RAW to JPG conversion

[amazingthailand]

Hi All,

RE: Finepix Viewer & RAW Convertor

Have I completely missed something in the software, or is it NOT possible to convert directly from RAW to JPG?

The only way I can find to do it, is by converting the RAW into TIFF and then the TIFF into JPG.

As long as I am asking: Why does the viewer not allow rotation of 16 bit TIFF's, without converting them to 8 bit?

If anyone can shed some light on this I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.
Declan

[Bibble]

I can't comment on how to do that with RawConverter, but I can tell you its very easy to do in the current 3.04b version of bibble which now supports the Fuji S2.

Details and samples can be found on the website at www.bibblelabs.com

Bibble is as much as 2x faster than the bundled software.

Eric

[amazingthailand]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the update on Bibble. Last time I had checked with them, they had RAW S2 support on thier to-do list.

So, if they now support RAW S2, then that will solve my problem.

Declan

[amazingthailand]

Well I downloaded Bibble today and gave it a try.

While it may do everything I need, it is just WAY TOO SLOW. This thing needs a 2GHz or better to achieve acceptable performance.

I think I would like it much better if I could TURN OFF all of the background processing. My computer (an 800MHz notebook) would freeze for minutes at a time as Bibble did something in the background (?).

Photoshop (no speed demon) is way faster.

Guess I'll keep looking.
Declan

[Bibble]

How much ram in your machine declan? My guess is you don't have the amount required.

If you have enough ram, bibble will process your files much faster than anything else available.

And I'm confused, when you say "photoshop is way faster". The origianl question was how to convert from raw to jpeg. Last time I checked photoshop couldn't handle S2 Raw files natively.


Eric

[amazingthailand]

Unfortunately my notebook is maxed out at 256MB, so adding more is not an option.

My reason for using the notebook is that I am traveling a lot and my notebook is all I have available to save and process my raw files for extended periods of time. So whatever I use MUST run properly on my notebook.

You are right, Photoshop does not support fuji raw files, but I was refering to applying changes to an image (ie: color balance, sharpness, contrast, resizing, etc.)

So I was really refering to it's ability to work with either TIFF or JPG, not RAW.

I do like Bibble's 1/4 size JPG generation. I haven't given up on Bibble, I just cannot use it on my notebook.

Fuji's software seems faster than Bibble because it does not do anything until told to. Then I process the files in batch, so I can walk away and let it work.

Bibble prevents me from even getting a batch set up because it keeps wanting to do something in the background, which causes my mouse to freeze for minutes at a time. NOT Acceptable, and very frustrating.

I wish the authors of some of these programs would realize that not everyone is using the latest and greatest machine. All the features may work just fine on the bleeding edge, but they should allow the user some ability to tune the performance (ie: turn off the bleeding edge features).

I have a nice fast 1.7 GHz/512MB machine I use for DV. But it's a tower and definately not for use on the road.

In the mean time I must keep looking for a better way than fuji's to convert raw to jpg.

Thanks.
Declan

[Bibble]

Declan,I am the author, and Bibble was designed to offer the fastest raw conversion possible.

It will also do the other tasks you are having trouble with just fine *if you have enough ram*.

Bibble's background processing doesn't slow anything down if you have enough ram, but if you don't virutal memory is used from your hard disk and laptops have slower harddisks than desktops, hence the slow down.

If you want to process in batches and "walk away" You have that options as well.

Bibble also allows you to make changes directly to the thumbs from the browser without every opening/saving the fullsized files, all your changes are stored and can be output in batches later.

So again, if you have a machine with enough ram, Bibble is the fastst way to convert from Raw to Jpg.

As for other otpions, I think you will find that the few other options available will be slower on your machine.


Eric
(And for measurement sake, On my 1 Ghz P3 with 512M of ram Converting a raw to a jpeg takes 25 Seconds)

[amazingthailand]

Hi Eric,

OOPS!!!

Sorry for dissing your program, but the fact is I just cannot use it on my notebook. If I could increase the ram in my machine I would.

Actually I bought my notebook strictly for image storage and processing while on the road. I also bought it maxed out on all the options.

(until now) it is actually my main image progeccing computer while not on the road also. Mainly because it has the PC card slot, which is my main way of transfering images (I refuse to use USB - way toooooooo slow), and I also have firewire builtin. Though have not tried to download from the S2, yet.

FYI: super neat laptop. It's a Fujitsu Lifebook P-series. A sub 4 lb notebook, very small and light. Great for travel. Freaks them out at the airport screening because it's so small. They keep wanting me to turn it on. Oh, it also has a 7 hour battery, actually can get about 5 hours of real use out of it.

One of the other problems I think is windows. Your program causes the cursor to freeze for extended periods at a time. A 'real' multitasking OS would NEVER allow this to happen. I've said this before and I will say it again - Micro$oft just doesn't get it.

I just had a thought: I'll see it it is still possible to tell windows (XP) how much to assign to foreground/background tasks. Maybe I can set backgroung to a very low value, and maybe that would stop the freezes.

I will also give Bibble a try on my main tower. Real curious to see how it works on that machine. I am just disapointed that it will not work on my notebook.

Cheers.
Declan

[amazingthailand]

Hi Eric,

I timed the length of time it took to open a raw file into Photoshop 7. 4 minutes 40 seconds. Thought you might be interested.

Have not had the chance yet to load Bibble on my tower yet.

Declan

[Bibble]

Let me try to explain one more time.

*you don't have enough ram*.

Bibble 3.04 requires 384 Megs or ram.

Running any program on a mcahine with less than requried resources will results in at best, poor performace, and at worse crashes or it won't even run at all.

S2 Raw files are very large. The final output is almost 70 megs in size. In order to enahnce performance, bibble keeps multiple copies of the image around while it is processing. If you don't have enough ram, the hard disk gets used instead, hence the poor speed.

if you would run it on machien that meets the reuirments, I'm sure you wuoll find the performance satisfactory.

Eric

[amazingthailand]

Hi Eric,

Actually I do understand the lack of RAM issue, I am a computer programmer. I was just trying to give you some idea of the performance on my 'state-of-the-art' laptop.

I have owned a personal computer since about 1973. God, that's almost 30 years ago. Gee, how time flies when you are having fun :-).

Not having much luck on my tower. I loaded Bibble tonight and transfered some JPG's and RAW files.

First time I ran the program, it froze (not responding, according to task manager). Second time, it just went off into limbo. Didn't freeze the cursor, but did not respond either (task manager did NOT say not responding). Third time I ran it, I ended up with a BSOD and had to pull the plug on the system to get it back.

My tower is a DELL 330 workstation with a P4/1.7GHz and 512MB Ram, plus about 400 GB of hard disk space on 7 drives. It's loaded up with all sorts of other goodies too, but not relevent to this discussion. Running Win98SE.

I also had problems with displaying RAW files full size. The screen kept flashing at me, as if something was going on in the background and the screen was being refreshed.

I'll keep trying as this does not seem right somehow.
Declan

[mcbirdman]

My HP 2.5ghz computer does a raw file conversion in 16 seconds. That is much better than before and allows me to adjust images individually without having to batch process them unless something is really wrong. FWIW

[Stormfield]

Qimage Pro supports S2 RAW (RAF) file conversions (Raw to 16 bit TIFF), with system requirements of 128 mb memory, PIII, 400 mz processor, so you might try it. The color management/printing features are a real plus. I'm not sure why you would capture RAW files if you are going to immediately convert them to jpeg? Photoshop 7 has minimal utilities for manipulating 16 bit--for example layers does not support 16 bit. Virtually all printers (except for some expensive commercial printers) will use only 8 bit color, so I'm not sure there is generally any particular disadvantage to using 8 bit files to post process anyway (tho the color purists will suggest that manipulating in 16 bit then converting to 8 bit to print DOES produce better color than processing only 8 bit, but only their Moms can tell the difference). You can download a demo of Qimage here: http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/. Good Luck!

[jknights]

I'm using Bibble 3.04 for both my Nikon D1X and my Fuji S2.

It is really great with the Fuji S2.

If you process under Bibble you get results more similar to Ektachome but if you process under FujiFilm RAW Converter LE you get results more like Velvia.

I would be interested to try a copy of the HyperUtility to make a comparison of the three softwares. Any offers on where I can get a copy ?

I also have a copy of QImage Pro but I don't like its interface (If you read this, Sorry Mike !).so I haven't tried it yet for the S2. Results for the D1X NEFs are similar but different to Bibble.

It would be good to do a comparison of Bibble v. Fuji HU EX v. Fuji RAW Converter LE v. QImage Pro.
I will do this if I can get a copy of HU.

[amazingthailand]

Thanks guys. Yes I did discover Qimage Pro, and have been using it for my RAW to JPG conversions. I too, think this program could use a menu overhaul.

I convert to JPG for viewing purposes in viewers such as ACDSee. The smaller JPG loads faster and also saves disk space. Then I finally archive the RAW to DVD-R, with the JPGs for quick and easy viewing later. The JPG's are also used for cataloging the images, as a lot of software cannot read the fuji raw, or even get at the thumbnails.

Declan

[jknights]

Hi Declan,

Do you have the HyperUtility software ?

Are you using it for your RAW file conversion ?
Thanks

[amazingthailand]

Yes, I do have the Fuji Hyperutility software, but I don't use it because it does not allow me to make a JPG from the RAW file. It forces me to make a TIFF first.

So, at present, I use Qimage Pro for RAW to JPG conversion.

Declan

[kari]

hi!

the fastest way to change raws to jpg's is just to change file type suffigs into .jpg
what kind of jpgs you'll get, i don't know, all i know that it will be about 3mbs or so. quality or 8/16 bit nor srgb or adobe rgb, no idea, but if you want to have fast jpgs, this is the way to do it
and then open in something like photoshop to make corrections, if you have mac...drag-drop, in pc aswell ;-)

if you do this i suggest that you'll do it with copies so that you will still have the originals for slower and more accurate workflow when you have time to do so

kari

[Mike Flood]

If you use the Fuji Thumbnail viewer from http://www.justrightclick.com then you can do instant extraction of the jpg thumbnails that are part of each raw file.
As well as allowing you to see thumbnail of the file before you convert it you can right click and select "view full screen" image.

It's a marvelous aid for improving your raw file workflow.

And as far as I'm concerned the Fuji LE converter is a waste of time. The EX converter is easy and gives you lots of options and control over the conversion process with a user interface that you can understand and manipulate quickly.

Mike

[amazingthailand]

Hi Mike,

I tried the justrightclick, but I didn't like it.

I have the Fuji EX convertot, but it cannot make a JPG directly from the RAW file (unless I have completely missed something). Making 80MB TIFF's is just too much of a space hog, especially if you have a lot of RAW files. At 13MB for a RAW, storage is already a problem. The 80MB TIFF just exasperates the problem.

Anyway, I have been using Qimage Pro, and it does a good job. It just has a very quirky menu system. Not at all intuitative, at least not to me.

Declan

[jknights]

See my report in this forum on the RAW processing softwares.

Raw Processing Tests - new topic

[Super 2]

Declan's point on Bibble is bang on, I downloaded Bibble as trial, whilst it is so much better than fuji raw converter ie in its jpeg options, it is so damned slooooooooooooow.

I too get frozen screens, it also tends to lock up, needing a shutdown, I am running a fast athlon with 512 ram my machine is no slouch, but Bibble is!

That aside Bibble gives the fuji software a right pasting, for something that cost so much its basically so limited as to be a waste of time, the only blessing is the shooting software which is the dogs nuts.

Regards

Nick

[jknights]

Nick,

What OS and how much memory do you have on your PC. I guess that you have a reasonable processor > P III 600MHZ

Digital image processing is processor intensive. In fact it is best to have a multi-processor box.

N.B. Only Bibble and Photoshop support more than 1 processor so it is not just a question of having 2 or 4 processors.

[Super 2]

Cpu is a 1.8 athlon, with 512m ram, which is generally more than adequate to handle most apps.

Having looked closely at the raw/tiff/jpeg settings I have shot several tests under studio conditions and have come to the following conclusion.

Raw- no real benefit, as studio conditions permit much more control over image quality. The hassle of coverting files is a drag.

Tiff- 12 mp full res files are nice but take time to write.
6mp tiff is a lot quicker to write with brilliant quality.
By using the lowest res for tiff, I printed a 16 x 12 image
on an epson 7600 and found such remarkable smooth tonal
quality with no jpeg artifacts, that I am going to shoot tiff
all the time in the studio. Plus you have the benefit of
being in the 1998 workspace.

Jpeg- Will still shoot full res jpegs at weddings due to number
maximising number of images per card, as well being quicker
to preview your shots. So far I have found the S2 to handle
jpegs very well, with most shots being fine right out of the
box. Very much point it and shoot as an another thread
mentioned.

Overall I am amazed at the tiff quality at lower resolutions, its something I had not thought about until recently.


Regards


Nick

[jknights]

Nick,

Would recommend that you use RAW/RAFs as with JPEG there is loss of quality on saving. This is a fact but only really visisble when you do bigger enlargements and do real side by side comparisons.
I promise you there is a difference.

Howver I can undersatnd what you say about time/benefit but for me I can afford the time for the quality but I have dedicated image processing PC (2GHz Intel, 1GB RAM, mega amounts of disk). In my workflow I produce a 16bit TIFF for working on in PS7 and a JPG for my image db and general use.

[steve bingham]

I just don't get it!

If you want jpg files why not have the camera do it? Save tons of time hassle, memory, etc. There is no real value in shooting in raw and saving directly to jpg. You have lost the 16 bits AND have compressed the image. So why not use 4256 fine to begin with?