format, but if so, why does Nikon's software seem to do a better job than Apple (or even Adobe)?

 

Does this matter to you? Would you think twice about investing in a system that does not offer OEM developed RAW conversion?



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Panasonic, like Pentax, supply SilkyPix with a more detailed specification for their raw file format in exchange for being able to bundle a version of SilkyPix with their cameras. Nikon do the same, but the Nikon version of SilkyPix (Capture NX-D) has Nikon's own GUI over the SilkyPix underpinnings.



#3
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

the Nikon version of SilkyPix (Capture NX-D) has Nikon's own GUI over the SilkyPix underpinnings.

 

Seriously?! NX-D is based on SilkyPix?

 

So does Nikon supply the same file info to Adobe, Apple, et al?



#4
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I don't know if they get the full specification or not... It seems like they don't use it if they do get it. OTOH, they don't make any use of the maker notes at all.

 

It might be that the multi-codec libraries must be simplified to work together. I had the full version of SilkyPix installed in parallel with the Pentax- and Panasonicbranded versions of the same version some years ago and the single-brand ones both gave better results than the full version.



#5
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada
Interesting. You'd think it would be in the OEM's best interest to provide the best conversions possible regardless of the app being used.

That said, you may be right about there being constraints in apps supporting multiple codecs, but for the life of me I can't understand why (code is code).

#6
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

It could be that it is much simpler to de-bayer the raw files and then treating them more or less like tiffs without an assigned colour space than to treat each type of raw file as a unique file format and apply different libraries of settings according to the maker notes.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if ACR converts raw files to DNG internally and treats all files identically from then on. This would make sense if you think that any RGGB array is equivalent as the folks at Adobe seem to do. This approach would explain the difficulty in using FOVEON and X-trans sensors with PS and LR. Others can have similar shortcuts in how the processing works.