well… 
Yeah sure, I meant Raw Therapee, I wrote it wrong of course…
Anyway, I uninstalled it a few weeks ago, but I was using the latest version.
I am interested to test how different raw converters process the same raw image data regardless of camera/lens make/model. That’s why I am not really interested in testing the combination of in-camera software + raw converter but only raw converter. Of course different cameras have different qualities but I don’t think that WB, gamma curve or demosaic are camera dependent algorithms (in case of same bayer pattern). Correct me if I am wrong.
What I am asking is not directly related to RT per se although it will be part of the test of course.
I am using RT mainly on Linux but I have it on Windows too. Never crashed.
Some time ago I made a very simple test, comparing different raw converters:
This was based on using real raw file, from a camera. However it is fairly limited and obviously testing with lens imperfections (vignette etc) or without the possibility to have a clean linear gradient it is somewhat skewed. So my idea is to use a synthetic raw so I can take it further, test not only gradients but also different other patterns.
Hi George,
It is really good to see someone “digging deep”. My sincere congrats on that!
I understood that your goal is to test Raw converters and that in order to do so you intend to exclude as many variables as possible. So far, there are no questions I guess. I might also agree to that for equal sensor principals the proper algorithms to use are probably the same. However, I have my doubts as to what extend WB or any other settings applied by cameras to their Raw files might coincide between files from different brands and/or different cameras (even within a same brand), so, considering that there might be possible differences, the test would not achieve it’s full purpose.
Furthermore, even if the above mentioned possible differences would not exist; in real life you will always have factors like for example different lens behavior in contrast or sharpness due to different lighting circumstances (even with the same lens). On top of this, these real life variables are sometimes more and sometimes less considerable. So; variables on variables here.
Now, I know that you do not want real life Raw’s, so your test would not be influenced by all those variables, How to get your hands on a Raw file without the use of a lens… might be some task. That’s why I said that as far as I see it, testing a file specifically created for the purpose might be the most practical way to test how a program acts on whatever file you feed it. But, even so, I don’t see how such a test might possibly be giving you consistent answers about what to do with real Raw files, using real lenses and shooting real life situations. Personally, after years of struggling, I have long ago come to the conclusion that every shot in different circumstances needs different adjustments if you want to get the most out of it. God, how I wish there were default settings I could use!
Hope you prove my words wrong though and in case you ever reach a verdict (whatever it might be), please let me know. I am very interested!
Cheers and good luck!
The question how to make the synthetic raw mosaiced (using different patterns) remains.
I am not sure I understand correctly. I approach this considering that raw files are not white balanced, i.e. they are in the so called uniwb. Other WB is applied during raw conversion. Of course different cameras may have different uniwb but that has to do the hardware of the sensor (CFA etc) not with the built-in camera software which creates jpg previews. Or what are you talking about?
But this is the process of exposure. I am testing the next step - the processing of the exposed and recorded data. The way the raw converter works has nothing to do with the scene, its dynamic range, lens etc. (unless it is some “smart” software which makes “auto magic” and gives no control). If those are to be tested, one should fix the other thing - the software - which is what camera testing labs do. We just can’t have variables on variables. Only one thing at a time should be tested in order to make it objective.
Well, it is not. Someone already suggested how to do it. I just need the last piece - making it mosaiced.
As I explained - I am not testing lenses or cameras. As you see in my older test it is focused only on the very basics of raw conversion: to check how the program acts on the raster of the image, does it filter it badly, how does it handle demosaic. It clearly shows how the beloved ACR and C1 really suck. But to make it more meaningful and test further I need representative clear data, not just a shot of my monitor. Then I can control it, change it, test with or without noise etc etc…
Thanks. I hope someone can enlighten me on how to add mosaic. Then the rest will follow 
George,
Take a look at the following, it might interest you:
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/virtualraw/index_en.htm
Thanks @Johannes_Compaan. I read the article, it is interesting but I can’t relate it to my problem.
Noob jumping on this thread here.
I’m having a hard time generating this DNG HALD image. Would you mind sharing the DNG you created?
Cheers