Converting CRW. Canon's software or others?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/28/2003 02:51:36 PM · #1

I noticed that the Canon software, Fileviewer will only allow me to convert the .CRW files to TIFF. The problem I see is, these files it converts are only 96 Pixels PSI, but the size is 3072X2048. I thought this strange so I looked up another package. After some searching, I found a freebie called IrfanView that converted the .CRW to a .BMP file. The .BMP ended up being 300 Pixels PSI but now the file had been reduced down to 2048X1360.

OK, so my question being, how can I get a decent Pixels PSI and maintain the original size of the image? Is there a better software out there other than the Canon and IrfanView that will do this correctly?

Message edited by author 2003-11-28 14:51:55.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

11/28/2003 03:04:13 PM · #2

Breezebrowser is a fantastic program for working with CRWs.

//www.breezesys.com/

just a happy user.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/28/2003 03:06:41 PM · #3

More research gives the following findings.

Below is the CRW to TIFF generated by the Canon software at only 96 Pixels PSI. Notice how the Histogram displays much more information.

Now, below is the CRW to BMP generated by the IrfanView software at 300 Pixels PSI. Notice how the Histogram displays less information.

Could this be from the different file size or is the freeware software not doing what it is supposed to do? What is the algorithm for calculating size X PPSI X intensity?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/28/2003 03:08:08 PM · #4

The first of your problems isn't really a problem as I see it, only a minor inconvenience. When you open the TIFF file in your image editor, simply change the ppi to 300 (without resampling).
I've not used irfanview for handling CRW, but if you're not getting the correct number of pixels in the output image, something is not right.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/28/2003 03:14:41 PM · #5

I think most of the difference in the histograms is simply scaling; the program scales so the highest peak is within the window.
The absolute heights of the peaks are irrelevant in a histogram, only their realative size are important.
There are other minor differences, probably caused by differing algorithms used in conversion. Remember the conversion software is working with the RAW sensor data and has alot of processing to do, and minor differences in algorithms can lead to differences in the actual output image.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/28/2003 03:19:21 PM · #6

If you have a D30, D60, 10D or D300 and are or are contemplating shooting in RAW, you are doing yourself a big injustice if you don't download the trial version of Capture One DSLR and see what a fantastic tool it is for working with Canon RAW images. This tool has radically changed my digital workflow. It is because of C1 and C1 alone that I always shoot in RAW now. At $99 for LE version (for the 10D,D60,D30) and $49 for the Rebel version (for the 300D), it is an absolute steal, since for all intents and purposes, it is the same as the $599 Pro version (for the 1D and 1Ds). There are links to reviews on the C1 web site.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/28/2003 03:19:36 PM · #7

Fritz, I use Paint Shop Pro 7 and I dont see, after I open the image how I can change the resolution. Is that a PSP thing? In the past I've created a new image the right size and PPSI and paisted a new layer using the original print. Surely there is an easier way? Does the software for the 10D load up at 96PPSI also? This is all kind of new to me.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/28/2003 03:34:06 PM · #8

deafwolf, see this tutorial. I don't use PSP, but I assume you want to choose Image > Resize, select the Actual/ print size button, and then change the resolution.

This will not affect the image pixels at all, only how many pixels are printed per inch when the photo is output to a printer, for example.

For "on screen" display (i.e., the web), the pixels/inch value is largely irrelevant. You can upload a picture to DPC that you set to 300 PPI and the same image set to 75 PPI and they will look identical on the screen, all other things remaining equal. The only difference would be if you printed them out using a program that actually looked at the PPI setting.

Message edited by author 2003-11-28 15:35:07.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/28/2003 03:56:57 PM · #9

Thanks Eddie. I'm learning all of this. Before I got this DSLR, the most graphics I did was 3D and FX type graphics, which were all VERY high bitrate and PPSI, so I'm kind new actualy working with images from another source besides by 3D renders.

So what I hear you saying is the 95PPSI is not a drawback? I'm thinking not for web, but for printing. I know when I do a film poster I have to produce a 1200 PPSI image for them to print, so I figured that that it must be a better image with a denser pixel rate for the information.

I sucks to be a virgin. hahahahaha

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/28/2003 04:08:12 PM · #10

The 96 pixels/inch that are assigned by that Canon software is just a "number". Using PSP, you can change that number to whatever you want in order to achieve a small image (with lots of pixels/inch, and if the printer can handle, a lot of detail) or a large image (with less pixels/inch, and therefore more "grainy" when you look at the printed output up close). But from an imaging perspective, nothing has changed. The image captured by the camera is and will always be 3072x2048 pixels. How many of those pixels you place per inch on your printed output is up to you.

Trust me when I say that your camera is capable of producing very large prints. Those samples were from a D30, which is only 3MP!

11/28/2003 04:22:32 PM · #11

Great shots Eddy. Thanks for the remarks. I'm beginning to get the picture, no pun intended. Damn, film was so easy. hahahaha Now I have to learn all over again.