I'm sure most of us want to squeeze optimal data out of RAW files.
In order to do that, I am currently forced to use other software which uses precise floating point calculations in RAW file conversion (as opposed to ACR truncations and rounding, losing data in the process) and then if needed, import files to Photoshop CC.
Same thing about being able to choose demosaicing algorithm and Lucy–Richardson deconvolution (blur reduction) and all those advanced features that one can ignore in not needed but can be put into an advanced menu if one wants to use them.
I know that precise and accurate conversions take longer than wild approximations, but why not adding a selectable option for those users that prefer quality over not waiting those extra seconds?
Open-source developers can do that with very limited funding, I am sure Adobe can pull it off even better.
Copy link to clipboard
You need to be much more specific. Exactly how does ACR truncation and rounding prevent you from getting the result you want? Where, exactly, does ACR "lose data"? Please be specific, because it's impossible to know what you're referring to.
The demosaicing algorithm is the heart of the whole ACR application. You can't change that without switching to a different raw converter. There is, however, a choice between several process versions as the engine got improved over the years.
It sounds almost like you think there is a single right way to process a raw file, and that you should always end up with a fixed given end result.
How is data lost, you ask?
Well the farther you approximate, the more different a result gets. And since data is used for calculations in every step/setting/tool you may use, such error ends up being multiplied with every such step.
You might argue that such an error is small, but what if some extra code and a selectable option can make it smaller and yield more accurate results?
That's why Greek Pi is not just 3, neither just 3.14 for precise applications. It's not that people just have fun using the extra digits, it's that they want their results to be more accurate.
And since we're not talking about a beta freeware but software that has high reputation in the field and which is actively funded by our subscriptions, I'd like it to approximate as little as possible even if that involves waiting extra time, which would take one extra flag box on the users' end without any need to get upset at people posting ideas and showing what's out there.
I'm not fully sure of your point here. I did check out Raw Photo Processor and they stopped development for the Mac at El Capitan (X.11). I did try to run it and it crashed immediately when I tried to open up a raw image. I didn't bother to check out RawPedia at that point.
You are making claims and are not backing them up with any actual examples.
Do you actually have a question about ACR or what?
Let me ask you directly: Do you believe there is only one single correct way to process a raw file? And all others are wrong and "inaccurate"? If that's what you mean, you misunderstand what raw processing is.
If you could actually see a raw file, directly from the sensor and prior to processing, it would look something like this. This is the original data:
So how do you get from there to a finished image? Please define your concept of "accuracy" here: