Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th of April 2008 (Fri)   #1
E-K
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 980
Default An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

There are a few threads here and elsewhere on the internet discussing UniWB. Briefly, UniWB provides a mechanism that results in no (or very little) adjustment to the individual colour channels when the camera creates the embedded JPEG on which the camera's histogram is based.

This in theory provides a more accurate representation of what is actually happening with the raw data -- useful when trying to expose to the right.

Guillermo Luijk provides an excellent analysis at http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/uniwb/index.htm.

Now if you run PhotoBola's Raw Image Analysis tool on the sample UniWB images in the above link you will notice that for the areas of interest the raw values for each of the channels are essentially equal.

This is effectively what we are striving for. When you set a custom WB in the camera, you are asking the camera to figure out how it needs to adjust the raw data for the provided custom WB image to make these channels equal (i.e. white/gray). If the channels equal each other in the CWB image, than the camera thinks it doesn't need to adjust anything as for the given "lighting condition" the image is already gray.

G. Luijk's method does work, but it requires a little effort to execute. I'm lazy, so I looked for an easier solution .

Now I can think of two other "naturally" occurring scenarios where channels will have equal values (or approximately equal): a dark frame and a completely saturated frame.

Using the PB Raw Image Analysis tool on a dark frame and saturated frame returned average RGGB values of (255, 255, 255, 255) and (4095, 4095, 4095, 4095) respectively. The dark frame had more variance in values whereas the saturated frame was 4095 all the way through.

So far so good. Now the only thing to see was if the camera would take these images for use as a custom WB. On the Rebel XT, the answer is yes in both cases.

Using the dark frame resulted in WB coefficients for an image of (1.006, 1.000, 1.006). The saturated frame resulted in WB coefficients for an image of (1.008, 1.000, 1.004).

The obvious benefit with the dark frame is that you can do it at any point in case you lost your UniWB image/setting -- just shoot a frame with the lens cap on. The saturation method is a little more difficult as sometimes it can be difficult to achieve full saturation in all channels for some lighting conditions. For mine, I used a flash.

I would be interested to know if any other camera models can apply the same method.

e-k
E-K is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #2
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,723
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

I tried your approach described above and found that the dark image gave results close to the uniWB balance - certainly the green cast is there - but the white image seems to have been recorded using a default WB that is equivalent to the daylight balance.

Here are comparative shots in LR and DPP of the white and black calibration images and a "real world" scene photographed with my uniWB, the light-uniWB and the dark-uniWB. Unfortunately the light conditions altered just a little from shot to shot - we have mixed sun and cloud here at the moment so light levels are fluctuating. I'll have to perform a more controlled test to really check the results out properly.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MWSnap019.jpg (75.3 KB, 2285 views)
File Type: jpg MWSnap020.jpg (108.5 KB, 2265 views)

Last edited by tdodd : 12th of April 2008 (Sat) at 09:49.
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #3
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
 
tzalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
Posts: 12,579
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Very clever, E-K. On the basis of the 40D histogram I can't see much difference from panopeeper's CWB, using the blackframe method.
__________________
Elie / אלי
"If you presume to love something, you must love the process of it much more than you love the finished product." John Irving, 5/2012. "In theory there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is." Yogi Berra
Site

Last edited by tzalman : 12th of April 2008 (Sat) at 09:52.
tzalman is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #4
RebelTasha
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 21
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

This is waaay over my head but it sounds interesting...
RebelTasha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #5
E-K
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 980
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdodd View Post
I tried your approach described above and found that the dark image gave results close to the uniWB balance - certainly the green cast is there - but the white image seems to have been recorded using a default WB that is equivalent to the daylight balance.
Do you mean the recorded raw values for the saturated image are not (4095, 4095, 4095) or that it did but when you used it for CWB it produced a result similar to daylight balance?

It's a pain to get the channels fully saturated. I had to use ISO 1600 and a flash on a white wall. ISO 100 was problematic as was trying to use a CF bulb (blue channel wouldn't saturate).

Thanks for giving it a try.

e-k
E-K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #6
_GUI_
Member
 
_GUI_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Posts: 342
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

E-K, I am Guillermo Luijk. Congratulations, you have achieved in about 10secs what took me a whole night to generate, and in addition to this I achieved a more precise UniWB for my Canon 350D with a saturated shot:

multipliers 1.006856 1.000000 1.005877 1.000000

0.69% deviation for the R channel is the max error, the closest to a perfect neutral WB I can achieve (probably because of some hot pixels or whatever).

It works fine for my camera. Please tell me your name so I can credit you in the original article.
__________________
http://www.guillermoluijk.com to subscribe click here
_GUI_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #7
Perry Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...
 
Perry Ge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto/Hong Kong
Posts: 11,954
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Oh that is COOOOOL. Thanks a lot for sharing this - perhaps the biggest challenge in exposing to the right is getting the embedded JPEG histogram to accurately reflect the channels in RAW, and this is a cool solution.
__________________
Perry | flickr | C&C ALWAYS welcome | Gear
POTN Toronto | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky [READ THIS]
Perry Ge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #8
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,723
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-K View Post
Do you mean the recorded raw values for the saturated image are not (4095, 4095, 4095) or that it did but when you used it for CWB it produced a result similar to daylight balance?

It's a pain to get the channels fully saturated. I had to use ISO 1600 and a flash on a white wall. ISO 100 was problematic as was trying to use a CF bulb (blue channel wouldn't saturate).

Thanks for giving it a try.

e-k
Here are screen prints from rawanalyze. As far as I can tell I have blown everything. I attempted to white balance within the rawanalyze software and got perfect multipliers of 1.0000 for all channels.

When I used ExifTool to check out the white balance data that had been recorded in the exif - the data which I believe is actually used by software to work out white balance adjustments - the "measured" white balance values were exactly equivalent to those for daylight.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MWSnap022.jpg (48.8 KB, 2209 views)
File Type: jpg MWSnap023.jpg (61.6 KB, 2206 views)
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #9
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,723
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Here is the RGB WB data in the exif information from the blown image (first attachment). You will note that the RGGB values are identical for "Auto", "Measured" and "Daylight".

The same data from my custom uniWB file (second attachment) clearly shows the nearly equal values for "Measured", which are very different from the "Daylight" values.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MWSnap024.jpg (50.2 KB, 2188 views)
File Type: jpg MWSnap025.jpg (46.1 KB, 2180 views)

Last edited by tdodd : 12th of April 2008 (Sat) at 15:40.
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #10
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,723
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

I've looked further with rawnalyze and, if I'm reading the stats correctly, it seems that every single one of my sub-pixels is at 4071. I don't know the significance of that information. I guess it means that every single sub-pixel was as saturated as could be, but for some reason the sub-pixels top out at 4071 instead of 4095. What consequences would that have for attempting an easy uniWB with oversaturation?

Here's a screen print....
.
.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MWSnap026.jpg (33.9 KB, 2175 views)
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of April 2008 (Sat)   #11
_GUI_
Member
 
_GUI_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Posts: 342
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdodd View Post
I've looked further with rawnalyze and, if I'm reading the stats correctly, it seems that every single one of my sub-pixels is at 4071. I don't know the significance of that information. I guess it means that every single sub-pixel was as saturated as could be, but for some reason the sub-pixels top out at 4071 instead of 4095. What consequences would that have for attempting an easy uniWB with oversaturation?
Don't be surprised for this, some cameras do not saturate at the max value of their expected integer range (2^n-1 for a n-bits camera). Some saturation points:

- Canon 350D: 4095
- Canon 30D: 3398
- Canon 5D: 3919
- Canon 40D: 13823

The important thing is that R=G=B in your RAW file so the UniWB should be properly calculated; try it. Then shoot anything and check the resulting multipliers (this can be done with DCRAW doing: dcraw -v -w foto.cr2)
__________________
http://www.guillermoluijk.com to subscribe click here
_GUI_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th of April 2008 (Wed)   #12
E-K
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 980
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Quote:
Originally Posted by _GUI_ View Post
It works fine for my camera. Please tell me your name so I can credit you in the original article.
Glad it works for you. I'm not worried about the credit but if you want to put something then just say e-k on the POTN forum or some such.

e-k
E-K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th of May 2008 (Wed)   #13
E-K
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 980
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdodd View Post
Here is the RGB WB data in the exif information from the blown image (first attachment). You will note that the RGGB values are identical for "Auto", "Measured" and "Daylight".

The same data from my custom uniWB file (second attachment) clearly shows the nearly equal values for "Measured", which are very different from the "Daylight" values.
Sorry to dredge this up, but when you used the saturated images as the CWB image. For images you shot using it as the CWB, what was the "As Shot RGGB Levels" set to?

e-k
E-K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th of May 2008 (Wed)   #14
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,723
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

I just shot a fresh blown image with my 40D (the previous efforts above, which seemed not to work properly with the blown image, were shot with my 30D) - 30" exposure at f/5.6 and 200 ISO, waving the lens in the general direction of the sun on a clear day. I then used this image to set a custom WB and the camera warned me that the image might not be suitable for WB but I went ahead anyway and then fired a sample "real world" shot. Here are the results....

Blown image
Raw Image Analyse gives RGB coefficients of 1.0000, 1.0008, 1.0015
Exif Tool give "As Shot" values of 1045, 1039, 1039, 1052

Real world image with blown custom WB
Exif Tool give "As Shot" values of 1024, 1037, 1037, 1024

Maybe these figures suggest that the blown uni-WB does work after all, at least for the 40D.

Here is the image and histogram for the blown image and the "real world" image. I did not take care to maximise exposure with the real world shot - I just pointed the camera and centred the exposure meter manually.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MWSnap025.jpg (39.5 KB, 2082 views)
File Type: jpg MWSnap026.jpg (83.1 KB, 2068 views)

Last edited by tdodd : 7th of May 2008 (Wed) at 10:47.
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th of May 2008 (Wed)   #15
tdodd
Goldmember
 
tdodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 3,723
Default Re: An Easier UniWB for EOS Digital Cameras (at least the XT)

Here's the real world image after setting the WB to the daylight preset in Lightroom. No other edits/adjustments.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MWSnap027.jpg (87.4 KB, 2087 views)
tdodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my photos with Canon EOS digital cameras kapinjal Presentation 1 24th of October 2006 (Tue) 13:33
DPP 2.2 + PS CS vs. PS CS2 for PP tools for EOS digital cameras. fi20100 RAW, Post Processing and Printing 8 29th of September 2006 (Fri) 22:00
Canon EOS digital cameras JX Forum Talk 8 25th of April 2006 (Tue) 15:55
General Question about EOS digital cameras hawan1 Canon EOS Digital Cameras 9 31st of July 2005 (Sun) 17:42


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.