# 5D Mark III High-ISO raw files



## SambalOelek (Mar 4, 2012)

Since I saw a couple of people requesting RAW files, I thought I'd share a couple. I would also appreciate any advice on how to do anything useful (e.g convert) with them  (They can be displayed just fine in ZoomBrowser EX):




I pretty much picked a file hosting service at random, so hopefully downloading them will be not be too much of a hassle.

5D3 RAW @ ISO 51200
5D3 RAW @ ISO 6400
5D3 RAW @ ISO 12800

I have a few more samples, shot at ISO 102400, 25600 and 12800 as well, if anyone's interested. Apparently, the firmware version of my test camera was "4.9.2"

*Edit:* Added ISO 12800 sample


----------



## blufox (Mar 4, 2012)

It asks for login.
Can you please host it on a site from where we can download without registering.

Would love to work with RAW file in DPP.

Cu,


----------



## SambalOelek (Mar 4, 2012)

blufox said:


> It asks for login.
> Can you please host it on a site from where we can download without registering.



Roger that, I have uploaded to a different webhost. Feel free to rehost if you know a better way to distribute 40+ MB files.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 4, 2012)

Do you happen to have any black frames and white frames at ISO100?

If you set camera to 1/8000th, put the lens cap on and snap a shot and then set it to an exposure long enough to blow the image out to pure white, all channels blown, over a large chunk of the image, from those two shots, the RAW files can be analyzed and you can find out the SNR, DR and low ISO banding characteristics.

That could answer the question as to whether they have approached Exmor sensor dynamic range or not.
And whether they have fixed up the pattern banding some.

(Assuming software such as IRIS would be able to at least partially open the files.)


----------



## altenae (Mar 4, 2012)

Now we need the raw converter..........come on Adobe.....just kidding.

I have looked at the 6400 ISO raw file and (to me) it looks much better than a 6400 ISO raw file from the 5D MK II.

Edward


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 4, 2012)

Mmmmhrm... is there a version of DPP available that can handle the 5D3 raw files? Not my version 3.11.4.10, apparently.


----------



## altenae (Mar 4, 2012)

> is there a version of DPP available that can handle the 5D3 raw files?



Yep....Canon has the version....
I am afraid it will not be released before the first 5D Mark III is available for sales

Edward


----------



## photogaz (Mar 4, 2012)

Is not possible to hack DPP or Camera Raw into thinking its opening a different camera model or are the output formats so different from each model?


----------



## nitelife2 (Mar 4, 2012)

Rawtherapee can open them (at least the linux version). The ISO6400 noise of the 5D3 looks like ISO100 of my 7D. I am really impressed!

EDIT: Appended screenshot.


----------



## altenae (Mar 4, 2012)

Yep tried it also with Rawtherapee, but the colors are not converted correct.

The browser shows better colors:


----------



## nitelife2 (Mar 4, 2012)

Yep, the colors are wrong. But I can be sure that no noise reduction has been applied. Chroma and luminance noise are very low IMHO.


----------



## MaGiL (Mar 4, 2012)

looks very good in my opinion...


----------



## swampler (Mar 4, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> I have a few more samples, shot at ISO 102400, 25600 and 12800 as well, if anyone's interested. Apparently, the firmware version of my test camera was "4.9.2"


I'd like to see them if you get the chance to upload them, especially the 12800 and 25600.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 4, 2012)

IrfanView opens them for me, too. Some free lightweight image viewer for windows. (See www.irfanview.com )

The 51200 sample looks really weird, though. The noise seems to be present in relatively massive same-coloured blobs that are easily 5x15 pixels in size. Noise reduction doesn't help much against it (I converted to TIF with compression set to "none" in IrfanView, and then imported into LR). See included 400% crop...

I hope this is some error caused by my way of dealing with the raw file. Of course this is just the first ISO range "expansion" and not much should be expected, but this seems pretty bad.

_(Edit: probably a RAW conversion error.)_


----------



## Radiating (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm not sure if this is the raw converter (rawtherappe) or the camera, but I see noise reduction being applied even without any noise reduction set. At the sensor level it looks like the camera has about a 1 stop improvement, which is a truely epic acheivement because only .5 stops were expected if they were really trying to focus on lowering noise but then there is noise reduction on top of that which you can't remove and that leaves fewer options for NR.


----------



## altenae (Mar 4, 2012)

Not much we can say about it without the correct RAW converter. 

Also we are talking about 51.200 ISO !!!!!
If you expect usable images ????

Be realistic.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 4, 2012)

The poor quality images I produced are probably in large part due to errors in the raw conversion. When looking at the raw file in IrfanView zoomed in, it seems to display it in clusters of 8x8 pixels that seem to get some of the colours right, but these clusters have contrasty edges opposite to one another (making them visible).

Phew.


----------



## qwerty (Mar 5, 2012)

It took me a few minutes to do the raw conversion, and I had problems with a magenta cast to images, so hopefully I can save the rest of you a bit of time.

I am attaching 100% crops as PNG files. I used shotwell (under linux) to convert to a tiff, then LR3.6 to crop and export as a jpeg (I tried to post a .png unsuccessfully earlier). As mentioned previously, it is possible that a better raw conversion would result in better quality; however, I have a 5d iii on pre-order and am trying to be realistic and restrain myself from wishful thinking.

Does anyone have a similar 5d ii shot to compare to? I would be very interested in seeing a side-by-side with a 5d ii shot at ISO 6400 and 3200 (but I only have a 5d classic).


----------



## qwerty (Mar 5, 2012)

Here is the 51k one.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 5, 2012)

qwerty said:


> It took me a few minutes to do the raw conversion, and I had problems with a magenta cast to images, so hopefully I can save the rest of you a bit of time.


I got a similar "view" of the files using IrfanView. I am lead to believe that it is a faulty RAW conversion and that useful claims about noise cannot be made.
Look at a 600% enlargement of the left top corner of the ISO 6400 image to see what I mean. 8x8 pixel "blocks" with articulated edges are visible that introduce incorrect "detail" that will mess with any kind of noise-reduction one might want to perform on it. I can only assume that that is a RAW conversion error.


----------



## erfon (Mar 5, 2012)

you guys, the raw converter you use makes a BIG difference. raw photos are just RAW data, hence the name. the raw converter must use that data to construct an actual image.

you aren't really going to be able to tell much till canon or adobe give us a way to properly convert the mark iii raw files. converting mark iii files in other hacked ways like irfanview is interesting i admit, but it's not going to give you an accurate portrayal of how the mark iii really performs in low light.

i'm as eager as anyone to see how this baby does, but we gotta wait for a proper raw converter before we can really tell.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2012)

qwerty said:


> Does anyone have a similar 5d ii shot to compare to? I would be very interested in seeing a side-by-side with a 5d ii shot at ISO 6400 and 3200 (but I only have a 5d classic).



Well this is so Apples to Oranges as to be pointless but I took your 100% crop from the 5D3 ISO6400 and then downsampled it to an equivalent 100% crop from an 8MP camera (to match the only ISO6400 5D2 sample I can find for posting which was downsampled to 8MP).

So here is your 5D3 100% crop at 8MP sensor scale:





And here is a 5D2 100% crop at 8MP sensor scale:





but lighting, development in terms of sharpening/NR/algorithms, everything is different so it's not a fair test really.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2012)

Tijn said:


> qwerty said:
> 
> 
> > It took me a few minutes to do the raw conversion, and I had problems with a magenta cast to images, so hopefully I can save the rest of you a bit of time.
> ...



Are you sure irfanview is not just showing the highly compressed embedded jpg within the RAW file? JPG also compresses in 8x8 blocks I believe (although it shouldn't show itself as what you see so something is probably going wrong).


----------



## Tijn (Mar 5, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Are you sure irfanview is not just showing the highly compressed embedded jpg within the RAW file? JPG also compresses in 8x8 blocks I believe (although it shouldn't show itself as what you see so something is probably going wrong).


I'm not sure of anything that Irfanview shows me. It may very well be what you said. All I know is it opens the RAW files and when zoomed out, they look like regular images. When zooming in very far is when I see those 8x8 blocks. And I see them in the RAW image opened in my own IrfanView, as well as in the PNG's posted by qwerty (who got them using "shotwell"). I think we're seeing the same image, and that it is either a crap/wrong conversion or something like you said (seeing the crap compressed JPG-within-the-RAW).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 5, 2012)

When a raw converter doesn't have a supplied profile, what does it do, just assume a standard bayer pattern of RGB and size it for the frame?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2012)

3kramd5 said:


> When a raw converter doesn't have a supplied profile, what does it do, just assume a standard bayer pattern of RGB and size it for the frame?



Each Raw image file also contains a jpeg file that is used for a thumbnail. It will show that jpeg thumbnail if it can't convert. The jpeg thumbnail is most likely what you are seeing. Some raw converters will try, and you get really weird images.

Just view out of camera jpegs like those on DPR. They are very carefully exposed, and are about the best high ISO images at full size we have.


----------



## SambalOelek (Mar 5, 2012)

Thanks for your work decoding the files! 

I too was particularly impressed with the 6400 sample. The 51200... it is what it is. Sadly, some of my 12800 shots were underexposed due to being in M mode with Auto ISO capped at 12800 (Max auto ISO is selectable up to 25600 ftr). But I have at least one usable file that I will put in the OP later today.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 5, 2012)

I also think we can't make conclusions before we have a proper raw converter.
Still I think this is slightly better than my 5D2 so we can be pretty sure that there is an improvement.


----------



## qwerty (Mar 5, 2012)

I played around a bit with the codec available at http://wildtramper.com/sw/cr2/cr2.html, which allows you to specify whether you want to extract the embedded jpeg or the actual raw file. It looks like what I posted earlier was the embedded jpeg (thanks for pointing that out).

Color correction is not applied to the raw file by the extractor, so the colors are obviously off. The resulting size of the raw file was also about 5.8 MPix (1/4 the sensor resolution), so I assume that it does not do any sophisticated demosaicing. The jpeg was 22.1 MPix.

If someone has a 5d ii raw file with a similar composition, lighting, and iso, we should be able to get an apples-to-apples comparison here to see how the new sensor performs; just follow the same steps I did and post what you get. Obviously without the correct color profiles, the pictures will not look correct but, if the extractor does the same thing to files for both cameras, we can still make a comparison. Obviously there is the risk that the actual cr2 file format changed somehow between camera revisions, but I think its worth a shot.

I extracted both the jpeg and the raw file (as a tiff) using the program linked to above, then cropped using GIMP. I am going to try posting as a lossless .png first but, if I have problems with that, I will post as a jpeg saved at 100% quality.

Note: the image from the raw file is first, the embedded jpeg is second.


----------



## SambalOelek (Mar 5, 2012)

If I had a few more minutes with the camera, I would have shot some side by side comparisons with my trusty ol' 5DII. Anyway, I added a 12800 sample to the ISO. I would say it's comparable to 3200 on the Mark II.


----------



## rob61 (Mar 6, 2012)

Thanks for posting these. The new Adobe Camera Raw 6.7RC available now supports these RAW files.


----------



## FocalFury (Mar 6, 2012)

rob61 said:


> Thanks for posting these. The new Adobe Camera Raw 6.7RC available now supports these RAW files.



Just in time! Has anyone pulled these RAW files into the new ACR yet?


----------



## windscmoon (Mar 6, 2012)

FocalFury said:


> rob61 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for posting these. The new Adobe Camera Raw 6.7RC available now supports these RAW files.
> ...



Where to download Adobe Camera Raw 6.7RC??


----------



## Shnookums (Mar 6, 2012)

FocalFury said:


> rob61 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for posting these. The new Adobe Camera Raw 6.7RC available now supports these RAW files.
> ...



I just did. Sorry I can't post any images files on this forum from work. I also don't have a 5DII to compare sadly... The chroma noise is easy to clean even in the 50k ISO image. I checked to find some banding, horizontal or vertical and couldn't find any. So I guess this is very good for people upgrading from the 5DII


----------



## westbild (Mar 6, 2012)

Where to download Adobe Camera Raw 6.7RC??
[/quote]

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/

best regards,

Christian

btw: nice.


----------



## NormanBates (Mar 6, 2012)

images processed with the new ACR may make this obsolete very soon, but, in the meantime...

I downloaded the full res shots from the dpreview 5D3 low light ISO series gallery, and made this quick noise and detail comparison: http://www.similaar.com/foto/iso/5d3.html

it seems like ISO 3200 is nearly as good as ISO 100 in terms of noise and detail; from there on, heavy NR seems to be applied, some detail is lost, and some noise slowly appears (but it's all still very mild below 25600)

I think can live with that


----------



## Radiating (Mar 6, 2012)

SambalOelek said:


> Since I saw a couple of people requesting RAW files, I thought I'd share a couple. I would also appreciate any advice on how to do anything useful (e.g convert) with them  (They can be displayed just fine in ZoomBrowser EX):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would you mind posting low iso shots? There have been a lot of questions as to the quality of the Camera's AA filter and low iso sharpness.


----------



## Tuggem (Mar 6, 2012)

The analysis that has been done so far at dpreview confirms improvement compared to 5D2 but states that it so far is NOT enough available information. Most possitive seems to be very low pattern noise.
PRELIMINARY a small improvement in QE over 1D4. Not as good as D800 but close.
This may change, hopefully in possitive direction, when more information gets available.

Yet I will not hope for more than 0.5 stop improvement + fixed pattern noise issue.


----------

