1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

E-M5 vs. E-M10 ORF files

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by tuxxdk, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. tuxxdk

    tuxxdk Mu-43 Regular

    74
    May 29, 2014
    Denmark
    Martin
    Hello

    Disgruntled by Adobe's love for Creative Cloud I've looked at my former place to edit - Aftershot Pro. Alas no E-M10 support. However, I've altered the exif on some test-files, so that the program thinks they're from an E-M5.

    Question is - although it works, are the files identical? Same sensor etc? Or do they slightly differ, hence I would better wait for native support?

    I run Linux, so it's a huge bonus that I can run it natively, whereas with Lightroom I run it in an underpowered VM - the speed is HUGELY positive in ASP's favour.

    Thanks.
     
  2. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    While I believe the sensors are the same, the processor is updated in the E-M10, so that might be an issue. Can you convert the files to DNG?

    --Ken
     
  3. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I suspect the files are the same. I did the same trick with the E-PL5 before ASP properly supported it. I doubt the processor makes a difference - we're talking raw data. If it works, then why worry? - the only downside is wrong EXIF info.
     
  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    real question is... do the files look fine to you ?

    Native em-10 support will come to all good applications in time

    K
     
  5. tuxxdk

    tuxxdk Mu-43 Regular

    74
    May 29, 2014
    Denmark
    Martin
    I worry because of lens correction et al. And I'm not convinced about the output quality compared with lightroom - especially the noise reduction in ASP is very poor since they've removed Noise Ninja support.

    So the thought occured that while it works, it may not read the files correctly.

    An update should be near with support, hopefully, for E-M10. Why not wait? My Lightroom trial has just expired :-(
     
  6. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran

    614
    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    I don't know about the files, but for color rendition, Lightroom's E-M10 & E-M5 profiles are pretty much the same.
     
  7. tuxxdk

    tuxxdk Mu-43 Regular

    74
    May 29, 2014
    Denmark
    Martin
    There's just been an update for ASP and it renders the unaltered files the same.

    However, end-result is poor on pixel level compared to LR so guess I'm stuck with the devil :-(
     
  8. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    ACDSee Pro has had E-M10 support since March - Excellent results similar to CaptureOne but without the Obtuse user interface. ACDSee Pro is my raw developer of choice I quit lightroom to use it. I read on DPR that Corel released a camera support update for ASP (6/26/2014) that I believe now supports the E-M10. Oddly, PSP X6 has supported the E-M10 for quite some time.

    There's no need to hack your files or convert to dng.
     
  9. tuxxdk

    tuxxdk Mu-43 Regular

    74
    May 29, 2014
    Denmark
    Martin
    I tried Acdsee alongside several others, including LR and DxO. LR still the best. Acdsee's noise and sharpening tools are no match on pixel level.

    As I wrote in my last post I tried the update on ASP, hence I don't have to hack anymore ;-)

    I'd love a tool better than LR but sadly they are all behind, unless I'm a fool at using them but then please show me with 100% crops it can be done.
     
  10. tuxxdk

    tuxxdk Mu-43 Regular

    74
    May 29, 2014
    Denmark
    Martin
    Here's an example with ASP. Acdsee gave similar result. So did DxO. Actually OV (Olympus Viewer) is closest to LR of them all, but the speed and userinterface is horrible, also the possibilities with noise control is lacking. Mind you, I don't want LR to come out on top, but so far it is :-( I'm an old user with longer history with Bibble and ASP, so I know my way around the product, so that's not the problem with that program.

    ASP2
    03-ASP2.

    LR
    04-LR.
     
  11. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    I might agree with your assessment of ACDSee's noise control tools, however I believe their sharpening tools are as good as anyone's. In fact, I have written an article on how to get the most out of any software's sharpening tools.

    http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-sharpening-images.html

    I have stopped using Topaz define for sharpening and now just use the sharpening tools in ACDSee Pro using the techniques described in my article.

    Edit: I've been doing research on ways to improve the noise control in ACDSee Pro (see my blog for a quick and easy way to improve noise control with most workflow tools and some editors), and I think there are some really simple things ACDSee could do in Pro 8 that could make using the built in noise control tools MUCH more effective. They really are 'almost there' when it comes to NC, they just need a final push to make it really good.. Whether they consider that more important than other things they may have planned, I couldn't say.
     
  12. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Noise signature is essentially identical, so your tweaked E-M10 files will work as well (or as poorly) as E-M5 ones. As to distortion correction - all that the camera does is insert a tag into the file indicating the lens and the distortion parameters. Again, no difference in how the E-M5 and E-M10 are handled. The place where their might be a difference is in color balance and white balance, but if the output looks okay, then I don't see the point in worrying.
     
  13. tuxxdk

    tuxxdk Mu-43 Regular

    74
    May 29, 2014
    Denmark
    Martin
    In the meantime I've fallen for Darktable, together with Noise Ninja standalone (which I have an old license for).

    Impressive results. All native run in Linux. Great :)