I have obtain images from a 410 still camera from CVS and I was not thrilled with the quality as to the ones I got from a CVS pure digital computer then I read the following,
I had same 24 photos processed twice by the same Pure Digital machine at a CVS store, once with the original calibration file and again with a calibration file from another camera. My intent was to discover if calibration file made a difference and if CVS produced better quality images from cheap drugstore digitals than FlatFoto 2mp software that is commonly used by members at camerahacking.com
My first impression is that CVS processing creates more realistic color and does a better job at noise reduction. To me every CVS picture looks better except for a debayered imager shot with pink tint taken by another camera. The link below has jpgs for 6 photos from each process prefixed with cvs, cv2, ff2 along with calib1 and calib2 calibration files (calib1 being the one used to take photos). demanufacturing CVS comparison
It is not clear to me whether calib1 resulted in better CVS images than calib2 but certainly they both are much better than ff2, which does not use a calibration file (most SMaL imagers probably share similar color characteristics).
Do factory calibration files exist on any other cameras? If so what software is able to read and take advantage of such calibration?
I'd really appreciate it if someone can provide an intelligent analysis of differences created by calibration files. The raws are SMaL specific but can be processed by latest dcraw or pv2raw/rawgl software at camerahacking.com.
I also noted that the image that I obtain from a 410 it was about 147KB as to the one from CVS(same image)is 1.48MB(100 times greater) What is going on?
We've always seen that CVS's machine processing - using Pure Digital's software - produced better images than from the SMaL code in the FF2 drivers.
Somewhere on this forum (you'll have to search for it) is a discussion between BrightEye and myself when I found a series of processing steps listed in a comment field inside of a JPEG file created by a CVS machine processing job. I found the fields by opening up a CVS JPEG in a binary editor - the English text stood out pretty well. I imagine that someone could re-implement this processing sequence for RAW's that we recieve and decode from a camera to get better output.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I imagine that someone could re-implement this processing sequence for RAW's that we recieve and decode from a camera to get better output.