Support for the Olympus OM-1

I did a full upload to raw.pixls.us but after a week I can’t see anything listed on the repo from my uploads?
Am I missing something here or does it take some time for it to be added to the repo?

The uploads need to be manually approved.

1 Like

ART (agriggio / ART / wiki / Home — Bitbucket), a fork of Rawtherapee, supports the OM-1. I bet you could just copy it’s rtdata/commatrices.json and rtdata/wbpresets.json to the rawtherapee source code, compile, and it would work, but I have not tried. I prefer ART anyway

1 Like

Is the OM-1 raw file already supported now by RawTherapee? I am thinking about buying this camera. RawTherapee is my raw file editor, so if OM-1 is not supported I will have to wait untill it is.

I haven’t had time to poke at this, so nothing yet.

Om Systems OM-1 RAW support seems to be in a recent pre-release build of darktable 3.90, so many thanks to the developers! I’m talking about 3.9.0+1568~gca7a55940.

1 Like

I hopefully downloaded ART (Sep 04, 2020), but it shows up with a circle-slash over it, and when the downloaded art.app opened, Terminal says, “The application cannot be opened because its executable is missing.”

Any clues? Are there any newer executables? That came from the “Continuous build” repository, but I guess “continuous” means at least 21 months…

The newest RawTherapee runs for me, but OM-1 raw files are just black squares.

MacOS Catalina (10.15.7).

EDIT: I tried compiling from source. cmake gave me this cryptic warning: “The package name passed to find_package_handle_standard_args (MACINTEGRATION) does not match the name of the calling package (MacIntegration).” Then make failed at: " clang: error: invalid version number in ‘-mmacosx-version-min=’".

That (no OM-1 support) is also why I started working with ART, which works fine on my windows computer. I miss some things I used to use in RT, but I start to like the more simple UI and the masking options.

@Entropy512 - Andy Dodd:

Hi, Andy,
right now being in process of creating a OM-1 “full set”,
we just discovered that this has already been provided by @Sterling101:
“Full set of raw’s uploaded to raw.pixls.us for all crops” (Leigh Windridge, Mar 11).

Since your answer from May 19, have you had time to look into this?
We would prefer not to create and submit “double work” …

Otherwise, If additional data sets would be helpful, we would be happy to contribute.

But please, let us know.

Thank you very much, indeed.
Kind regards from Munich, Germany
...
BTW: At the time being, Filebin rejects:
“The storage capacity is reached and new file uploads will be rejected. Please come back later.”

ART: “raw_crop” and per-iso ranges “white” seemingly missing:

cammatrices.json:
{
“make_model” : “OM DIGITAL SOLUTIONS OM-1”,
“dcraw_matrix” : [9488, -3983, -714, -2887, 10945, 2229, -137, 960, 5786]
},
Lines 3402 … 3405 in [ Bitbucket ]

wbpresets.json:
{
“make_model” : “OM DIGITAL SOLUTIONS OM-1”,
“presets” : [
{ “name” : “incandescent”, “multipliers” : [ 1.352, 1, 3.219 ] },
{ “name” : “flash”, “multipliers” : [ 2.609, 1, 1.477 ] },
{ “name” : “fine weather”, “multipliers” : [ 2.258, 1, 1.766 ] },
{ “name” : “cloudy”, “multipliers” : [ 2.422, 1, 1.586 ] },
{ “name” : “shade”, “multipliers” : [ 2.648, 1, 1.406 ] },
{ “name” : “daylight fluorescent”, “multipliers” : [ 2.445, 1, 2.031 ] },
{ “name” : “day white fluorescent”, “multipliers” : [ 2.547, 1, 1.719 ] },
{ “name” : “cool white fluorescent”, “multipliers” : [ 2.141, 1, 2.57 ] }
]
},
Lines 5834 … 5846 in [ Bitbucket ]

Exploiting Gentoo,
first I’ve added “OLYMPUS E-M1MarkIII” and “OM Digital Solutions OM-1” description blocks
into ~/.config/RawTherapee/camconst_json ;
then into a patch
/etc/portage/patches/media-gfx/rawtherapee/camconst-json__OLYMPUS.diff,
with re-build extending system-wide /usr/share/rawtherapee/camconst.json .

RESULTS are same:

Opening ORF taken with E-M1MarkIII work fine.

Opening ORF taken with OM-1 will read meta-data,
then will throw ERROR
“Unexpected end of file
Cannot use camera white balance.”

ERGO:
Upgrading camconst.json is not sufficient.

Running hexedit on ORF taken with OM-1 exhibits XML / rdf structures
which were not present up to E-M1MarkIII :

################################################################

OM Digital Solutions
.
OM-1
.
.
Version 1.2
.

<?xpacket begin="..." id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>

.
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x=“adobe:ns:meta/”>
.
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=“http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#”>
.
<rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp=“http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/” xmp:Rating=“0”/>
.
</rdf:RDF>
.
</x:xmpmeta>
.

################################################################

RawTherapee 5.8 rtengine/dcraw.cc embeds DCRAW_VERSION “9.28” .

As expected, no mention of “OM Digital Solutions” yet.

void CLASS parse_makernote
depends on “OLYMPUS” ;

void CLASS apply_tiff()
dito

void CLASS olympus_load_raw()
hard-coded read loops over row and col

################################################################

Mar 11 - May 19 - Okt 19 :

As stated above, we would be happy to contribute “full set” data.
I have even contacted OMDS development …

But all of this only makes sense if there is anybody out there committing to integrate contributions.

Without support of current flagship cameras,
all the bells and whistles in 5.9-RC will neither shine nor ring.

Yup. This is well known and established. I simply haven’t gotten around to poking at this yet, even though it looks like the changes aren’t TOO significant based on the scope of the libraw patch. Partly because I’m seriously thinking of replacing the hacked-up dcraw with libraw if other developers agree with me on that approach, rather than waste any significant time on the current implementation - but that would be a major change that has to be done after 5.9 is released, which has taken a lot longer than anticipated for a variety of reasons.

I have poked in the bowels of dcraw before, but it’s hard to FORC3 myself to deal with dave’s oddball loop macros. (Those who have read the source code understand what I mean here… And yes, FORC3 was intentionally copied that way.)

2 Likes

You can of course try a visual assessment but you might have to rely on some actual noise analysis… I have found in DT for instance on some images the default RCD demosaic introduces or at least has way more color artifacts than AMAZE. Also the chromatic aberrations module works really well on color noise so the software and workflow could really influence it as might the default profiles used for color and lenses. It would be nice if there was a DXO mark rating for sensor noise…maybe there is something like that out there…

@Entropy512: Mid-Air Collision ;-(
Thanks to Andy Dodd for your information!

FORC3 : Yes, …
including relying on un-initialized variables,
depending upon the compiler release behaviour …
and so forth.

“replacing the hacked-up dcraw with libraw” : +1 !

[ LibRaw 0.21 (Beta1) | LibRaw ] :

Submitted by lexa on 4 July, 2022 - 10:29

Changes are:

Camera support :

… OM System OM-1 < ----- <-----< -----

Version suffix changed to RC1

+1 Argument:

New format versions spring up like mushrooms,
esp. " Lossless Compression" or “pseudo RAW” files (e.g. l-RAW / m-RAW / s-RAW)
in manufacturer-dependent versions (Canon; Sony; Nikon),
resulting into successive extension issues into LibRaw.

If this wave is being handled sufficiently at one place, we can be grateful :wink:
so that RT can concentrate upon its core: Therapy of images.

Kind regards

Please, find attached the output of exiftool-12.42 applied to an OM-1 ORF example foto:

OM-1__exiftool-12-42__.txt (11.0 KB)

This provides rich information - for example,
WB RB Levels at different temperatures, Color Matrix, Black Level, Crop info, etc. pp.

Compared to an E-M1 Mark II sample, not only these differ, but already structural values like
e.g. Image Width, Strip Offsets, Strip Byte Counts, Preview Image Length in the first place.

I can’t remember such while investigating and implementing RCD, could you share that image?

Away for a few days but I will look some up…

Please, find attached the output of exiftool-12.42 applied to an E-M1 Mark III ORF example foto:

E-M1-III__exiftool-12-42__.txt (11.1 KB)

with similar findings / differences / information supplied from inside the raw file.

Kdiff3 with { mkII | mkIII | OM-1 } exif info was helpful :wink: .

SUGGESTION:

Change Title to “Support for Olympus E-M1 Mark III and OM SYSTEM OM-1”.

Providing with pleasure: .JPG and .ORF :

PA160004.ORF (17.2 MB)

HTH !

Cross-reference:
This is the “example foto” from which “OM-1__exiftool-12-42__.txt” was extracted ← c.f. post #44.