Prev: Steven McCurry's camera and film
Next: Ten most important photos every photography student should be familiar with
From: none on 17 May 2007 09:49
Hi ~

I have a kodak camera, P 850. (which I've outgrown).
Is the kodak software better than dcraw or ufraw to decode raw .KDC files?

Since I live with the penguins in linux-land, I have no idea of how the
bundled software compares to dcraw for decoding the proprietary raw
formats.
The camera's thumbnail might look crisp, but after a dcraw conversion
(to ppm=Portable PixMap ) the image shows lots of noise - in poor light
conditions - like a moon shot, or night landscape. I've tried tweaking
various parameters during the raw conversion, black level, brightness,
etc, and post image tweaks.

In decent light and proper settings, dcraw does a fine job from either
the command line or gimp plugin.
for some reason ufraw (with gimp) does a horrible job with KDC's, even
in the best of conditions.

I'm not sure which decoder ShowPhoto uses, but it decodes fairly well
and it extracts more meta info than dcraw.




From: Alex Monro on 18 May 2007 05:54
none wrote:

> Hi ~
>
> I have a kodak camera, P 850. (which I've outgrown).
> Is the kodak software better than dcraw or ufraw to decode raw .KDC files?
>
> Since I live with the penguins in linux-land, I have no idea of how the
> bundled software compares to dcraw for decoding the proprietary raw
> formats.
> The camera's thumbnail might look crisp, but after a dcraw conversion
> (to ppm=Portable PixMap ) the image shows lots of noise - in poor light
> conditions - like a moon shot, or night landscape. I've tried tweaking
> various parameters during the raw conversion, black level, brightness,
> etc, and post image tweaks.
>
If you're using any form of auto mode, the camera probably boosts the
ISO in low light, and as with any small sensor camera, this is going to
give you noise. Try forcing low ISO (50 or 100) for some low light
shots (on a tripod!) and see how you get on with dcraw then.

I would expect noise to show up more in shadow areas anyway.

It's possible that the in camera jpg processing does noise reduction,
but this tends to blur details anyway.

From: ray on 21 May 2007 15:27
On Thu, 17 May 2007 09:49:10 -0400, none wrote:

> Hi ~
>
> I have a kodak camera, P 850. (which I've outgrown).
> Is the kodak software better than dcraw or ufraw to decode raw .KDC files?
>
> Since I live with the penguins in linux-land, I have no idea of how the
> bundled software compares to dcraw for decoding the proprietary raw
> formats.
> The camera's thumbnail might look crisp, but after a dcraw conversion
> (to ppm=Portable PixMap ) the image shows lots of noise - in poor light
> conditions - like a moon shot, or night landscape. I've tried tweaking
> various parameters during the raw conversion, black level, brightness,
> etc, and post image tweaks.
>
> In decent light and proper settings, dcraw does a fine job from either
> the command line or gimp plugin.
> for some reason ufraw (with gimp) does a horrible job with KDC's, even
> in the best of conditions.
>
> I'm not sure which decoder ShowPhoto uses, but it decodes fairly well
> and it extracts more meta info than dcraw.

I've been getting excellent results with ufraw on my ubuntu laptop and
tower from my P850. I hope to have some posted soon.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Steven McCurry's camera and film
Next: Ten most important photos every photography student should be familiar with