Hi from Argentina!
Working with Canon RAW (CR2) of T3i, 600D or higher, I found that XnView batch convert to TIFF uncompressed, lost the - "native filter "? - of sharpness. That is, RAW images opened in XnView have perfect focus (or, al least, the better has been obtained in the shot), but its derivative in TIFF is clearly "wrong focus" or blurred. Of course, after much testing, we discovered that the problem is not the focus, because the picture is the same and the open raw (which is a tiff at that moment, right?) looks properly. Since I am not an expert of digital imaging, I did some tests to rule out causes and find some direction to solve this. I Work in digitizing text, sharpness is a vital factor.
- First, as I mentioned before, I found the TIFF saved individually, that is, one by one, fully they retain the look of RAW, unlike what happens when we use batch conversion. (all in XnView)
- Second, I tried batch convert using the camera manufacturer's software (Canon Digital Photo Professional) and got good TIFF (same as raw), but twice weight (> 100Mb from a 25Mb RAW). Then applying a batch with XnView on these files and reweighed half, retaining their sharpness.
- Third, the images derived from the DPP are 48 bits, unlike that usually handle converting from XnView (therefore weigh twice) that are 24 (8 bits p/c, RGB).
I get 2 conclusions:
1 - On the one hand I have the certainty that I'm losing a lot of information to use XnView batch convert (or XnConvert) since, in effect, does not support 16 bits per channel. Anyway, it's not my main concern, the -world of text-scanning tends contrast, even the binarization of images. So far, we can work well with 24-bit TIFF as they are sharp. But I fear that there is some connection between this and the second conclusion.
2 - (In the o h) At first, I thought maybe it was a matter of patents or rights or whatever, and that XnView did not have the complete code to convert a RAW to TIFF. Perhaps the sharpness value that is assigned to the camera while shooting, is metadata information somewhere in the file, that XnView not read. But then I think that if you can do when you open files individually, does not seem to be this.
in short, I ask for help about these doubts. We are very pleased with XnView and all its functions, it would be really cumbersome to have to include another workflow software for an intermediate step. But above all, I believe that Xn lacks nothing except this, and it saddens me. There is some reason to be so? Is there any solution? I do not know anything and therefore I am not applying?
I apologize for my English, I did my best (with a little help from G-T). I hope you can answer.
Of course, thank you very much and greetings!
- Nacho
Differences between RAW to TIFF batch conv vs. saving o-b-o
Moderators: helmut, XnTriq, xnview
Re: Differences between RAW to TIFF batch conv vs. saving o-
If the RAW files are sharp when opened in XnView software then the files are being read correctly, there should be no relevant information lost other than that due to the conversion from 48-bit to 24-bit, which you say has not visibly degraded the image quality.
If files saved individually as TIFFs are sharp but files saved as TIFFs after batch conversion are not sharp, the most obvious explanation would seem to be that the files saved after batch conversion are being saved with a different setting, or different settings. The TIFF format supports several possible compression options, but all are lossless except for the JPEG option which has a selectable quality setting. Saving with JPEG compression selected normally results in much lower file sizes, but can certainly also result in a lower quality image particularly as the compression level is increased.
However, if you are saving using the same software without changing the 'Options' settings in the Save diaglog, it isn't immediately obvious at first sight how the files could be saved with different settings. Note that in XnViewMP the save settings are located in File > Format settings rather than in the save dialog.
If possible, could you examine the file properties of directly saved and batch converted files to see if you can see the compression method used and possibly identify a difference, or in any other parameter? The files are all saved as 24-bit depth rather than 8-bit or 1-bit depth?
If you are unable to identify a difference in the saved file properties, and you have or can create example files that illustrate the issue and are small enough to upload to the forum (currently 2MiB maximum) or to a file hosting service, could you please upload them for examination.
[Last edited at 18:15 Central European Time UTC + 01:00].
If files saved individually as TIFFs are sharp but files saved as TIFFs after batch conversion are not sharp, the most obvious explanation would seem to be that the files saved after batch conversion are being saved with a different setting, or different settings. The TIFF format supports several possible compression options, but all are lossless except for the JPEG option which has a selectable quality setting. Saving with JPEG compression selected normally results in much lower file sizes, but can certainly also result in a lower quality image particularly as the compression level is increased.
However, if you are saving using the same software without changing the 'Options' settings in the Save diaglog, it isn't immediately obvious at first sight how the files could be saved with different settings. Note that in XnViewMP the save settings are located in File > Format settings rather than in the save dialog.
If possible, could you examine the file properties of directly saved and batch converted files to see if you can see the compression method used and possibly identify a difference, or in any other parameter? The files are all saved as 24-bit depth rather than 8-bit or 1-bit depth?
If you are unable to identify a difference in the saved file properties, and you have or can create example files that illustrate the issue and are small enough to upload to the forum (currently 2MiB maximum) or to a file hosting service, could you please upload them for examination.
[Last edited at 18:15 Central European Time UTC + 01:00].
Re: Differences between RAW to TIFF batch conv vs. saving o-
Thanks cday for the quick reply. I could not keep this in the last days.
I can prepare some screenshots these days if necessary , but I understand the point and I can say that I had already reviewed these "details".
All TIFF I mentioned are decompressed . I also think that the XnView is able to read correctly , it is what I see when I open the raw individually. I also checked at the bit depth and are all 24. There is not a problem of compression or configuration , I have thoroughly reviewed in the program options (which , moreover , are clear and accessible , in terms of menus ; read / write for each file type . Nor has to do with " how I am asking you to read the RAW XnView " .
I recently worked with raw derived from a Mark III and I'm not sure if here the effect is so notorious , I will review it , but I can assure you that files coming from - Canon 60D or T3i or 600D , this problem happens. Batch conversion generates files ( 24-bit, uncompressed ) different from those that can be saved individually ( 24-bit, uncompressed ) from opening RAW.
I encourage anyone who can to try a couple of images (actually , you only have to use the batch conversion tool lower (Ctrl -U) with a single image and the result is the same) . Perhaps, if he wanted to show the whole process, you should make a video instead of screenshots.
anyway:
As can be seen , the batch tiff Cambois has the option of proposing the reading of camera RAW , however , I have tried off and change values and always get the same result
Note in the latter capture the white border around the letters (which I understand is a kind of native sharpening filter of camera ) that is not in the image coming from batch.
And, again , I assure you , is not a problem of automatic brightness or options of RAW reading , or , in any case, if it is, but I can not change it!
I have nothing more to say. So, I waiting for a response .
Thank you very much for your support and interest!
I can prepare some screenshots these days if necessary , but I understand the point and I can say that I had already reviewed these "details".
All TIFF I mentioned are decompressed . I also think that the XnView is able to read correctly , it is what I see when I open the raw individually. I also checked at the bit depth and are all 24. There is not a problem of compression or configuration , I have thoroughly reviewed in the program options (which , moreover , are clear and accessible , in terms of menus ; read / write for each file type . Nor has to do with " how I am asking you to read the RAW XnView " .
I recently worked with raw derived from a Mark III and I'm not sure if here the effect is so notorious , I will review it , but I can assure you that files coming from - Canon 60D or T3i or 600D , this problem happens. Batch conversion generates files ( 24-bit, uncompressed ) different from those that can be saved individually ( 24-bit, uncompressed ) from opening RAW.
I encourage anyone who can to try a couple of images (actually , you only have to use the batch conversion tool lower (Ctrl -U) with a single image and the result is the same) . Perhaps, if he wanted to show the whole process, you should make a video instead of screenshots.
anyway:
As can be seen , the batch tiff Cambois has the option of proposing the reading of camera RAW , however , I have tried off and change values and always get the same result
Note in the latter capture the white border around the letters (which I understand is a kind of native sharpening filter of camera ) that is not in the image coming from batch.
And, again , I assure you , is not a problem of automatic brightness or options of RAW reading , or , in any case, if it is, but I can not change it!
I have nothing more to say. So, I waiting for a response .
Thank you very much for your support and interest!