@agriggio I updated the french translation file, which include all the improvements you bring recently (new lines 821, 1983, 1984)Francais.txt (150.8 KB)
- They should not be that different as I only use amaze demosaicoing, white balance with same parameters, color management with same parameters, all exposure parameters set to 0 (no clip out of gamut for RT).
So there should be some hidden processing or a bug in one SW to explain the difference: ART mid and high luminance pixels are more exposed than in RT.
- You are right. if in RT I click on clipped highlight indication and clipped shadow indication, I can see clipped highlght and clipped shadow zones. Nevertheless there is no indication in the histogram.
-
I do see the raw clipped highlights. but for clipped shadow I can hardly see them. I only see some colored pixels in the shadow zone.
-
clipped shadows indication zone : when I hover on the clipped shadows zone, the RGB values seem always greater than 0. I imagine there are only a few clipped pixels in the zone.
I tried in ART to get the same non clipped histogram as in RT. That was indeed a complete failure.
hi,
those are your clipped (clamped) pixels. the colour indicates which channel is below the black level
ART and RT apply camera input profiles in a (slightly) different way, so that might be it. I’ll take a closer look when I have the chance
Just curious is there an explanation of how the pipeline for ART differs from RT and why the changes were made? (Just a brief overview if it’s not to complicated to explain?)
It is indeed a bit complicated to explain. There are different reasons:
-
to have a clear separation between tools operating in “scene referred” space and tools operating in “display referred” space, similarly to what is happening e.g. with darktable
-
to have a more modular organisation of the code
-
to fix (what I perceived to be) some inconsistencies in the way some tools were applied
-
finally, it is likely that some changes were purely accidental
Just to be clear, though, I think there’s nothing wrong in the way things are done in RT. I just had a different opinion about some things and wanted to try some alternatives. Not being constrained by backwards compatibility (which is very important for RT) made experimenting quite easy.
5 Likes
That sounds good, thanks for the explanation.
@agriggio
I updated the line 1124 (sharpening tool). Do not hesitate to ask me for a verification of the french language file before you decided to release the 1.0 version of ART.
Serge MoreauFrancais.txt (150.8 KB)
thanks a lot @srgmro for your help! I am finalising a couple more things and then I plan to publish a first release candidate. I don’t expect changes in the language files but I’m not sure yet…
@agriggio
A New french translation file, according to the modification introduce by @sguyader in the default language file. I had only to actualize the line 862 others were already OK.Francais.txt (150.5 KB)
Yes I had made changes already in the French file, I missed one occurrence. Thanks Serge.
I just want to mention this, so it may help someone who has similar issue:
I noticed that after upgrading from 0.2 to 0.3 via builds provided here for windows, the exported image when opened in other sw than ART was very midle grey-ish, low contrast. Same image exported with linux version self compiled using same sidecar file was ok after opening in same sw.
Removig local app data on windows fixed the issue and now both exports looks identical.
Does anyone prepare Linux builds (Ubuntu bionic here)? I tried building myself but make fails - and it is a long time ago since I looked at a Makefile.
I think that the Dariusz Duma ppa could be a solution. Perhaps ask him if he is interested.
Hi All,
very slowly I’m trying to understand the internals of RT/ART… and I could say silly questions.
If I am seeing in the ART pipeline the statement about Input color profile
from Camera to Linear RGB working space
then in ART, do we have a working profile (Prophoto, Rec2020,AdobeRGB and so on…) with a linear gamma opposed to percepetual gamma in RT?
Hi,
Yes.
No. RT also uses a linear TRC (tone response curve, i.e. linear gamma) by default. However, it also allows you to use a non-linear
TRC if you want:
This is not available in ART, you have to stick to linear.
Ciao Alberto,
thanks for the quick response … I thought when you click on the toner response curve button you can customize the gamma from the point the default was… OK then we have linear gamma of the working profile in RT too…
Excuse me but can you explain me the statement into Rawpedia
During this conversion, an internal gamma is set by RawTherapee that always is “gamma sRGB” i.e. “gamma=2.4 and slope=12.92”
I’m confused
Gabriele
That’s not something I wrote, sorry
Will there be a guide, a video walkthrough on how to use ART the best way for starting photographers? I think that would make a huge difference with the adoption of ART.