AP 2 and Sony A700 embedded JPG Quick Previews?

The Sony A700 RAW and cRAW images contain an embedded high quality JPG image designed for viewing on HDTV. If the camera is set to 3:2 aspect ratio it is 1616 x 1080 pixels (and if set to 16:9 then it is 1920 x 1080).
Aperture 2.0 does not appear to make any use of these large embedded JPGs in Quick Preview even though I have selected " Use embedded JPG from camera if possible".
It is not clear if this could be forced by limiting the size of previews to either slightly smaller than or larger than the size of the embedded JPGs from the camera?

Does anyone know an answer to this question? I'm using the Aperture 2 trial and I like the software for cataloging but since I'll use Capture NX for most of my editing it would be great if I could get Aperture to display the embedded jpg in preview mode. But it doesn't. I've checked that box in the Preferences. I've deleted the previews for the project. I've made sure that Maintain Previews isn't checked. But I still don't get the embedded jpg in preview.
By the way, I know what the embedded jpg should look like since it does display properly when importing into Aperture.
Any help appreciated.
David

Similar Messages

Lightroom and Sony A700 Raw (ARW) Files

I shot all pictures in ARW format. A number of the shots are at mid to high level ISO numbers. The shots above 400ISO are extremely noisy(both cloro and luminance)When I use the SOny supplied software
the same pictures noise level is significantly reduced. I have read on several other forums that ACR in lightroom is "messing up" the ARW files. This appears to be true. I use lightroom then CS3 to process my shots. The use of the Sony softweare complicates my workflow but at this point I am forced to do this. Is there any relief in site for this concern. Really want to combine everything into one system. By the way CS3 Bridge is not much better.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Bob

I have your lighting right here, JM.
It's quite clear you know nothing about shooting African Cichlids, the most colorful freshwater fish in the world.
These fish are "mbuna", they live in rocks, caves, and along rock faces and ledges. They are used to living many meters deep so the best fish always take up territory towards the bottom of the tank where the best structures are, where the light is most dim.
In this 120 gallon tank is well over 500 pounds of structure which consumes most of the space in the tank.
In many of the photos you will notice rock structures around the fish as the tank consists of a hundred or so ledges and caves.
African Cichlids are the smartest fish in the world and they even learn who is who...they are not ordinary fish.
No matter how much light you throw on African Cichlids it usually does not cure the problem since they spend most of there time peeking from, and hanging under structures. Shadows and dark areas are cast throughout the tanks due to the structures.
Not to mention you must use the lighting already available in every public tank in the business, not to mention fish vendors usually cannot add lighting to their tanks either.
That leads us to use high ISO when we must.
Here are a few Sony A700 test shots made with 3 custom temp 4 ft 40 watt tubes in a deep 120 gallon tank.
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1158-ISO3200+Test+Photo.htm l
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/Sony+DSLR+ISO+640+A700.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1191-Sigma+24+EX+DG.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1209+Konica+Minolta+28-75D. html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/398-1/_DSC1290-Sony+ISO+1250+JPG
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/380-4/_DSC1216-Minolta+28-75D
Here are a few old shots of mine when I used my custom built and designed setup w/6 custom temp 40 watt tubes made to fit a standard 55. Notice structure galore...it's like an urban housing complex in the mbuna tanks. I can shoot fish with a good pNs setup fairly well with this amount of light. Not many people anywhere get this amount of light on their tank, trust me.
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60783-3/OB+Peacock
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158391-2/25650281_002.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158367-2/25713754.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/61099-3/23429774_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60803-3/23538903.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158377-2/25744617.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158822-2/red+finned+borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60815-3/Male+Red+Finned+Borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158832-2/Rusty+Cichlid
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158827-2/red+zebra
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158865-2/25797261_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158464-2/8838t-ob-peacock.jpg
I shot Minolta, and then Konica Minolta, and now Sony has bought KM, so Sony is the one making the bodies for our glass now.
Many of us will not give up image stabilized primes (body SSS) so we stay here. All lenses gain 2-3 stops on the Sony...A700 has top notch DR and great high ISO so most of us are not interested in Canon at the moment.
This thread is here to help the Adobe team make ACR better, please stop interfering with your brand bashing speaks.
Thank you.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com

Sony A700 and Aperture 2 report

I have been looking forward to Aperture support for the Sony A700 for some time. Now it has arrived, but with a few short comings.
1) No tethered support.
2) No use of the large embedded JPG HDTV sized previews within RAW files.
3) No lens identification - I know this info is probably proprietary to Sony, but other small 3rd party RAW converters have managed to do this, eg SILKYPIX.
I'm still having to use other converters to fix lens distortion and CA.

Any luck with the 2.1 update?

How can I quickly view pdf files like I can do with Windows Picture and Fax viewer for jpg files?

How can I quickly view pdf files like I can do with Windows Picture and Fax viewer for jpg files? I need to look at several thousand PDF files. It takes too long to open each one individually. The only thing I could think of is combining them into large groups and then using the Navigation index. But I like the way windows Picture and Fax Viewer does it because you can keep the files separate. Combining PDFs causes loss of individual file names. That would be a problem since I do need to have the individual file names.

Windows Picture and Fax Viewer is a DLL and is started via a rundll32.exe call and can't be set as an application to handle images in Firefox 3 and later versions.
Try to set Windows Picture and Fax Viewer as the default viewer in Windows, then it should be listed automatically in the Mozilla Firefox Browse dialog.
*http://www.winhelponline.com/articles/115/1/Windows-Picture-and-Fax-Viewer-as-the-default-viewer-in-Mozilla-Firefox.html
'''If this reply solves your problem, please click "Solved It" next to this reply when <u>signed-in</u> to the forum.'''

Please fix Lightroom for Sony A700

The splotchy color noise of the Sony A700 processed in Lightroom (or ACR) needs to be fixed. It has come to the point where nearly any A700 user that participates on a photo forum knows that Lightroom is not a good Raw converter for the A700 at ISO 1600 or higher. Maybe I'm overstating? Is there anyone here that doesn't agree with this sentiment?

I don't own A700, but I discovered this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=26834090
Which points to this:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c0620e5
I have no real idea do those threads offer any real information but quick browsing succested that they might contain some. Sorry I don't check them properly but I have a flu (and a fever) and I'm very tired.

Embedding JPG in PDF

I've added some XMP data to JPG files in order to track the files through the production process. As a test of the process I modified a simple PS file from the Adobe reference (shown below) and processed it using distiller 6 to create a PDF.
If the image is not resampled and doesn't have a clipping path then distiller just embeds the original JPG and the XMP data is preserved within the embedded JPG. However if the image has a clipping path or is downsampled then distiller seems to throw the XMP away (even if the option 'Save original JPG in file if possible' is selected)
Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong - it would seem to defeat the purpose of XMP as a way to track files if distiller just removes the information when it creates a PDF.
Thanks
PS file being processed (where SX.JPG contains XMP data)
<</PageSize [ 3000 3000 ] >> setpagedevice
newpath
200 50 moveto 400 0 rlineto 0 600 rlineto -200 0 rlineto closepath clip
/infilename (C:\\Test\\sx.jpg) def % filename
/w 762 def
/h 1647 def
% read a JPEG image
/DeviceRGB setcolorspace % pick color model
200 100 translate % set page position
w h scale % magnify unit square
/infile infilename (r) file def % establish input read file
/Data {infile /DCTDecode filter} def % define a data source
<< % start image dicationary
/ImageType 1 % always one
/Width w % JPEG width in pixels
/Height h % JPEG height in pixels
/ImageMatrix [w 0 0 h neg 0 h ] % see comments below
/DataSource Data % proc to get filtered JPEG
/BitsPerComponent 8 % color resolution
/Decode [0 1 0 1 0 1 ] % per red book 4.10
>>
image % call the image operator
showpage

Hi Gunar,
I appreciate the reply, its is good to be able to see that this is not something I'm missing but actually how it is intended to work.
To take it a bit further though I would like to be able to track a image (JPG or other format) through the production workflow and then at the end distill the final page.
All the PDF pages produced would then be able to be analysed to see what images were used (useful for tracking library image usage or even paying for copyrighted images).
XMP seemed like a good option but if a image is deep etched or cropped(and therefore resampled by distiller) then the XMP is discarded and the image can no longer be tracked. An option to preserve metadata would be very useful, is there any way to do that (or is it something that could be requested for the future)?
Thanks

Vista: 1.3 Downloader Doesn't See Sony a700 .ARW's; Odd Mouse Behavior

On my Vista system,the LR 1.3 downloader (now "Adobe Photodownloader 3.0 Component") doesn't see Sony a700 .ARW's when I choose Camera Or Card Reader as the source. I don't know about a100 .ARW's. The downloader for 1.2 didn't recognize either. I can still import them in place once I have them downloaded using the Vista Photo Gallery.
A new problem is that when I scroll through a group of images using the mouse scroll wheel the library loupe preview updates as before but the thumbnail doesn't shift until the histogram appears. The left and right arrows work properly.
The device manager shows the mouse (a Gateway branded optical mouse) as a "HID-compliant mouse". No updates to the mouse appear to be available.

If I use the "Choose Files" and "Copy To A New Location" options I can import directly into LR. I prefer to just keep using the Photo Gallery downloader and then import in place until the LR downloader is fully compatible. The annoyance for me is that there is now a lag in changing the active photo on the film strip in Library Loupe view when using the scroll wheel.

Where is the setting in LR 2.0 to turn on the view the embedded jpg file instead of rendering a thum

Where is the setting in LR 2.0 to turn on the view the embedded jpg file instead of rendering a thumbnail image from the RAW file?

Doug, this is a user to user forum so you get advice here from other users just like yourself.
AFAIK LR will show the embedded jpeg until it renders its own preview after that there is no way to get it to show the embedded jpeg.
When you are importing photos into LR in the import dialog box there is an option to show a preview of the embedded jpeg while the import is actually taking place.
Also this is the regular LR user to user forum and there is a link to the LR 2.0 Beta forum at the top of this forum. Maybe its best to post your question there.

Sony a700 cRAW files - excessive noise at higher ISO settings

I have found an issue when using the cRAW file format of my Sony a700 in Aperture. If I use ISO 800 or higher, I see "red speckle" (i.e. red pixels) artifacts and higher than expected colour noise in dark or shadow areas of images. The level of noise is very noticeable and is difficult to remove completely without loosing detail. However, if I take an image of the same scene under the same conditions and exposure settings, except using the RAW format, then the red speckle artifacts are virtually non existent, and the colour noise is very much reduced. I tried the same "experiment" using Lightroom, and there is no discernible difference between cRAW and RAW files, so it definitely seems an issue with the way Aperture converts the cRAW files. Of course the short term solution is simply for me to use the RAW instead of cRAW, but IMO a longer term fix from Apple is needed. Has anybody else noticed this problem?

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

Problems sharpening high ISO-files from Sony A700 in ACR 4.2

According to the reported problems with sharpening/noise-reduction high ISO-RAWs from Canon-cameras, the same issue seams to appear on ARW-Files of the Sony alpha 700.
Many of A700-users claim, that the pictures show a sort of watercolour effect. These effect will be the more recognizable, the higher the ISO-setting at the camera was. To explain what I mean, heres a 100%-crop of an shot at ISO 1600:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The writing seems somehow rough; there are a lot oft artifacts at the edges. Settings were:
Basic: Dynamic/Vibrance 0
Detail: Amount 33%, Radius 0.6, Detail 0 (!), Masking 20, Luminance 14, Color 10.
(The edges would have been much rougher, if I had set Detail to 25 (default) ore more.)
And here is what the Sony Image Data Converter did:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The edges are clear, I cant see any artifacts.
Now my questions:
Is this problem typical for the Sony A700 or does it appear to other cameras too?
How can I avoid this problem using ACR 4.2? I really dont want to use the Sony-Converter, because its slow and complex to handle.
Which are the best settings for sharpening and NR files from the A700 in ACR 4.2?
Please excuse my English Im German.
Anna

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

4.2 Sony A700 support?

The new Sony A700 will have two forms of RAW files, a regular RAW and a comressed RAW. will 4.2 support both forms?
Bob Mc

I have PS Elements 4.0 for Mac, upgraded to 4.0.1 via download. 4.0.1 is required in order for ACR 4.2 to install correctly. I received confirmation that 4.0.1 was installed correctly. Then all that is supposed to be necessary is for ACR (Camera Raw) 4.2 to be put into the correct plugin folder in place of ACR 3.3 (or whatever was there). Adobe's instructions are for the old ACR to be put in a folder on the Desktop, which is what I did. As I said, I followed Adobe's installation instructions exactly, and Adobe phone support confirmed that ACR 4.2 was in the right folder. Nevertheless, neither Bridge nor Elements can "see" Camera Raw, apparently. Adobe Support was unable to find anything wrong, and all the standard fixes like reinstallation, formatting the hard drive, cleaning caches, etc. failed to fix anything. I think it is becoming obvious that something prevents ACR 4.2 from working on some Macs. Adobe's only solution was to convert Raw files to DNGs and open them with some other Raw developer, like the older ACR 3.x. In my opinion, this is a pretty sorry fix. I bought Elements 4.0 specifically in order to run ACR 4.2, which is needed to support the Sony A700.

Sony A700 with ISO 100

1. The native ISO of the Sony A700 is about 160. Accordingly, ISO 100 is in fact ISO 160 with +2/3 EV exposure bias.
2. ACR adds 0.75 EV "exposure" adjustment to the Sony A700 images. The issue at this point is not this is nonsense, but following this procedure, the adjustment with ISO 100 should be 0.1 EV.
The result is, that the anyway overexposed ISO 100 shots appear hopelessly burnt without further adjustment.
It is worth to note, that the A900 behaves the same way, and look what ACR is doing: +0.35 EV adjustment with all ISOs except 100, and -0.35 EV with ISO 100, i.e. ACR accounts for the ISO difference.

1. The native ISO of the Sony A700 is about 160. Accordingly, ISO 100 is in fact ISO 160 with +2/3 EV exposure bias.
2. ACR adds 0.75 EV "exposure" adjustment to the Sony A700 images. The issue at this point is not this is nonsense, but following this procedure, the adjustment with ISO 100 should be 0.1 EV.
The result is, that the anyway overexposed ISO 100 shots appear hopelessly burnt without further adjustment.
It is worth to note, that the A900 behaves the same way, and look what ACR is doing: +0.35 EV adjustment with all ISOs except 100, and -0.35 EV with ISO 100, i.e. ACR accounts for the ISO difference.

Sony A700...Very bright photos in Aperture

I just upgraded to Aperture 2 and then bought a Sony A700 cam.
When photographing, photos looks okay in camera, so do histogram, but when imported into Aperture, the photos is very bright/over exposed/no contrast/histogram to the right
It is more or less possible to improve photos to "normal" standard, but its just very annoying....photos cant really be evaluated after import.
Anybody have any knowledge about this, possible workaround ?

YOU ARE RIGHT, AND (OOPS, CAPS LOCK, that's better) and I often have to slide the "Boost" down in the RAW fine tuning, which for some reason, is set to 100% for the A700 default. I don't know an automatic workaround, but can set an adjustments bunch and copy...
Is it possible to modify the camera default RAW fine tuning?

Thomas Knoll - Lightroom - ACR 4.3.1 Sony A700 Major Bug Needs Fixed

Please see this thread where all of the ACR4.3.1 problems are documented.
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c060c59
Basically, ACR4.3.1 is useless to Sony A700 users on files approaching ISO1600 and beyond.
Many other raw converters render the files properly, but ACR4.3.1 can not.
ACR4.3.1 creates watercolor looking blotches that can not be removed, while every other converter on the market produces fine grained "regular" usable ouput.
The D300 and the A700 have the same sensor but ACR4.3.1 is completely trashing high ISO files from the A700. Other converters do not trash the A700 file.
All of the Sony A700 user base is affected, and many pros have been reporting and writing on this for months. This problem is camera specific to the Sony A700.
Reviewers and pro photographers around the world have writing about this ACR 4.3.1 issue and I had assumed you already were aware of the issue.
If not, please get ACR4.3.1 fixed for us in the next release. If you need any high ISO files to use I have maybe 10,000 A700 ISO1600-6400 files, so feel free to let me know.
Thank you very much and please make us aware that you have acknowledged the problems and are going to make a fix.
Have a good day.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
http://www.illinoisphoto.com
http://www.rockriverfootball.com
and 97 others...

Yes, and in that thread I posted is also a comparison against ACDPro 2 KH did against a "ps expert", and two other links are posted that links to articles that compared another half dozen converters by one one of the most respected A-Mount pros on the planet.
The head to head conversions have been done in forums since September showing the ACR flaws against numerous converters by dozens of photographers.
That is the problem...it is just ACR mangling the A700 files. With the other converters the grain stays tight and small...with ACR as ISO rises to about 1600, smearing and blotches start taking over the image.
C1V4, Bibble, RT, ACDSeePro 2, etc, etc, all give a nice tight grained A700 high ISO file while ACR4.3.1 is the only one giving us the splotched watercolor blotches and detail smearing.
I think ACR is not recognizing something properly in the A700 files that the others are. Tone curve reproduction seems off at times, and some sort of NR/Blotches seem to be in the image before you even get started with ACR. Those two things don't happen when you use any of the other converters.
I don't know why it's happening, I just know it is happening. And since I have 200K files from a half dozen cameras it really sucks to have to use another processor on the A700 files...really throws a hitch in your giddy-up.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
PS...Here is a link toy one of a couple articles by DK, quite possibly the most respected A-Mount guy on the planet. His test is not perfect, but it clearly show the splotches and artifacts (confetti, he calls it) that no other processors in the land gives us.
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/08/capture-one-v4-cures-a700-high-iso-confetti/
These "watercolors" absolutely ruin shadow areas and backgrounds, and as I mentioned before everyone else (third party) in the business gives a fine grain pattern that can be easily dealt with after the fact.
Those ACR splotches are horrendous to deal with and that is the main reason we need the converter tweaked for A700 files...nobody wcan deal with those "watercolor" effects at high ISO!
I prefer IDC, most all other shooters are using RT, ACDPro2, C1V4 and others...

Camera profiles for Sony A700

Hi,
I'm working in CS4 (Mac) and I downloaded the latest camera raw 5.6. I have only the Adobe standard, ACR 4.4 and ACR 3.5 in the Camera Calibration -Camera Profile.
I don't see special camera profiles for my Sony A700. In tutorials they showed profiles for Canon or Nikon. How can I get the profiles for the A700? Do they exist?
Thanks a lot
Claudine

Hi Claudine,
At the moment these are the only profiles made by Adobe for the A700. You can build your own profiles (or edit existing profiles) using the free DNG Profile Editor, if you wish. Another solution for a custom profile is the ColorChecker Passport, from X-Rite.
Eric

AP 2 and Sony A700 embedded JPG Quick Previews?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for