Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Sony A700 - cRAW - clarifications?

Permanently deleted user
Hi,

luckily the issue about WB was promptly answered by PhaseOne / Jon Gilbert .

Now I'd like to know if we can obtain some information from PhaseOne whether there are plans to solve the conversion problems occuring with cRAW files from the A700 (I don't know if this actually is true too for the recent cameras A200, A300 and A350) in C1 V4.01 in a near future. Or at least some generic information what are the reason for the problems.

I'm aware that there exists the "detour" via DNG but I don't consider this a satisfying solution on the long run.

Cheers,
Michael Fritzen
0

Comments

5 comments

Date Votes
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi,

    in addition to the issue mentioned in the earlier post I did some testing to compare ARW (uncompressed) with the same uncompressed ARW converted to DNG and then opened in C1V4.01.

    The following image shows a screenshot of two identical photos, no corrections applied, left ARW (uncompressed) and right DNG (converted from uncompressed ARW).



    As can be seen easily, the left is much clearer and less contrasty. To get it to correct exposure it needs some negative correction. The right one needs some positive exposure compensation to get it right. From what I know applying a (slight) negative correction means that in-camera exposure was "to the right" and image will benefit showing less noise. Am I right. OTOH, the need of a positive for the DNG version means, in tendency, that the final image probably will have noise level increased. I would appreciate comments on this, especially from Phase One staff.

    Another point calls my attention when doing the testing: interestingly the ARW file (left) informs WB values of 7546K and Tint 10. The DNG file OTOH informs 4674K and Tint 11. Really weird. So values seem to be really uncomparable among conversion software, no reference.

    Cheers,
    Michael Fritzen
    http://www.zoto.com/mfritzen/img/463x463x0/63ae888f040066d6861219a18ba91c17.jpg
    0
  • Bernd1
    Hi,

    I tried a similar comparison and I personally prefer the DNG (with A700 profile assigned) over the ARW- colours are more vivid and contrast is higher, perhaps you increase noise, but it's worth it, I would say.

    In any case a native cRAW support is due.
    I also remember when 3.7. something added support for the A100: the profiles changed somewhat in later releases, so perhaps PhaseOne will also change the A700 profiles.
    ARWs look very muted and boring to date.

    regards,
    Bernd
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi Bernd,

    I fully agree that A700's RAW files opened in C1V401 look by default somewhat dull, almost boring. Yet my finding is that the images come to life if applying contrast a colour saturation in an amount I wouldn't have used before in the beta versions and for A100's files. Almost every of my A700 files needs a negative exposure compensation whereas A100's files needed generally a positive compensation. Up to know I did no further testing whether noise levels of the A700's files benefit from the negative compensation or not. At least worse they shouldn't get. The question is obviously whether there's a certain shift of default camera profile should be introduced in an upcoming update as first impression of some images may be quite disappointing due to the flat inicial look.

    So far I'm maintaining the full RAW route not using anymore cRAW.

    Cheers,
    Michael Fritzen
    0
  • Bernd1
    [quote="Michael Fritzen" wrote:
    Hi Bernd,

    I fully agree that A700's RAW files opened in C1V401 look by default somewhat dull, almost boring. Yet my finding is that the images come to life if applying contrast a colour saturation in an amount I wouldn't have used before in the beta versions and for A100's files. Almost every of my A700 files needs a negative exposure compensation whereas A100's files needed generally a positive compensation. Up to know I did no further testing whether noise levels of the A700's files benefit from the negative compensation or not. At least worse they shouldn't get. The question is obviously whether there's a certain shift of default camera profile should be introduced in an upcoming update as first impression of some images may be quite disappointing due to the flat inicial look.

    So far I'm maintaining the full RAW route not using anymore cRAW.

    Cheers,
    Michael Fritzen



    Hi Michael,

    it will remain interesting to see of C1 will change the A700 profile.
    I'm still not entirely sure if C1 applies an A700 profile to ARWs or not-
    DNGs look also pretty flat until you apply the A700 profile.
    I remember that the A100 profile was also improved from 3.7.6. to 3.7.7 (or so).
    regards
    Bernd
    P.S: Are you German BTW ? You got a pretty German sounding name for a Brazilian
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi Bernd,

    actually I am German - but even if not you shouldn't be surprised with german sounding names in the south of Brazil what is where I live as there are quite a lot of settlements (most dating from the middle of 19th century) of german immigrants. For this reason blond hair, blue eyes besides of german sounding names are quite frequent. The city where I live is Blumenau in the Santa Catarina State. There are settlements founded by austrain immigrants too being a well known the city of Fraiburgo located in the "Serra" about 250km west from Blumenau (which is close to the coast).

    Cheers,
    Michael Fritzen
    0

Post is closed for comments.