Author Topic: XMP vs UFR  (Read 3558 times)

painya

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • 6d 50d 550d 5dc
XMP vs UFR
« on: October 30, 2013, 05:51:50 AM »
Just thought I'd get a thread going with people sharing what they preferred, and who does what.
Good footage doesn't make a story any better.

Marsu42

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • 66d + flashes
Re: XMP vs UFR
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2013, 07:32:11 AM »
I'm using xmp, but even if alex is the only one with ufraw I'm in favor of defaulting to open source software in ML (a similar thread here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9078.msg85754;topicseen#msg85754)

RenatoPhoto

  • Moderators
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
  • 5DM3 / 7D
Re: XMP vs UFR
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2013, 12:09:54 PM »
I use xmp.
http://www.pululahuahostal.com  |  EF 300 f/4, EF 100-400 L, EF 180 L, EF-S 10-22, Samyang 14mm, Sigma 28mm EX DG, Sigma 8mm 1:3.5 EX DG, EF 50mm 1:1.8 II, EF 1.4X II, Kenko C-AF 2X

dmilligan

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3217
  • 60Da / 1100D / EOSM
Re: XMP vs UFR
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2013, 01:24:12 PM »
I use an xmp based workflow, but I'm now doing deflickering in post with this script I wrote, rather than in camera with ML. It uses basically the same algorithm as ML post deflicker, but has a little more flexibility since you're doing it in post (you can run it again with different settings, don't have to worry about missed frames b/c your interval was too short, etc.)

I'm using xmp, but even if alex is the only one with ufraw I'm in favor of defaulting to open source software in ML (a similar thread here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9078.msg85754;topicseen#msg85754)
If you want to get technical, even though XMP is going to be typically utilized by users of comercial software (ACR/Lr) and UFR used by those using open source, XMP itself is an open standard (ISO 16684-1). IDK if the same can be said of the UFR format. Adobe has also released the code for their XMP Toolkit under a BSD license.

That being said, I don't really care which is the default, I don't think it's a big deal, and this should be removed from ML anyway once post tools to replace it are complete (I've tried to do my part on that!), since this is something that should be done in post not in camera.

glubber

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • 550D
Re: XMP vs UFR
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2013, 01:35:47 PM »
I voted for ufraw but use both.
If its gonna be tricky like day/night timelpases i use XMP/exiftool/Lightroom.
If it should get a simple timelapse with no light canges, i use ufraw coz its way faster then LR.
EOS 550D // Sigma 18-200 // Sigma 18-70 // Canon 10-18 STM

LinuxGadget

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: XMP vs UFR
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2013, 10:04:07 PM »
xmp for me.

painya

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • 6d 50d 550d 5dc
Re: XMP vs UFR
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2013, 01:32:19 AM »
I'm using xmp, but even if alex is the only one with ufraw I'm in favor of defaulting to open source software in ML (a similar thread here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9078.msg85754;topicseen#msg85754)
He's a developer (so it's ultimately up to him) and I wasn't trying to make a point on what should be default, sorry if it came off that way.
Good footage doesn't make a story any better.