5d mk III RAW issue

[andreicraciun]

Hey, i'm experiencing issues with the RAW files. I think there might be a sensor problem because i tested the original file on another computer and it's the same. Attached here, u have the same raw file exported in Digital camera Proffesional and Lightroom 5.

I'm a professional photographer and every now and then, i get this kind of errors. I usually shoot RAW+JPEG low and the weird thing is that the jpg file out of the camera does not contain any errors, only the RAW file does.

I tested everithing, from different batteries, different cards, different lenses, with/without battery grip and that problem still persists. Every 200-300-400 images one raw file is corrupt.

I cannot afford loosing images. Can somebody tell me if this is a random error everybody gets or is it a service issue and i should get my camera checked right away?

Thanks.

[jrhoffman75]

"My suspicion falls on the common component: the Canon RAW component (driver, codec, etc.).  This component is used by Photoshop, Lightroom, and DPP.   Whenever one installs any app that reads Canon RAW files, the Canon RAW component is usually automatically installed. "

Perhaps others know differently and can add to the discussion, but it is my understanding from what I have read over the years that this is not a correct statement.

Lightroom and Photoshop use the Adobe developed Adobe Camera Raw engine, which is not a Canon product, and is not the same decoder as used by DPP or in the Canon SDK that some third party software uses.

If I am correct, and I believe I am, then focusing on software may be detouring you from pursuing the real problem.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

"My suspicion falls on the common component: the Canon RAW component (driver, codec, etc.).  This component is used by Photoshop, Lightroom, and DPP.   Whenever one installs any app that reads Canon RAW files, the Canon RAW component is usually automatically installed. "

Perhaps others know differently and can add to the discussion, but it is my understanding from what I have read over the years that this is not a correct statement.

Lightroom and Photoshop use the Adobe developed Adobe Camera Raw engine, which is not a Canon product, and is not the same decoder as used by DPP or in the Canon SDK that some third party software uses.

If I am correct, and I believe I am, then focusing on software may be detouring you from pursuing the real problem.

---

Adobe Camera Raw isn't Canon-specific, so it must use some sort of Canon-specific interface somewhere in its internals. While it's at least possible that Adobe wrote such an interface from scratch, it seems more likely that it uses the Canon RAW Codec, which constitutes Canon's official definition of its RAW file formats. Old timers may recall that the Canon RAW Codec used to be a downloadable piece of Canon software which Windows itself used in order to display .CR2 files in its own programs. If you didn't have it installed, Windows couldn't read your RAW files. Beginning, I believe, with Windows 7, that was no longer necessary, as Microsoft incorporated the Canon RAW Codec into the operating system. But though it now operates behind the scenes, it's presumably still there.

That said, if there were a serious problem with a recent version of the Canon RAW Codec, one would expect there to have been a major hullabaloo about it; and that hasn't happened, so far as I know.

[TCampbell]

Adobe Camera RAW actually is camera-specific.  They write their own de-mosaicing algorithms for the RAW files and they don't use any Canon software.  

You install one "Adobe Camera RAW" update and the same update contains support for a huge number of cameras (many of which are similar.)  But if a camera manufacturer comes out with a new model then you have to wait for Adobe to update their camera RAW support before Photoshop or Lightroom will be able to deal with the RAW image (even though newly released Canon modesl are always supported by Canon even on release-day.)

It's actually possible to provde the Adobe doesn't use Canon's codecs.  If you open an image in DPP and export it to, say, a 16-bit TIFF... and then open the same RAW file in, say, Lightroom... and export it to a 16-bit TIFF... and then compare the two TIFFs you'll discover they are not copies of the same image (the pixels will be different.)

These differences come from the fact that there are many many algorithms to de-mosaic RAW data.

The "pixels" in RAW images aren't really pixels... they are a mosaic of red, green, and blue "single channel" data.  But if you look at "pixels" in a photo processing program such as Photoshop, you'll notice you don't have any "pixels" that are single color -- they all contain three color channels (RGB) and yet they have the same resolution.  

The image has to be "de-mosaiced" (or "debayered").  This involves analyzing each "pixel" of RAW data (which will contain just a single color channel -- let's say it's a green "pixel") and then look at the light intensities of the other color "pixels" which are adjacent to it.  So it it looks at adjacent "blue" pixels and "red" pixels to determine what blended level of red and blue should reside on the "green" pixel and creates an output file which has red and green and blue channels all in that same pixel that was previosuly just a single color pixel.  It caclualted what color values to use -- it's a 'derived' three-channel color that was technically not present when the image was captured.

The multiple algorithms results from the notion that there's more than one way to decide how much "red" and "blue" to blend into the green -- weighting factors, edge detection (is the "blue" only strong on one side of the "green" pixel and missing on the opposite side?), and the list goes on.  In astro-imaging, some of our software actually lets us PICK the de-mosaicing algorithm we want to use because the image will look slightly different depending on the algorithm used (so far I've never encountered any photography software -- other than astrophotography software -- that lets you pick which de-mosaicing algorithm you want to use because most programs only support one algorithm even though there are MANY variations.)

[ebiggs1]

And exactly why some photographers prefer Adobe Camera Raw and some prefer Canon's own.  I prefer ACR.

This is also true for any editing software that decodes Raw.  Canon does not share!.  I don't blame them, I wouldn't either if I were them.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

And exactly why some photographers prefer Adobe Camera Raw and some prefer Canon's own.  I prefer ACR.

This is also true for any editing software that decodes Raw.  Canon does not share!.  I don't blame them, I wouldn't either if I were them.

---

Until Canon wrings more of the bugs and inefficiencies out of DPP 4, they're hardly in a position to share. Although, truth be told, the Canon RAW Codec is itself a form of sharing. If Adobe ignores it, that's their business.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

The difference is they have to share the codec if they want people to use their gear.  But it is for viewing and ACR is for editing.

[TCampbell]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

And exactly why some photographers prefer Adobe Camera Raw and some prefer Canon's own.  I prefer ACR.

This is also true for any editing software that decodes Raw.  Canon does not share!.  I don't blame them, I wouldn't either if I were them.

---

Until Canon wrings more of the bugs and inefficiencies out of DPP 4, they're hardly in a position to share. Although, truth be told, the Canon RAW Codec is itself a form of sharing. If Adobe ignores it, that's their business.

---

I think part of the reason Adobe ignores it is to force upgrades of Adobe software.  Adobe only uses their own codecs.  I remember using Photoshop CS4 (which, as I recall was "current" when I shot with my 5D II)... but when I bought the 5D III, even though I had a new Canon codec (I could read the images fine with Canon software) and even Apple had a codec (I could read the images fine with all of Apple's tools including Finder and Aperture), I could not read the images with Photoshop.  I tried to update their Adobe Camera RAW ... but they stopped supporting CS4 and insist that have to upgrade to the next version (so I had to buy CS5 to use Photoshop with Canon RAW files.). 

It's silly that an Adobe Camera RAW update can't work with a version of photoshop just one version prior... but they do this regularly.   In astrophotographers there are somewhat generic codecs that want to know very few things... for example they want to know the RGB sequence of the Bayer pattern (is it RGGB vs. RGBG, etc.) and they usually also want to know which pixel is the row 0, column 0 pixel (is it the upper left... lower left, etc.?).  The point is that they don't need a lot of information to decode the camera's RAW file but they do need a tiny amount of model-specific info.   

So could they just provide one update that worked across multiple versions?  Almost certainly they can.  But they do have a financial incentive to choose not to do so because it forces an upgrade.  

Anyway... the bottom line is that Adobe only uses Adobe codecs and they won't use the codec provided by the OS vendor or the camera vendor even if it's already installed.

[jrhoffman75]

It adds another step, but I believe converting to DNG will allow older versions of ACR to process newer camera files. 

[ebiggs1]

"...  DNG will allow older versions of ACR to process newer camera files."

I am not a DNG user, yet, as all my 'older' gear works well with CS6 and LR6.  But the way I understand it, is DNG is the conversion.  ACR will no longer be needed.  It is possible to embed the original RAW file in a DNG conversion.  That way if ever needed for whatever, it is still there.  From what I understand DNG is not the actual RAW file. It is another additional standard.  What I have gleaned form some friends that do use DNG.

[jrhoffman75]

DNG is also a RAW format. Some cameras (among them Leica) record their sensor data in DNG format.