Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

E600 vs. E620 RAW files

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new 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

    My Gallery on 500px

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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

      Comment


      • #4
        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

        My Gallery on 500px

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            My Gallery on 500px

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

                      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

                      My Gallery on 500px

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

                        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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: E600 vs. E620 RAW files

                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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, 11:41 PM. Reason: erroneous facts

                              My Gallery on 500px

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X