Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Cameras, lenses and system accessories > Camera conference > Olympus E-620/600

Olympus E-620/600 An Olympus 12.1MP mid-range compact DSLR, the E-620 and the feature-reduiced version, the E-600.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 14th November 2011
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,305 Times in 346 Posts
E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Hi,

I have an issue when working with RAW files originating from the E600. The issue is a third party SW package (DXO Optics Pro 6) reporting "cannot be processed because image has no recognized color data"

E600 is not listed as supported body, however the SW is able to interpret the RAW files to quite some extent since thumbnails from the RAWs are generated and look OK. I have raised a support case and am awaiting an answer. I suppose DXO labs have no plans to extend support for a discontinued body but you never know...

My question to this knowledgeable community is - is there a way to patch the E600 RAW files so that they appear to originate from E620? In the RAW file you can find the text string E600, are there any other "magic numbers" or checksums that need to be updated as well?

Background: to my understanding the E600 is essentially the same camera as E620 and based on that I would have assumed they have the same sensor, same ISP and hence very similar RAW (I may be wrong, if that is the case then I guess it is a dead end).

/Tord
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14th November 2011
snaarman's Avatar
snaarman snaarman is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Baaarkshire UK
Posts: 6,824
Thanks: 493
Thanked 416 Times in 324 Posts
Likes: 489
Liked 1,285 Times in 496 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

I had this problem when I started using the E600, but I updated the Adobe DNG converter and then it was OK. Maybe DXO can import DNG, so the Adobe free DNG converter might be a solution for you.

I seem to remember using a Hex editor to patch the "E600" text in the raw file to "E620" and I think that worked, but it's clearly a pain.. Otherwise the file formats are identical as far as I know.

Pete
__________________
Look, I'm an old man. I shouldn't be expected to put up with this.


Pete's photoblog Misleading the public since 2010.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14th November 2011
MotoCroz MotoCroz is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: St.Helens
Posts: 149
Thanks: 10
Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Likes: 1
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Hi Just do a quick search for exiftoolgui It allows you to batch process your files, just change the E600 to e620. If you search on this forum there is information somewhere about it.
good luck
__________________
E-600
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14th November 2011
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,305 Times in 346 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Hi,

Thanks for replies. I modified one of the RAW files, changing from E600 to E620 (using a HEX editor) but still the SW is not able to process the image. There has to be some other information in the header that needs to be changed.

DXO supports DNG, however several features including the noise reduction are supported in RAW files only.

/Tord
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14th November 2011
meach meach is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Posts: 652
Thanks: 125
Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordan58 View Post
Hi,

Thanks for replies. I modified one of the RAW files, changing from E600 to E620 (using a HEX editor) but still the SW is not able to process the image. There has to be some other information in the header that needs to be changed.

DXO supports DNG, however several features including the noise reduction are supported in RAW files only.

/Tord
I had this problem when I had an E600 and tried DXO. If I remember correctly DXO won't accept any file once the EXIF has been edited. I'm afraid I didn't manage to come up with a solution - but I have a vague recollection that someone on here did so a search may be in order.
__________________
Paul
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14th November 2011
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,305 Times in 346 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Hi,

Well DXO still "accepts" the file in the sense that it reads the contents and displays as thumbnail.

How can the SW draw conclusion that a file has been edited since its creation?


/Tord
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14th November 2011
meach meach is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Posts: 652
Thanks: 125
Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordan58 View Post


How can the SW draw conclusion that a file has been edited since its creation?


/Tord
I don't know Tord - but I distinctly remember reading that somewhere and as the E600 wasn't supported I simply gave up using the trial version I'd downloaded.
__________________
Paul
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14th November 2011
Dave Dave is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 12
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Likes: 1
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Although I have no experience with the DXO software my guess is that the thumbnail you can see is the embedded JPEG that the camera creates and so no processing has taken place. However if the software can read DNG then use that. DNG is still a Raw format and contains all the information that the ORF file contains but now in Adobe's standard format. Hope this helps.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14th November 2011
DekHog's Avatar
DekHog DekHog is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dundee
Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 106
Thanked 120 Times in 82 Posts
Likes: 5
Liked 129 Times in 42 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

You can try exiftool using my link in post 4 of the thread below. Am on the phone at the moment so can't check it, but think it's all set up and ready to go just by extracting the zip file somewhere...... Nothing ventured and all that....

e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8993
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14th November 2011
PeterBirder's Avatar
PeterBirder PeterBirder is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: BRAINTREE ESSEX
Posts: 5,950
Thanks: 1,760
Thanked 1,024 Times in 854 Posts
Likes: 1,922
Liked 797 Times in 466 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Hi Tord.
I have been trying to find a way to get DXO Optics Pro to accept E-600 files for ages and it's driven me mad.

I asked DXO and got no answer.

A member called MOLGRIPS who just made 8 posts in April/May said he had found a solution. In his last post said he was going to write a Utility to implement this and post it but since then he has disappeared.
He found however that as well as changing E-600 to E-620 in the EXIF you need to change the code in the Maker Notes against "Camera Type 2" from S0030 to S0032. ExifTool does not allow you to edit this item, hence the need for a utility. As I have no software writing skills I'm stuck with this (to me) useless information.
It's a great shame as DXO Optics Pro gives me great results with my E510 files and I would love to be able to use it with my E-600

Regards
__________________
Peter

she looked at me and said "It's official. I hate your camera. It's just so amazing and perfect I want one!"

E-M10 MK II, E-M5, E-PL1, E-PM2, mZ 12-50, mZ 14-42mm EZ, mZ 17mm f 1.8, mZ 25mm f1.8, mZ 45mm f1.8, mZ 75-300mm II.
OM1n, OM 50mm f1.8.
Oly Viewer3, Dxo Pro 11. FastStone.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14th November 2011
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,305 Times in 346 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
Although I have no experience with the DXO software my guess is that the thumbnail you can see is the embedded JPEG that the camera creates and so no processing has taken place. However if the software can read DNG then use that. DNG is still a Raw format and contains all the information that the ORF file contains but now in Adobe's standard format. Hope this helps.

Dave
Dave,

Thanks for useful info regarding the embedded JPG.

The software does indeed support DNG but I have no tools for creating it.

/Tord
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 14th November 2011
meach meach is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Posts: 652
Thanks: 125
Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tordan58 View Post

The software does indeed support DNG but I have no tools for creating it.

/Tord
The Adobe DNG convertor is a free download:

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...atform=Windows
__________________
Paul
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 14th November 2011
meach meach is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Posts: 652
Thanks: 125
Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Ok - I've managed to edit one of my old E-600 raw files as per Molgrips guidance. I'll download the DXO trial (if I can) and see if it will recognise it and report back. Unfortunately, writing a utility based on what I've done is beyond my capabilities but perhaps someone else here can take it a stage further if it works.
__________________
Paul
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14th November 2011
meach meach is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Posts: 652
Thanks: 125
Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Quote:
Originally Posted by meach View Post
Ok - I've managed to edit one of my old E-600 raw files as per Molgrips guidance. I'll download the DXO trial (if I can) and see if it will recognise it and report back. Unfortunately, writing a utility based on what I've done is beyond my capabilities but perhaps someone else here can take it a stage further if it works.
Well that worked ok - now we just need to get it into some sort of utility/batch file. Any ideas anyone?
__________________
Paul
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14th November 2011
Tordan58's Avatar
Tordan58 Tordan58 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,173
Thanks: 298
Thanked 384 Times in 320 Posts
Likes: 391
Liked 1,305 Times in 346 Posts
Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Thanks all others who showed interest in this topic

It seems I managed to resolve the issue. In my first attempt editing the EXIF I did not realize in the first place that the editor I used introduced extra line breaks

What I did was to use a proper HEX editor, in this case I used the free editor XVI32

I searched for and substituted the string E-620 to E-600 (only one occurrence found, the '0' to become a '2' is at HEX address 9F7, same address for all files I converted), saved the file and reloaded in DXO. Et voila!

I did not substitute S0030 to S0032, I saw Pete's post first after having substituted camera body. In next run I applied this patch as well, both strings seem to equally well accepted, DXO does not complain and the output (JPG) can be opened.

Next will be to find a suitable hex editor that can be run in batch mode, or write such a piece of SW...

/Tord

Last edited by Tordan58; 14th November 2011 at 11:41 PM. Reason: erroneous facts
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Tordan58 For This Useful Post:
PeterBirder (15th November 2011)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E-5 Raw files killer1 E-System User Group goodies 19 27th June 2013 09:34 PM
Need help on E-420 RAW files ruby_barbs Olympus E-420 10 12th March 2011 04:59 PM
RAW files garethlovering Software 17 29th January 2011 11:44 PM
Apple update Raw Support for E600/E620 padgreen Olympus E-620/600 1 23rd April 2010 02:01 PM
ORF files and CS3 shirley Software 5 26th June 2008 09:41 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 PM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger