Sorry, the docker stuff is completely out of our scope.
Could you please compile LibRaw from source on the problematic system and try to reproduce the problem?
Also: it is pointless to discuss some problem with specific raw (dng) file without access to specific file (But if we can't reproduce the problem ourselves, we can't help either).
This is LibRaw (raw processing library) support forum, I don't understand why you are looking for an answer to a question about GUI tool for FFT generation.
Both systems run -6 -o 1 -g 3.0 12.0 -r 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 -T /vol/test.dng but the results are different.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/axtohrmyfr2g903pxjvbk/small_compare.png?r... This is a screenshot of what the source DNG looks like when my macOS renders it as a file preview test.dng, the result I got with LibRaw locally LOCAL test.dng.tiff, and the result I got with LibRaw running on Digital Ocean Docker container DO test.dng.tiff. As you can see, the one rendered by DO looks off, even though, in general, there are no issues with the DO LibRaw app.
If the original DNG would be helpful, I'll ask its owner and get back. Please let me know!
Is there anything else I should consider?
Here's detailed info about the DNG file:
$ exiftool test.dng
ExifTool Version Number : 13.25
File Name : test.dng
Directory : .
File Size : 109 MB
File Permissions : -rw-r--r--
File Type : DNG
File Type Extension : dng
MIME Type : image/x-adobe-dng
Exif Byte Order : Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
Make : Plustek
Camera Model Name : OpticFilm 8200i
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
Software : SilverFast 8.8.0 r25 (Jun 25 2021) d6df961 25.06.
Image Width : 4824
Image Height : 3408
Bits Per Sample : 16 16 16
Compression : Uncompressed
Photometric Interpretation : Linear Raw
Samples Per Pixel : 3
Rows Per Strip : 1
X Resolution : 300
Y Resolution : 300
Planar Configuration : Chunky
Resolution Unit : inches
XMP Toolkit : Adobe XMP Core 7.0-c000 1.000000, 0000/00/00-00:00:00
Company : LaserSoft Imaging
Original Scan Frame : <?xml ... VERY LONG STRING ... >
Scan Frames : <?xml ... VERY LONG STRING ... >
Creator Tool : SilverFast 8.8.0 r25 (Jun 25 2021) d6df961 25.06.
Metadata Date : 2025:04:13 08:42:22-07:00
Document ID : E3BB96E86460FD74E93B6EB4A3FA1A53
Original Document ID : E3BB96E86460FD74E93B6EB4A3FA1A53
Instance ID : xmp.iid:06a79b8e-04a5-4b52-a580-95f09cfce4aa
Format : image/dng
Version : 16.5
Process Version : 15.4
White Balance : As Shot
Color Temperature : 6500
Tint : +10
Exposure 2012 : 0.00
Contrast 2012 : 0
Highlights 2012 : 0
Shadows 2012 : 0
Whites 2012 : 0
Blacks 2012 : 0
Texture : 0
Clarity 2012 : 0
Dehaze : 0
Vibrance : 0
Saturation : 0
Parametric Shadows : 0
Parametric Darks : 0
Parametric Lights : 0
Parametric Highlights : 0
Parametric Shadow Split : 25
Parametric Midtone Split : 50
Parametric Highlight Split : 75
Sharpness : 40
Sharpen Radius : +1.0
Sharpen Detail : 25
Sharpen Edge Masking : 0
Luminance Smoothing : 0
Color Noise Reduction : 25
Color Noise Reduction Detail : 50
Color Noise Reduction Smoothness: 50
Hue Adjustment Red : 0
Hue Adjustment Orange : 0
Hue Adjustment Yellow : 0
Hue Adjustment Green : 0
Hue Adjustment Aqua : 0
Hue Adjustment Blue : 0
Hue Adjustment Purple : 0
Hue Adjustment Magenta : 0
Saturation Adjustment Red : 0
Saturation Adjustment Orange : 0
Saturation Adjustment Yellow : 0
Saturation Adjustment Green : 0
Saturation Adjustment Aqua : 0
Saturation Adjustment Blue : 0
Saturation Adjustment Purple : 0
Saturation Adjustment Magenta : 0
Luminance Adjustment Red : 0
Luminance Adjustment Orange : 0
Luminance Adjustment Yellow : 0
Luminance Adjustment Green : 0
Luminance Adjustment Aqua : 0
Luminance Adjustment Blue : 0
Luminance Adjustment Purple : 0
Luminance Adjustment Magenta : 0
Split Toning Shadow Hue : 0
Split Toning Shadow Saturation : 0
Split Toning Highlight Hue : 0
Split Toning Highlight Saturation: 0
Split Toning Balance : 0
Color Grade Midtone Hue : 0
Color Grade Midtone Sat : 0
Color Grade Shadow Lum : 0
Color Grade Midtone Lum : 0
Color Grade Highlight Lum : 0
Color Grade Blending : 50
Color Grade Global Hue : 0
Color Grade Global Sat : 0
Color Grade Global Lum : 0
Auto Lateral CA : 0
Lens Profile Enable : 0
Lens Manual Distortion Amount : 0
Vignette Amount : 0
Defringe Purple Amount : 0
Defringe Purple Hue Lo : 30
Defringe Purple Hue Hi : 70
Defringe Green Amount : 0
Defringe Green Hue Lo : 40
Defringe Green Hue Hi : 60
Perspective Upright : Off
Perspective Vertical : 0
Perspective Horizontal : 0
Perspective Rotate : 0.0
Perspective Aspect : 0
Perspective Scale : 100
Perspective X : 0.00
Perspective Y : 0.00
Grain Amount : 0
Post Crop Vignette Amount : 0
Shadow Tint : 0
Red Hue : 0
Red Saturation : 0
Green Hue : 0
Green Saturation : 0
Blue Hue : 0
Blue Saturation : 0
HDR Edit Mode : 0
Convert To Grayscale : False
Override Look Vignette : False
Tone Curve Name 2012 : Linear
Camera Profile : Embedded
Camera Profile Digest : 553F5A29E2BFD14973038D1977616F6F
Has Settings : True
Has Crop : False
Already Applied : False
History Action : saved
History Instance ID : xmp.iid:06a79b8e-04a5-4b52-a580-95f09cfce4aa
History When : 2025:04:13 08:42:22-07:00
History Software Agent : Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.5 (Macintosh)
History Changed : /metadata
Tone Curve PV2012 : 0, 0, 255, 255
Tone Curve PV2012 Red : 0, 0, 255, 255
Tone Curve PV2012 Green : 0, 0, 255, 255
Tone Curve PV2012 Blue : 0, 0, 255, 255
Point Colors : -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000
Exif Version : 0231
Maker Note Unknown Binary : (Binary data 130 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Exif Image Width : 4824
Exif Image Height : 3408
DNG Version : 1.4.0.0
DNG Backward Version : 1.0.0.0
Unique Camera Model : Plustek OpticFilm 8200i
Color Matrix 1 : 3.2404542 -1.5371385 -0.4985314 -0.969266 1.8760108 0.041556 0.0556434 -0.2040259 1.0572252
As Shot White XY : 0.3127 0.329
Maker Note Safety : Unsafe
Raw Data Unique ID : E3BB96E86460FD74E93B6EB4A3FA1A53
Raw Image Digest : 8290177745e2f8f5b8325a732755da1f
Subfile Type : Reduced-resolution image
Strip Offsets : (Binary data 8186 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Strip Byte Counts : (Binary data 5144 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Profile CMM Type : Linotronic
Profile Version : 2.1.0
Profile Class : Input Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 2021:05:21 16:05:34
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer :
Device Model :
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator :
Profile ID : 0
Profile Copyright : Copyright by LaserSoft Imaging AG
Profile Description : SFprofT (OpticFilm 8200i)
Media White Point : 0.96362 1.01057 0.81055
Red Matrix Column : 0.21921 0.08772 0
Green Matrix Column : 0.13847 0.57034 0
Blue Matrix Column : 0.19788 0.01196 0.84502
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
A To B0 : (Binary data 217222 bytes, use -b option to extract)
A To B1 : (Binary data 217222 bytes, use -b option to extract)
A To B2 : (Binary data 217222 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Image Size : 4824x3408
Megapixels : 16.4
Preview TIFF : (Binary data 8995734 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Thumbnail TIFF : (Binary data 276696 bytes, use -b option to extract)
My question is not about python script, but how to generate FFT using other GUI tools that are known to provide 100% correct FFT so that i could compare that correct FFT to the one i am getting in python.
However, may I return to my questions (which were about libraw, not Topaz): When will the library be able to cope with NEF files from the Nikon Z50II? That model is not on the list of new cameras, nor formats, which is somewhat worrying, as the Z50II already is a couple of months on the market. Or is this part of NEFX (or does it come along with the support for the Z f)?
Does NEFX-support include the NEF-Format of the Nikon Z50II? Topaz doesn't open its raw files and their support claims that this would be due to libraw not supporting the new format.
Do you have a date already in mind for the release 0.22?
Dear Mat: please direct Topaz support/team to our official support E-mail (info@libraw.org)
We do not have the ability (either technical or otherwise) to provide direct support to users of programs from other vendors, but we will be happy to provide support to the vendor itself.
Thanks for your replies and for looking into it (and for the library as well).
To add to the DNG, CR2 question - you are right - TIFF from DNG and TIFF from CR2 have matching resolution 5634x3752 which seems to map to width, height from the libraw_image_sizes_t structure.
Also raw-identify -f -u reports the same raw_height, raw_width resolutions for both DNG and CR2: 5792x3804.
What is differing is the line starting with Raw inset, width x height: matching libraw_raw_inset_crop_t when using raw-identify -v on both DNG and CR2: offsets in CR2 are 168, 56 and for DNG are 336, 112. The DNGs offsets are too large - e.g. trying to crop raw area with them would not be possible. I think I'd expect offsets of both DNG and CR2 match (cropped resolution matches).
RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPROD.CR2 lossless_jpeg_load_raw() F=158x52x0x0 RS=5792x3804 Canon/EOS 5D Mark II
RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPROD777.dng packed_dng_load_raw() F=158x52x0x0 RS=5792x3804 Canon/EOS 5D Mark II
Regarding RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPROD.CR2 file:
1) Converted it to DNG using current Adobe DNG Converter (17.2)
2) processed w/ dcraw_emu -T -w (dcraw_emu: from github/LibRaw/master)
Left/top margins are always adjusted to multiply of 2 (of 6 for Fuji X-Trans) to keep bayer pattern the same for both full sensor area and visible area.
CR2: 5616 x 3744 left: 168 top: 56
DNG: 5616 x 3744 left: 336 top: 112
CR2's raw resolution is 5792x3804, so trying to crop it according to those values would not be possible - it'd escape the raw dimensions (e.g. 336 + 5616 > 5792).
It's also interesting that DNG's offsets are exactly double of those reported for CR2.
Sorry, the docker stuff is completely out of our scope.
Could you please compile LibRaw from source on the problematic system and try to reproduce the problem?
Also: it is pointless to discuss some problem with specific raw (dng) file without access to specific file (But if we can't reproduce the problem ourselves, we can't help either).
This is LibRaw (raw processing library) support forum, I don't understand why you are looking for an answer to a question about GUI tool for FFT generation.
Thank you for your quick response, Alex.
I'm using
librav-0.21.3-r0on both systems. Here's a screenshot of what I gathered (left is my Docker container running on Apple M1 laptop, right is a Docker container running on Digital Ocean instance): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/umk20exovyygzs952ywfi/versions.png?rlkey=...Both systems run
-6 -o 1 -g 3.0 12.0 -r 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.0 -T /vol/test.dngbut the results are different.https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/axtohrmyfr2g903pxjvbk/small_compare.png?r... This is a screenshot of what the source DNG looks like when my macOS renders it as a file preview
test.dng, the result I got with LibRaw locallyLOCAL test.dng.tiff, and the result I got with LibRaw running on Digital Ocean Docker containerDO test.dng.tiff. As you can see, the one rendered by DO looks off, even though, in general, there are no issues with the DO LibRaw app.If the original DNG would be helpful, I'll ask its owner and get back. Please let me know!
Is there anything else I should consider?
Here's detailed info about the DNG file:
My question is not about python script, but how to generate FFT using other GUI tools that are known to provide 100% correct FFT so that i could compare that correct FFT to the one i am getting in python.
Please make sure you're using same LibRaw version compiled with same options/compile flags (e.g. DNG SDK support) and with same run-time options
Sorry, we do not provide consulting on Python.
Probably ChatGPT do.
Thanks!
Bests, Mat
The list of supported cameras will be available at the same time as the next release/snapshot. It's too early to talk about it now.
Thanks, again! But honestly, that, too, was not the primary question.
May I try to isolate it: Will the Nikon Z50II be supported in the next release? And if not, when might that be the case?
Regards,
Mat
Thanks for the quick response!
However, may I return to my questions (which were about libraw, not Topaz): When will the library be able to cope with NEF files from the Nikon Z50II? That model is not on the list of new cameras, nor formats, which is somewhat worrying, as the Z50II already is a couple of months on the market. Or is this part of NEFX (or does it come along with the support for the Z f)?
Cheers!
Hi!
Does NEFX-support include the NEF-Format of the Nikon Z50II? Topaz doesn't open its raw files and their support claims that this would be due to libraw not supporting the new format.
Do you have a date already in mind for the release 0.22?
Cheers, Mat
Nikon NEFX is 4/8/16/32 shots in PixelShift mode merged via Nikon software.
Dear Mat: please direct Topaz support/team to our official support E-mail (info@libraw.org)
We do not have the ability (either technical or otherwise) to provide direct support to users of programs from other vendors, but we will be happy to provide support to the vendor itself.
Awesome, thanks for looking into it.
I see, so that's the expected behavior, thanks for clarifying.
This patch should fix it: https://github.com/LibRaw/LibRaw/commit/29d9785c2d5f71db7c6ae2834003cd21...
In fact, adjust_to_raw_inset_crop will ignore this incorrect crop, so problem is minor: https://github.com/LibRaw/LibRaw/blob/master/src/utils/utils_libraw.cpp#...
Thanks: look like a bug: inset_crop ajusted twice: DNG metadata (DefaultCrop tag) and Canon visible area metadata.
If left (or top) margin is adjusted by one: this results into visible area adjustment too...
Thanks for your replies and for looking into it (and for the library as well).
To add to the DNG, CR2 question - you are right - TIFF from DNG and TIFF from CR2 have matching resolution 5634x3752 which seems to map to
width, heightfrom thelibraw_image_sizes_tstructure.Also
raw-identify -f -ureports the sameraw_height, raw_widthresolutions for both DNG and CR2: 5792x3804.What is differing is the line starting with
Raw inset, width x height:matchinglibraw_raw_inset_crop_twhen usingraw-identify -von both DNG and CR2: offsets in CR2 are 168, 56 and for DNG are 336, 112. The DNGs offsets are too large - e.g. trying to crop raw area with them would not be possible. I think I'd expect offsets of both DNG and CR2 match (cropped resolution matches).Ah, that makes sense about the left/top margins to align with bayer pattern.
What about the cropped resolution though? Shouldn't it match what ExifTool reports? E.g. LibRaw's 3007 x 1999 vs ExifTool's 3008 x 2000.
I'm wondering if the decreased resolution is caused by the left/top alignment, or it's an unrelated issue.
Framing is also the same:
$ raw-identify -f -u *
RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPROD.CR2 lossless_jpeg_load_raw() F=158x52x0x0 RS=5792x3804 Canon/EOS 5D Mark II
RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPROD777.dng packed_dng_load_raw() F=158x52x0x0 RS=5792x3804 Canon/EOS 5D Mark II
Regarding RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPROD.CR2 file:
1) Converted it to DNG using current Adobe DNG Converter (17.2)
2) processed w/ dcraw_emu -T -w (dcraw_emu: from github/LibRaw/master)
Results are the same in size, 5634x3752
TIFF from CR2: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/61ug0bh598av2plhbgheq/RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_P...
TIFF from DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c97oua0z5vpiaksnhk418/RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_P...
Left/top margins are always adjusted to multiply of 2 (of 6 for Fuji X-Trans) to keep bayer pattern the same for both full sensor area and visible area.
Another issue I came across is that the cropped dimension offsets are different between a CR2 image and a corresponding DNG.
CR2: https://github.com/letmaik/rawpy/blob/main/test/RAW_CANON_5DMARK2_PREPRO... and a DNG is obtained by using Adobe DNG Converter (17.1.0).
CR2:
5616 x 3744 left: 168 top: 56DNG:
5616 x 3744 left: 336 top: 112CR2's raw resolution is 5792x3804, so trying to crop it according to those values would not be possible - it'd escape the raw dimensions (e.g. 336 + 5616 > 5792).
It's also interesting that DNG's offsets are exactly double of those reported for CR2.
I found a note here https://www.libraw.org/news/libraw-202110-snapshot that this might be expected, but wanted to flag it anyway in case it'd offer you some additional clues.
Pages