Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

Please, note...

GBRandy wrote in post #9543249
Tad confused and may need a lesson on JPG conversion in camera as I have rarely done it.

It seems that we will no longer be able to reproduce on-board output via external SW processing/emulation (for the 1D Mark IV).

Because of Canon licensing/trading issues related to RIT-engine (as well as probably DiGiCIII embedded code), RIT-conversion has been dropped altogether for DiGiC-IV based cams.

The most important piece here is how to DISABLE (fully) Noise Reduction for the .JPGs, and finish them (quickly) out-side. This will allow us to perfect a speed-centric workflow, with an emphasis on quality (because of dedicated, finely-tuned external Noise Reduction, which will be the only step necessary, if the cam exposes precisely, resolves WB properly, delivers beautiful/balanced tonality, and paints with good, "tasty" colors, all on its own, which is what the 1D3 is already capable of doing, day in, day out).

Cheers,

PIX

nicksan wrote in post #9541740
Yep, ACR->PS CS4->JPEG.
That's my workflow.
Never bothered with Canon software. Maybe I should try it...

Yes, I am very curious to see if DPP has any advantage. My guess is yes.

PIXmantra wrote in post #9543978
It seems that we will no longer be able to reproduce on-board output via external SW processing/emulation (for the 1D Mark IV).

Because of Canon licensing/trading issues related to RIT-engine (as well as probably DiGiCIII embedded code), RIT-conversion has been dropped altogether for DiGiC-IV based cams.

The most important piece here is how to DISABLE (fully) Noise Reduction for the .JPGs, and finish them (quickly) out-side. This will allow us to perfect a speed-centric workflow, with an emphasis on quality (because of dedicated, finely-tuned external Noise Reduction, which will be the only step necessary, if the cam exposes precisely, resolves WB properly, delivers beautiful/balanced tonality, and paints with good, "tasty" colors, all on its own, which is what the 1D3 is already capable of doing, day in, day out).

Cheers,

PIX

It would seem the only way to get a untouched JPG would be to shoot raw, and processing in DPP moving the NR sliders to 0 and convert & save., It leaves the sharpening question wide open though.

It seems the setting in picture styles are added as sidecar data to RAW files and set the sliders in DPP. But when I shoot a JPG with the same settings, the sharpness is not reflected in DPP and the images look soft. I thought the idea was that in a Jpeg file the setting were applied once the file was written.... In a perfect world these would match a RAW file that was run through DPP and saved as a Jpeg using the same in camera settings...

Mind you, I am a complete newbie in Picture Styles & JPG images direct from the camera.....so I may be missing some very fundamental element of that process.

The reason for the test was to get some feel for the camera before this weekends shooting....looks like I will be running my old work flow of RAW=> DPP=> JPG=> NR (if needed)=> Web

GBRandy wrote in post #9546034
It would seem the only way to get a untouched JPG would be to shoot raw, and processing in DPP moving the NR sliders to 0 and convert & save., It leaves the sharpening question wide open though.

But that's precisely the problem: I don't really think the RAW conversion engine for .JPGs is actually the same as DPP. I believe they are different, to begin with (the spectral-signature or "grain pitch" is just different, though). DPP seems to be much more biased towards high-frequency (much finer grain), whereas the .JPGs are a bit thicker.

GBRandy wrote in post #9546034
In a perfect world these would match a RAW file that was run through DPP and saved as a Jpeg using the same in camera settings...

That perfect world exists with Canon's ZB/RIT: you shoot .JPG+CR2 and you can exactly recreate the .JPG from the .CR2... only that you can correct what you could not in the .JPG (usually WB settings, etc.), all this up to DiGiCIII-cams.

For that perfect world to exist, the RAW conversion has to be nearly-IDENTICAL (spatially/spectrally speaking), the tonality reproduction (TRC curves) have to be identical, the coloring process and mapping also identical, the sharpening identical (spectrally), and the noise-reduction also identical.

For now, it seems that DPP's coloring process may be the same or very close as the cam's on-board process, because you should be able to load any .PF2 either on-board, or in DPP... But past this point, I am not sure anything else remains similar.

I will have to dig a bit more on Imaging Resource controlled samples, and work a bit more on this subject.

Cheers,

PIX

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the RAW output is being affected by something other than ISO/exposure/Aperture? (ie if I mess up my settings, I can't avoid them in the RAW output).

*confused*

Colin Morey wrote in post #9546319
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the RAW output is being affected by something other than ISO/exposure/Aperture? (ie if I mess up my settings, I can't avoid them in the RAW output).

*confused*

Only if you are using DPP.
In camera settings like these aren't recognized in ACR/Lightroom.

nicksan wrote in post #9546359
Only if you are using DPP.
In camera settings like these aren't recognized in ACR/Lightroom.

Ah thanks, I was considering using DPP, but I'll probably just stick with Aperture seeing as it's one I know.

Just wondering:

How many of you are non-professionals? I'm planning to get the IV later this summer and suspect I'll be the Lone Hobbyist. I don't make a dime out of my photography but enjoy it immensely and am looking forward to the day I too get to unbox a IV.

Rainyday wrote in post #9546620
Just wondering:

How many of you are non-professionals? I'm planning to get the IV later this summer and suspect I'll be the Lone Hobbyist. I don't make a dime out of my photography but enjoy it immensely and am looking forward to the day I too get to unbox a IV.

If you can afford it, no reason not to get it.

I'm somewhat of a wanna-be or "enthusiastic hobbyist", I sell some pictures and take the odd photo job. It's not my main income though, far from it, it's more like the main sinkhole for money from the day-job. I consider it money well spent.

Colin Morey wrote in post #9546319
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the RAW output is being affected by something other than ISO/exposure/Aperture? (ie if I mess up my settings, I can't avoid them in the RAW output).

*confused*

nicksan wrote in post #9546359
Only if you are using DPP.
In camera settings like these aren't recognized in ACR/Lightroom.

Well, the beauty of RAW & DPP is that the settings you apply in camera are appended ot the .CR2 file. So when you open up in DPP, the sliders are in place. They have not actually done anything to the image yet....it just sets the starting point.

If you are happy, just click "Convert & Save" and JPG's are created from the RAW files just as it would have done in camera. (well kinda, now that I am learning a little more about the MKIV)

If you want to adjust, you can do that post shooting (NR change, Brightness, Sharpness, ect). THEN, hit Convert & Save and you get JPG's with the new settings.

Ultimate in flexibility...and in my case safety, in case an in camera JPG setting was not right. I make JPG changes after the fact without any image drop off.

Rainyday wrote in post #9546620
Just wondering:

How many of you are non-professionals? I'm planning to get the IV later this summer and suspect I'll be the Lone Hobbyist. I don't make a dime out of my photography but enjoy it immensely and am looking forward to the day I too get to unbox a IV.

I think many on here are just hobbyists. It is a hobby for me anyway....I have been immersed in photography since I was 12.........

I sell some pictures here and there. I think I made enough to pay for a CF card buy now.

FretNoMore wrote in post #9546642
I'm somewhat of a wanna-be or "enthusiastic hobbyist", I sell some pictures and take the odd photo job. It's not my main income though, far from it, it's more like the main sinkhole for money from the day-job. I consider it money well spent.

Photography is WAY cheaper than owning an airplane or a boat I assure you! Even if you buy an MKIV!

^^^+1. I don't use money from my main job to fund this addiction, I just recycle the money I earn with photography back into photography equipment!

GBRandy wrote in post #9547035
Photography is WAY cheaper than owning an airplane or a boat I assure you! Even if you buy an MKIV!

I'm sure.

I did own a sailboat a couple of years ago but it was an old wooden boat that didn't cost much except for masses of time and elbow grease every spring.

FretNoMore wrote in post #9547115
I'm sure.

I did own a sailboat a couple of years ago but it was an old wooden boat that didn't cost much except for masses of time and elbow grease every spring.

Sail boat? Geez, what kind maintenance does that have? Stitch up a sail?

Come one man... you need something with an engine in it. Better yet TWO engines in it. Throw in some propellers and THEN, and only then, will you understand the term "overhaul". I get weak kneed just typing it.