SilkyPix and Panasonic LX3 files

[deejjjaaaa]

it seems that it is a general knowledge that SilkyPix applies automatically some distortion, etc corrections when processing .RW2 raw files from Panasonic LX3 to imitate results similar to in-camera jpeg.

what is your opinion about that ? shouldn't that be an option in settings ?

PS: http://www.bythom.com/

The LX-3 Controversy
Nov 10--Sometimes I walk right into the middle of one. When I posted my original LX-3 review in the compact comparison I used a raw converter that output images with quite a bit of barrel distortion. After getting pummeled with Panasonic users claiming there was no such distortion, I decided to re-run the tests using the Panasonic-supplied Silkypix for raw and the in-camera JPEG. The distortion numbers came out much different, and about the same as the Nikon Coolpix in the test. So I changed my review and decided I needed to take another look at what that original raw converter was doing.

Well, what it was doing was converting the raw data. My original assessment was indeed correct. So how does Silkypix manage to produce images with less distortion? Well, apparently it's doing silent distortion correction, though why it wouldn't do full distortion correction is another story (did Panasonic just give them their in-camera formula, which doesn't do full correction?).

At the moment I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Basically, I'm going to wait for more converters to handle the LX-3's raw files before making another adjustment to my article. However, I can say that I won't be using Silkypix as my raw converter for the camera. No way do I want the converter to do a partial distortion conversion and then apply my own distortion fix to the now far-from-what-was-in-the-file pixels. Repeated pixel-based handling is a good way of getting pixel mush and losing acuity. I was actually impressed with the raw files (despite the distortion) the first time around, less so when using the Silkypix conversion. We really need to get it drummed into camera makers' heads that raw means raw. Don't mess with the data. Let us choose how to mess with the data. That's why we shoot raw.

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/...party-lx3.html

Others have similarly processed LX3 RAW files using dcraw or Raw Photo Processor have corroborated that the true "raw" data reveals quite a bit of barrel distortion as well as a significant amount of purple fringing. This makes one wonder whether other third party RAW support is lagging because Panasonic is pressuring developers to address these lens shortcomings automatically, perhaps even in a concealed fashion. A provocative thread in the Adobe Lightroom support forum seems to suggest this. The following comments are excerpted from that thread, where Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan are both representing Adobe:

Eric Chan - 5:30am Oct 2, 08 PST (#14 of 25):
There is no support currently, official or unofficial, in CR 4.6 RC or LR 2.1 RC. This is regrettable, but an unfortunate consequence of the current situation. We hope to have this fully resolved soon. (Sorry, no, I cannot specify an exact date.)

No need to tell us that other raw converters already support the LX3. Believe me, we are fully aware of it. There is a very specific reason that CR / LR doesn't yet support the LX3. If you would like an explanation, please ask Panasonic.


I. Room - 5:34pm Oct 8, 08 PST (#18 of 25):
Eric, does the delay in supporting the LX3 have anything to do with Panasonic wanting Adobe to incorporate correction for barrel distortion? I have converted some RW2's with dcraw and was surprised at how much correction is happening both in the in-camera jpeg engine, and in SilkyPix as well (which, unfortunately, is hugely inferior to your products).


Thomas Knoll - 4:53am Oct 9, 08 PST (#19 of 25):
No comment...


I. Room - 5:48am Oct 9, 08 PST (#20 of 25):
I will take that as a yes... ;-)


Eric Chan - 6:52am Oct 9, 08 PST (#21 of 25):
Very interesting observation.


I'm interested to learn how C1 handles the D-LUX 4 files. Is there a resolution gain over the in-camera JPEGs? Are distortion and color fringing automatically addressed without option? It would be unfortunate if all the popular third party RAW applications were to impose mandatory corrections for distortion and color fringing. Such corrections require a loss of data, which in my opinion ought to be left as a decision for the photographer. After all, RAW is all about flexibility.

[odklizec]

I'm now testing LX3 against GX200 and I definitely agree that there should be an option to turn all "out-of-user-control" improvements OFF in SP. This is why I'm forced to use RAWTherapee for GX200/LX3 tests instead of SP. RAW should stay RAW and user should have a control over the development process. Just my two cents.

[deejjjaaaa]

Originally Posted by odklizec

I'm now testing LX3 against GX200 and I definitely agree that there should be an option to turn all "out-of-user-control" improvements OFF in SP. This is why I'm forced to use RAWTherapee for GX200/LX3 tests instead of SP. RAW should stay RAW and user should have a control over the development process. Just my two cents.

did you notice that SP (I have experience w/ 3.0.26.0) is worse than Rawtherapee (v2.4B2 now) in resolving details for LX3 raw files... generally w/ Pentax raw files SP can match RT, but it looks that for LX3 it is not the case... I just got a copy of LX3 yesterday and even w/ noise reduction zeroed in SP it still can't come close to RT

PS: is SP SE 3.0 shipped w/ LX3 the same as SP purchased off the shelf in terms of handling LX3 raw files ? I did not install the one that was on CD from LX3 box.

[odklizec]

I'm not sure it's worse. It's just different RT uses completely different demosaicing algorithm, which provides very good results. However, it doesn't work that good in all cases. But yes, on the pixel level, the RT images indeed look better, mainly because of visibly smaller color noise blotches. The question is, what other "hidden" processing does SP over the LX3 photos? We know about barrel distortion fix and I would not be surprised about color boost and chromatic aberration fix? All these "improvements" can have visible impact on resultant image.

[Iceblinker]

Is it just the version of Silkypix that comes with the camera that does the automatic distortion correction, etc, or does it happen with the downloaded version too for LX3 RAWs? If not the latter, then you know what to do!

RT and every other RAW program is not as nice to use as SP. The image quality would have to be really definitely beter to persuade me to jump ship. Nothing I've read anywhere has convinced me that's true for any of them yet.

[odklizec]

I'm using full version of SP and the automatic corrections are here too.

I also prefer SP over RT, mainly because of more controls and excellent color filters. However, I don't like these "out of control" automatic corrections. So RT/dcraw is currently the only option how to process truly RAW LX3 files.

[deejjjaaaa]

here is an example (ISO800)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...LI0800.RW2.HTM

look at the label w/ words "Pure Brewed" (forget about colors for a while, new version of dcraw is not yet in the latest version of RT)

RT 2.4B2 - HPHD demosaicing, RL deconvolution sharpening (all defaults), no noise reduction ::



now somebody - help me get the same level of details w/ SilkyPix - what parameters should I use to come close (again - look how the text "Pure Brewed" was resolved... lines inside the letters).

I played w/ SP - but was not able to come close, not w/ all noise reduction parameters set to 0 (which was always
helpful w/ Pentax raw files), not w/ Pure Details in Sharpening...

[Iceblinker]

Noise reduction at 0 and Pure Detail is good for revealing detail. If you want sharper, you may want to increase the sharpness level, and try various Demosaic Sharp settings.

Can post your best effort with Silkypix then? It would also be interesting to see an example from Silkypix with all default settings (including Normal Sharp).

It would help a lot to know exactly what you think is wrong with the Silkypix result - and we need to see the image for that.

Even better would be to upload the RAW file to a website if you can, so owe could download it and have a go.

[deejjjaaaa]

Originally Posted by Iceblinker

Noise reduction at 0 and Pure Detail is good for revealing detail. If you want sharper, you may want to increase the sharpness level, and try various Demosaic Sharp settings.

Can post your best effort with Silkypix then? It would also be interesting to see an example from Silkypix with all default settings (including Normal Sharp).

It would help a lot to know exactly what you think is wrong with the Silkypix result - and we need to see the image for that.

Even better would be to upload the RAW file to a website if you can, so owe could download it and have a go.

I have posted the link to the original raw file so that you can download it (click it = http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...LI0800.RW2.HTM) , I have posted the crop (1:1, 100%, no PP after RT - just cropping) from Rawtherapee... before I created this topic I did try various values for "demosaic sharp" from 70 to 100, I did reduce all noise reduction parameters in SilkyPix to zero, except "false color ctrl" (and for it I tried different values, including the default 30)... result is always the same - SP just can't resolve the details inside the letters as RT can... so that is why I am asking local SP gurus to beat the RT and post the parameters how did they manage to do this... who is up to the challenge ? I did not have any luck !

[deejjjaaaa]

here is the parameters for RT 2.4B2 from .PP2 file

[Version]
Version=231

[Exposure]
Auto=false
Clip=0.02
Compensation=0
Brightness=0.29999999999999999
Contrast=12
Black=691
HighlightCompr=100
ShadowCompr=100
Curve=1;0;0;1;1;

[Channel Mixer]
Red=100;0;0;
Green=0;100;0;
Blue=0;0;100;

[Luminance Curve]
Brightness=0
Contrast=0
Black=0
HighlightCompr=0
ShadowCompr=0
Curve=1;0;0;1;1;

[Sharpening]
Enabled=true
Method=rld
Radius=0.90000000000000002
Amount=135
Threshold=768
OnlyEdges=false
EdgedetectionRadius=1.8999999999999999
EdgeTolerance=1800
HalocontrolEnabled=false
HalocontrolAmount=85
DeconvRadius=0.75
DeconvAmount=75
DeconvDamping=20
DeconvIterations=30

[Color Boost]
ChannelA=85
ChannelB=85
AvoidColorClipping=true
SaturationLimiter=true
SaturationLimit=75

[White Balance]
Setting=Camera
Temperature=8266
Green=0.52600000000000002

[Color Shift]
ChannelA=0
ChannelB=0

[Luminance Denoising]
Enabled=false
Radius=2.5
EdgeTolerance=1500

[Chrominance Denoising]
Enabled=false
EdgeSensitive=false
Radius=2
EdgeTolerance=3500

[Shadows & Highlights]
Enabled=false
Highlights=10
HighlightTonalWidth=80
Shadows=10
ShadowTonalWidth=80
LocalContrast=0
Radius=30

[Crop]
Enabled=false
X=0
Y=0
W=3660
H=2746
FixedRatio=true
Ratio=3:2
Orientation=Landscape
Guide=None

[Coarse Transformation]
Rotate=0
HorizontalFlip=false
VerticalFlip=false

[Rotation]
Degree=0
Fill=1

[Distortion]
Amount=0

[CACorrection]
Red=0
Blue=0

[Vignetting Correction]
Amount=0
Radius=50

[HLRecovery]
Enabled=true
Method=CIELab blending

[Resize]
Scale=1
Method=Bicubic

[Color Management]
InputProfile=(camera)
ApplyGammaBeforeInputProfile=false
WorkingProfile=ProPhoto
OutputProfile=ProPhoto