Automask feature and raf files
Any timeframe for adding auto mask feature to process .raf files?
0
-
No ETA's are communicated from Phase One.
The files are still in Preliminary support and we hope to accommodate full support in the near future.0 -
What do you consider "near future"? This thread is over a year old and still not Automask for raf files. 0 -
Automask should not be programmatically dependent on the raw file type anyway. I really do worry about Phases ability to write software. They really should invest in development and get CO re-written into something stable, performant and less buggy. Maybe that is happening already with CO v8 and that would explain why V7 is getting so little attention. 0 -
[quote="timtodd" wrote:
What do you consider "near future"? This thread is over a year old and still not Automask for raf files.
And this is still the answer:No ETA's are communicated from Phase One.
0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
Automask should not be programmatically dependent on the raw file type anyway.
You know that? Or are you making an assumption?
Or maybe Phase One is deliberately doing this to spite Fuji users...
(Seriously, SB - isn't it far more likely that there's going to be a very good reason for the delay?)[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
that would explain why V7 is getting so little attention.
Really? There's just been a release 7.2.3. Not a ton of stuff in it admittedly, but it's still v7 "getting attention"...0 -
I'm making an assumption base on my own programming experiences of several decades.
I stand by my other comment as PO have really not addressed any of the issues people have been talking about for the past 12 months.0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
Automask should not be programmatically dependent on the raw file type anyway. I really do worry about Phases ability to write software. They really should invest in development and get CO re-written into something stable, performant and less buggy. Maybe that is happening already with CO v8 and that would explain why V7 is getting so little attention.
Let me explain the issue of automasking with raf-files for you: For performance reasons, a bayer-pipeline is used for the calculating the edges for the auto-mask. As the Xtrans files are not Bayer-pattern (but Xtrans, obviously), auto-masking will not work on the Xtrans-pattern.
You now know it is not up to the file-extensions, but fundamental differences in the raw-data (same goes for canons mraw and sraw).0 -
My point exactly, as a developer you would not calculate the mask on the bayer pipeline, you would do it later on with bit/vector mapped data so that it could be used on any raw file without re-coding over and over.
To be fair though I have no idea why you want to do it at such an early stage in the pipeline, maybe you guys have your reasons, I don't think anyone else does it this way though as it just makes more work.0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
My point exactly, as a developer you would not calculate the mask on the bayer pipeline, you would do it later on with bit/vector mapped data so that it could be used on any raw file without re-coding over and over.
To be fair though I have no idea why you want to do it at such an early stage in the pipeline, maybe you guys have your reasons, I don't think anyone else does it this way though as it just makes more work.
As I said, performance reasons. With your background you also know that making something general (adding model layers) usually affects performance in a negative way.0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
9件のコメント