Thanks again for the information. So except for the difference in size in one case the gamma correction and some other processes occurs when the tiff is created (with dcraw_process() ) and dcraw_make_mem_image() really produces the final processed pixel data.
Alright thank you. So no easy way except using an external library then. Also I wanted to ask. What exactly is the difference between the RawProcessor.imgdata.image pointer obtained after dcraw_process() and dcraw_make_mem_image(). Is there a memory copy done or is it the same pointer ?
Use LibRaw::dcraw_make_mem_image(): https://www.libraw.org/docs/API-CXX.html#dcraw_make_mem_image to create in-memory RGB data array, than write it to preferred file format (e.g. tiff) using preferred library (e.g. libtiff) with preferred options.
Libraw just delivers decoded raw data to prosessing application. Processing (e.g. demosaicing, white balancing, channel mixing, etc, while demosaicing is not needed for Foveon data) is performed in calling application (e.g. Affinity).
LibRaw contains some postprocessing code (derived from dcraw), it is not intended to use in any professional-level application, this is mostly 'proof of concept'. We do not have any plans to change LibRaw postprocessing code.
In the interim, and for the sake of progress, I will assume that the LibRaw library permits opening an X3F file from the indicated cameras, and provides Affinity the option to request linear or log brightness levels for each RGB channel, including the ability to not apply any demosaicing, sharpening or noise-removal.
That would explain how assembling a 'monochrome' image is entirely up to the raw developer.
In the only descriptive observation I have been able to obtain, Affinity indicated that
"...following one of your previous forum posts, and according to `LibRAW`, your images are colour images.". With no other elaboration, they have confirmed that they know exactly what the problem is.
I will ask Affinity to reach out again.
Much appreciated.
I'm just a user stuck with a long-outstanding issue, trying to be as supportive as possible to reach a resolution, even if that's a kluge I need to incorporate. I will do whatever it takes (short of changing the camera system, or having to use LightRoom). I haven't gotten anywhere in a frustratingly long time. Anything constructive you can provide will be hugely appreciated.
Thanks!
This whole thing doesn't look right. Raw converter developers are supposed to open an issue with us if there is a bug in libraw raw data decoding. I don't see such an issue re Sigma, including opened by the Affinity team. That means the ball is in their court.
Your request doesn't make it clear what needs to be fixed on our side. We deliver the raw data, the rest is up to the raw converter programmers.
deejjjaaaa: yes, you're right, that link was one of about 20+ ongoing posts since December 2019 on the Affinity Photo support forum.
Alex: I apologize, as I can only trust what the authoritative people each tell me, and Affinity (as clearly as they seem to be able to) say they have escalated this to LibRaw, and that it is a LibRaw issue, having nothing to do with them. Pretty well the same as LibRaw feels it is not in their power to remedy this, but rather Affinity's.
Since I seem to have a "he said - he said' issue, would you be kind enough to provide any constructive steps to isolate whom I can work with to resolve this?
There's a good number of users for these 5 cameras with the same issues, and since this sensor's image processing works similarly to prior models, it might hopefully be something reproducible. I've lost nearly a year and a half unsuccessfully trying to obtain support on this one issue from Affinity, so anything that 'moves the needle forward' will be hugely appreciated!
Please also note that LibRaw will typically scale your raw values between the black and white levels during the linearization step (e.g. 65535*(x - black)/(white-black)), so you might get larger values even for gamma=1.0.
Unfortunately I found that if you set no_auto_scale as well to disable this, you also kill LibRaw's white balance for some reason, which is typically not good for the demosaicing step, see https://github.com/letmaik/rawpy/issues/101
I can’t understand what kind of additional support you require from our library.
LibRaw provides access to RAW data for calling application (e.g. Affinity). Calling application is responsible for this data interpretation and processing (e.g. channel mixing if one want to treat Foveon image as BW).
I think I found the issue (mix of versions in my lib folder). Sorry for that.
Sorry to ask you that but do you have any idea about the date of the next stable release ?
Thanks again for the information. So except for the difference in size in one case the gamma correction and some other processes occurs when the tiff is created (with dcraw_process() ) and dcraw_make_mem_image() really produces the final processed pixel data.
imgdata.image is 4-component (per pixel) array: https://www.libraw.org/docs/API-datastruct.html#libraw_data_t
dcraw_make_mem_image will create 3-component (and gamma corrected) array): https://www.libraw.org/docs/API-datastruct.html#libraw_processed_image_t
(I also suggest to read docs and samples source code)
Alright thank you. So no easy way except using an external library then. Also I wanted to ask. What exactly is the difference between the RawProcessor.imgdata.image pointer obtained after dcraw_process() and dcraw_make_mem_image(). Is there a memory copy done or is it the same pointer ?
LibRaw' tiff writer is very simplified.
Use LibRaw::dcraw_make_mem_image(): https://www.libraw.org/docs/API-CXX.html#dcraw_make_mem_image to create in-memory RGB data array, than write it to preferred file format (e.g. tiff) using preferred library (e.g. libtiff) with preferred options.
Libraw just delivers decoded raw data to prosessing application. Processing (e.g. demosaicing, white balancing, channel mixing, etc, while demosaicing is not needed for Foveon data) is performed in calling application (e.g. Affinity).
LibRaw contains some postprocessing code (derived from dcraw), it is not intended to use in any professional-level application, this is mostly 'proof of concept'. We do not have any plans to change LibRaw postprocessing code.
Your demarcation is essentially correct.
Thanks again, Iliah.
In the interim, and for the sake of progress, I will assume that the LibRaw library permits opening an X3F file from the indicated cameras, and provides Affinity the option to request linear or log brightness levels for each RGB channel, including the ability to not apply any demosaicing, sharpening or noise-removal.
That would explain how assembling a 'monochrome' image is entirely up to the raw developer.
In the only descriptive observation I have been able to obtain, Affinity indicated that
"...following one of your previous forum posts, and according to `LibRAW`, your images are colour images.". With no other elaboration, they have confirmed that they know exactly what the problem is.
I will ask Affinity to reach out again.
Much appreciated.
I see. Thank you very much.
IIQ S is not (publicly) documented and not reverse engineered (at least, there is no any opensource decoders).
We do not expect IIQ S support in foreseeable future.
Dear Sir:
Without clear communication from Affinity we can't help, I'm afraid. We simply don't understand the issue they are having.
Again, my apologies Iliah.
I'm just a user stuck with a long-outstanding issue, trying to be as supportive as possible to reach a resolution, even if that's a kluge I need to incorporate. I will do whatever it takes (short of changing the camera system, or having to use LightRoom). I haven't gotten anywhere in a frustratingly long time. Anything constructive you can provide will be hugely appreciated.
Thanks!
There are two options for (no) auto-scaling:
1) params.no_auto_bright - disables ETTR(-like) automated brightness correction, entire image is scaled to 65535/(metadata_derived_maximum-black) instead of 65535/(real_data_max_by_histogram - black).
2) params.no_auto_scale - disables entire scale_colors() call (for example, to get not modified data in image array).
Second case is special use (e.g. someone may want to do own interpolation via callback and want to see unchanged data on this step).
In (normal) processing case scaling is significant to get same scaled data from all different sensor bit-counts.
This whole thing doesn't look right. Raw converter developers are supposed to open an issue with us if there is a bug in libraw raw data decoding. I don't see such an issue re Sigma, including opened by the Affinity team. That means the ball is in their court.
Your request doesn't make it clear what needs to be fixed on our side. We deliver the raw data, the rest is up to the raw converter programmers.
deejjjaaaa: yes, you're right, that link was one of about 20+ ongoing posts since December 2019 on the Affinity Photo support forum.
Alex: I apologize, as I can only trust what the authoritative people each tell me, and Affinity (as clearly as they seem to be able to) say they have escalated this to LibRaw, and that it is a LibRaw issue, having nothing to do with them. Pretty well the same as LibRaw feels it is not in their power to remedy this, but rather Affinity's.
Since I seem to have a "he said - he said' issue, would you be kind enough to provide any constructive steps to isolate whom I can work with to resolve this?
There's a good number of users for these 5 cameras with the same issues, and since this sensor's image processing works similarly to prior models, it might hopefully be something reproducible. I've lost nearly a year and a half unsuccessfully trying to obtain support on this one issue from Affinity, so anything that 'moves the needle forward' will be hugely appreciated!
All my best,
DLJ
Please also note that LibRaw will typically scale your raw values between the black and white levels during the linearization step (e.g. 65535*(x - black)/(white-black)), so you might get larger values even for gamma=1.0.
Unfortunately I found that if you set no_auto_scale as well to disable this, you also kill LibRaw's white balance for some reason, which is typically not good for the demosaicing step, see https://github.com/letmaik/rawpy/issues/101
dcraw_ppm_tiff_writer() applies gamma curve on write (imgdata.image[] is linear, while output is usually not).
To set gamma curve to linear use
imgdata.params.gamm[0] = imgdata.params.gamm[1] = 1.0;
Thanx.
I still do not see anything that should be *fixed* on our side (hope Affinity postprocessing is own, not demo code provided by our library)
I think he refers to this thread = https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/93631-outstanding-bw-o...
Also, you wrote:
> This issue was escalated to the LibRaw dev team by the Affinity (Serif) devs about a year ago
Sure? Never heard of something like this
I can’t understand what kind of additional support you require from our library.
LibRaw provides access to RAW data for calling application (e.g. Affinity). Calling application is responsible for this data interpretation and processing (e.g. channel mixing if one want to treat Foveon image as BW).
That's right.
But package are built only on stable release :).
Cheers,
current master is stable enough for production usage.
I think I found the issue (mix of versions in my lib folder). Sorry for that.
Sorry to ask you that but do you have any idea about the date of the next stable release ?
Cheers,
I also have a good tiff file.
But for a reason a I don't understand, libraw_open_file returns an error.
OK thanks. I've no doubt the issue is on my system then, thank you so much.
Stay safe,
Cyril
I recloned the git repo.
I wrote:
printf("version: %s\n", LIBRAW_VERSION_STR);
return(libraw_open_file(rawdata, name));
And I have:
version: 0.20.0-WorkInProgress
Error in libraw Unsupported file format or not RAW file
I need to investigate then.
Pages