News - Microsoft Camera Codec Pack brings RAW support to Windows

Quote:

---

Digital negatives now viewable in Windows Explorer and Window Live Photo Gallery.

---

Read more.

Ah but will they be as well written as this guys:
http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/

Also, its worth pointing out, as you guys drew parallels that OSX isn't friendly to thrid parties for this at all, so freaks who use a pentax like me, have to convert them to a larger filesize standard RAW format before I can view them on OSX....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Ah but will they be as well written as this guys:
http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/

Also, its worth pointing out, as you guys drew parallels that OSX isn't friendly to thrid parties for this at all, so freaks who use a pentax like me, have to convert them to a larger filesize standard RAW format before I can view them on OSX....

---

Nothing wrong with a Pentax. I use one myself :)

Well, that was a waste of time.

The codec pack still doesn't show thumbails in explorer for me (haven't rebooted yet though), and it's stolen all the file associations so that raw files now open with live gallery (yuk) instead of my choice of viewing software.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Well, that was a waste of time.

The codec pack still doesn't show thumbails in explorer for me (haven't rebooted yet though), and it's stolen all the file associations so that raw files now open with live gallery (yuk) instead of my choice of viewing software.

---

LOL niiiice chance to pimp live photo gallery (but its face recognition stuff is handy).....

With the non-reboot does it work in stuff like Windows Image and Fax Viewer? You might need to restart explorer...

and no DNG support either which is what i convert most of my images to, got into the habit of that because the Fuji RAW format took up loads of space and they never released a windows codec.

I hope when it says Panasonic G1 it includes the G2/G3 too, time to dig it out and find out...

Could be useful. If it's well implemented (or becomes so) I may switch from JPEG + RAW to RAW alone, eek out a couple more photos at my high burst rate :p

BTW, RAW isn't actually uncompressed, it's just lossless compression. If you take photos at high ISO, it's harder to compress, so the file sizes are bigger.

Also, I very much doubt that the camera list provided is comprehensive, seeing as how the Canon 60D is not on the list, yet uses the same sensor and processor as the 550D and the same sensor as the 7D, both of which are on the list. :)

Works fine for me. Gave me previews in Explorer and left my association as Photoshop. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miniyazz

BTW, RAW isn't actually uncompressed, it's just lossless compression. If you take photos at high ISO, it's harder to compress, so the file sizes are bigger.

---

That depends on the camera. My D300 allows me to record RAW files compressed (lossy), lossless compressed or uncompressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this_is_gav

Works fine for me. Gave me previews in Explorer and left my association as Photoshop. :)

---

Maybe they detect photoshop and leave that association? Mine were associated with Olympus Master and they got nabbed :/

Did you already have windows live photo gallery installed Kalniel? If not and it decided to install it, that might explain it. But either way I'd suggest you raise a connect ticket if you've got a 5 min spare.

The thumbnails in explorer have they started coming through since a reboot/relog?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

Did you already have windows live photo gallery installed Kalniel? If not and it decided to install it, that might explain it. But either way I'd suggest you raise a connect ticket if you've got a 5 min spare.

The thumbnails in explorer have they started coming through since a reboot/relog?

---

I don't remember having live gallery installed before, but I can't remember - I did get some live stuff before (movie maker, dvd maker).

I don't think the thumbmails appeared even after restart, though I only gave it a cursory look before uninstalling the package. Might try again tonight to verify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this_is_gav

That depends on the camera. My D300 allows me to record RAW files compressed (lossy), lossless compressed or uncompressed.

---

Oh, interesting. Though I'm not sure what the point is of lossy RAW compression? - may as well stick with JPEG, surely?

And what's the file size and megapixel count like on the uncompressed RAWs vs regular, out of interest, if you have it to hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miniyazz

Oh, interesting. Though I'm not sure what the point is of lossy RAW compression? - may as well stick with JPEG, surely?

---

I'd imagine it's still going to be better than JPEG for post-processing white balance and probably multiple other variables, such as exposure. It's going to carry a lot more data than a JPEG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miniyazz

And what's the file size and megapixel count like on the uncompressed RAWs vs regular, out of interest, if you have it to hand?

---

Just done a quick check.

D300 (12mp) with 14-bit RAW recording:

Uncompressed: 25.5mb
Compressed: 13.4mb
Lossless compressed: 14.9mb

I'd guessed that compressed and lossless compressed were vary depending on the complexity of a scene, but I wasn't expecting uncompressed to vary in file size, though when I shot 3 exposures at uncompressed - one of 25.4, one of 25.5 and one of 25.6. Perhaps it does very basic compression of over-exposed and under-exposed areas.

I use a Pentax k20D and save in DNG as it goes into adobe with no problems. shame this codec pack doesn't support that format!!

There is an adobe beta codec that supports win 7 64 bit, but its very slow in windows live photo gallery. might just have to switch to adobe all the time!

if you don't mind spending the cash, try the one I linked in my first post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this_is_gav

I'd imagine it's still going to be better than JPEG for post-processing white balance and probably multiple other variables, such as exposure. It's going to carry a lot more data than a JPEG.




Just done a quick check.

D300 (12mp) with 14-bit RAW recording:

Uncompressed: 25.5mb
Compressed: 13.4mb
Lossless compressed: 14.9mb

I'd guessed that compressed and lossless compressed were vary depending on the complexity of a scene, but I wasn't expecting uncompressed to vary in file size, though when I shot 3 exposures at uncompressed - one of 25.4, one of 25.5 and one of 25.6. Perhaps it does very basic compression of over-exposed and under-exposed areas.

---

I guess even lossy compressed RAW probably would be better than JPEG for PP. Though given the ~1MB difference in size between lossy/lossless, I know which I'd choose.

On my 18MP 60D, RAW files (I've always presumed they're lossless compressed) are anywhere between about 20-27MB size in normal usage. I expect they're also 14-bit.

It's a little odd because the MP counts don't really tally up with the file sizes, so I presume they must use different algorithms or something.