Author Topic: [RAW2DNG] BATCHelor 3.0 Alpha 3 (Read 146370 times)

fatpig · « **Reply #75 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:23:34 AM »

@dandeliondandy:
can you post the exact filenames of your input files (or one, at least) and what you typed in the rename box?
I will try to reconstruct the issue.

@hjfilmspeed:
maybe send me a PM with comparison pictures as to what exactly you think is better in ACR results than resolve?

fatpig · « **Reply #76 on:** June 28, 2013, 10:11:33 PM »

hey guys, i just realized I left a really annoying popup window in the code which prevents your cineform conversions from running all the way through.

Please download the 2.3 Beta again, I fixed it!

1% · « **Reply #77 on:** June 28, 2013, 10:20:15 PM »

Quick, why is your raw2dng 2 months old? dcraw from 2011 and cjpeg from 2002!

fatpig · « **Reply #78 on:** June 28, 2013, 10:31:44 PM »

I did not keep up with updating those.
Is there a good reason to update?
I never had any problems.

I dont want to provoke problems through syntax change in new versions, if there is no benefit I know of

1% · « **Reply #79 on:** June 29, 2013, 06:23:39 PM »

Raw2dng had a bunch of noise removal changes, etc. DCraw @ cjpeg probably have other fixes from years of development.

fatpig · « **Reply #80 on:** June 30, 2013, 07:23:52 PM »

You are probably right, as for DCRaw and cjpeg, this were the only builds I was able to find.
As for Raw2dng - okay I get it.
I am still hoping to switch to raw2cdng entirely because the ACR Workflow is not really suitable for any serious work, wouldn't you agree?

fatpig · « **Reply #81 on:** July 01, 2013, 05:50:10 PM »

fixed another bug just now, cineform files had wrong blacklevel set.
still version 2.3 though, same link.

1% · « **Reply #82 on:** July 01, 2013, 06:43:45 PM »

I've had fun with raw2cdng... the 12 bit saves some space. I dunno what your compression methods do/are so I'm unsure if I can use them.

I've used both ACR workflows.. just lower the processes version and have tried straight to video workflows which don't seem to work as well for some cameras. DNG or CDNG doesn't really matter, you'll have to use ACR anyway. Does it not do expo shifts on CDNG?

I found newer versions of both files and used those, still seems to work.

Northernlight · « **Reply #83 on:** July 01, 2013, 10:42:52 PM »

Quote from: fatpig on June 30, 2013, 07:23:52 PM

You are probably right, as for DCRaw and cjpeg, this were the only builds I was able to find.
As for Raw2dng - okay I get it.
I am still hoping to switch to raw2cdng entirely because the ACR Workflow is not really suitable for any serious work, wouldn't you agree?

As long as the demosaicing/debayering done from ACR is FAR superior to any other debayering process/software currently available, I can not understand what you mean with "ACR workflow not being suitable for any serious work".

I will not choose convenience over image quality, NEVER !

fatpig · « **Reply #84 on:** July 02, 2013, 11:06:47 AM »

@1%:
my compression is simply adobe's lossy and lossless DNG compression through their own DNG Converter, you have to install it first, of course.

@Northernlight:
I think Resolve is used in many serious productions for a reason.
I think it delivers outstanding results. And the speed increase is a nice side effect.
Add a 3D LUT and good to go...

Danne · « **Reply #85 on:** July 02, 2013, 03:54:45 PM »

Quote from: Northernlight on July 01, 2013, 10:42:52 PM

As long as the demosaicing/debayering done from ACR is FAR superior to any other debayering process/software currently available, I can not understand what you mean with "ACR workflow not being suitable for any serious work".

I will not choose convenience over image quality, NEVER !

I agree on that one. I cannot get that photographic raw look in my dng,s from anywhere but in acr. Too bad though, would be so nice to go straight into editing. For now it seems that going through dynamic link into after effects from premiere is the fastest way to get into acr module via proxyediting

fatpig · « **Reply #86 on:** July 02, 2013, 04:26:55 PM »

Yes of course, if you want to get that photographic look, ACR is the best option out there for sure.

@1%: maybe you can link me those newer versions you found, then I will include them in the next release.

platu · « **Reply #87 on:** July 03, 2013, 09:04:19 PM »

Quote from: Northernlight on July 01, 2013, 10:42:52 PM

As long as the demosaicing/debayering done from ACR is FAR superior to any other debayering process/software currently available, I can not understand what you mean with "ACR workflow not being suitable for any serious work".

I will not choose convenience over image quality, NEVER !

Agree completely with this. I like everyone else, am looking for a faster workflow, but the difference in debayering quality is quite significant and no other workflow method seems to provide the level of quality ACR attains. Sigh

hjfilmspeed · « **Reply #88 on:** July 04, 2013, 03:58:54 PM »

I have even tried this: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6845.0 for better sharpening in resolve and i still cant get it to match the nice organic sharpening you get with ACR. For some reason when i sharpen with resolve i get this artifacty sharpness and with ACR i get nice grain like sharpness. This is not to say that cdng is bad because it works well in both programs. Also im sure we will see more cinema dng support in the near future too. it would be a lot easier to work with resolve but im still stuck on ACR quality.

fatpig · « **Reply #89 on:** July 04, 2013, 07:54:53 PM »

why not open a thread about it or post something here so I can see what really makes the difference for you. I am curious.

post a comparison for everyone to see.

hjfilmspeed · « **Reply #90 on:** July 05, 2013, 04:32:51 AM »

Your right i should start another thread Im sorry if it was off topic. I think your converter is great! cinemaDNG and DNG look amazing in ARC. Its definitely not your converter. Your converter has worked reliably for me for all of your versions thus far. Im thinking maybe just add cinemaDNG to the options as ive noticed a tad more color in the normal cdng sequence in ACR. I will post my resolve tests in another post to keep yours free of my jibber jabber.

dirtcastle · « **Reply #91 on:** July 06, 2013, 02:18:36 AM »

Great app!

But I'm having a problem getting Cineform to work. I am able to generate an .avi file, but it won't play in anything.

I've tried playing the file in Premiere, Cineform Studio, and every player I've got. But no dice.

Any thoughts?

UPDATE: I am also unable to get Cineform conversion working in RAWanizer. I will investigate and report back.

dirtcastle · « **Reply #92 on:** July 06, 2013, 03:17:21 AM »

Quote from: amsh89es335 on June 10, 2013, 07:40:06 AM

worked fine few times then I just keep getting an error. "Line 2215" Error: Subscript used with non-Array variable.

I am also getting the same error as "amsh89es335".

Error: Subscript used with non-Array variable.

I deleted and regenerated the config file. It still doesn't work. I'm running Windows 8 in Parallels on a Mac, but I'll assume that shouldn't be a problem.

fatpig · « **Reply #93 on:** July 06, 2013, 04:19:40 AM »

@dirtcastle:
install gopro cineform studio and copy raw2gpcf.exe to program files/cineform/tools . then give that location to batchelor. should work.

As to the error, I am curious what the problem is.
try to mess around with the file locations, make them as basic as possible, for batchelor as well as for the files you are converting and the target folders. for example put everything in c:\test

see if the error persists.

dirtcastle · « **Reply #94 on:** July 06, 2013, 07:11:58 AM »

The problem appears to be specific to RAW2GPCF.exe. Even when I run RAW2GPCF.exe directly from the command line, I get the same result: It generates an avi file (of the correct size and duration) that won't play. Just a blank screen.

Any suggestions on how I might debug RAW2GPCF.exe?

I currently have the Cineform Studio free version installed. Do I need the premium version?

fatpig · « **Reply #95 on:** July 06, 2013, 12:19:02 PM »

I also use the free version.
You can try to contact DANewman in the Cineform thread.
Maybe PM him or me your commandline, to check if smth. is wrong there.

If you correctly placed raw2gpcf and there is no problem with your install, you might miss some prerequisites, he told me to try dependency walker when I was having problems.
Also check your source file. He posted a 5D3 source file some time ago in his thread when I was having problems.
I could transcode his source, and then I sent him some of my files to test, so he could update the software.

dirtcastle · « **Reply #96 on:** July 07, 2013, 12:01:29 AM »

Thank you for helping! I'm guessing it is a CineForm Studio installation issue. I followed Dave's instructions here http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5479.msg46776#msg46776. But it looks like some files are missing from the CineForm Studio installation.

I put in a support request and posted a message on http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5479.0. I'm excited to get this working! The speed of my current workflow is prohibitive. Using CineForm for previews and proxies should make a big difference.

eyeland · « **Reply #97 on:** July 07, 2013, 03:37:09 PM »

Quote from: fatpig on July 02, 2013, 04:26:55 PM

Yes of course, if you want to get that photographic look, ACR is the best option out there for sure.

@1%: maybe you can link me those newer versions you found, then I will include them in the next release.

Did you update them in 2.3?

fatpig · « **Reply #98 on:** July 07, 2013, 05:05:03 PM »

@dirtcastle: i hope you get it working, also maybe test on another machine.

@eyeland:
1% did not send me links yet, and I don't see any specific reason for it.
If I get them I can update them for sure.
If you want to link them to me, I will include them.
You can also update them yourself and test if it works.

As soon as Cinema DNG Converter has commandline I will start working on 3.0

eyeland · « **Reply #99 on:** July 07, 2013, 07:54:42 PM »

@fatpig : I replaced raw2dng in the BATCHelor directory with the latest version from the forum.
No noticable difference, but the original app in your package had a different filesize so I am using the latest raw2dng just in case.

News:

Author Topic: [RAW2DNG] BATCHelor 3.0 Alpha 3 (Read 146370 times)