yes again, as I said it does *not* remove FPN. It has *less* color noise and a bit less FPN as you can see in the example above, this makes it possible to remove the FPN later w/o significantly degrading IQ.
Time is money. My workflow would be consideably longer if I used DPP instead of LR. I can't make that compromise. Good to hear it works for you though
I agree, time is money. Even an extra minute in the field counts DPP does not have the best interface, but you can quickly organize and apply batch adjustments to hundreds of files at a time...just like LR. On my system it runs much faster than LR4 (4.2GHz 6 cores 24GB RAM SSD). When converting several hundred 22Mpixel CR2 files to 16Bit TIFFs the difference is a few minutes.
Any ways, my purpose was to demonstrate what can be done with DPP. Of course a better solution might be to sell all of your gear and buy Nikon and not have to deal with this issue if it really affects your work.
speedmaster20d wrote:
close up view of deep shadow details after applying +2EV in DPP and shadow adjustment + 3. In ACR fill light = 85
the DPP version is less saturated and contrasty though
and DPP has a bit of the odd look where it's areas of smooth mixed with random patches of 'grain', a bit more of a digital look to my eye, it doesn't have as much low frequency chroma noise (although it might come back a bit if the saturation was boosted to match ACRs?)
Daan B wrote:
I use LR 3.6. I have downloaded high DR 5D3 RAW files from internet that didn't show any or very little banding in the shadows when pushed in PP. I have high DR 5D2 files that don't show it either after pushing. But I also have seen pushed RAW files from both cameras that do show banding. The 5D2 banding is on two axis, the 5D3 banding only on one axis. So, the 5D3 is already 'better' than the 5D2 in this regard. Wether a RAW file will show banding or not depends on wether a certain threshold is exceeded. I suspect it has to do with the entire DR that needs to be captured. The greater the DR, the deeper the shadows (no detail), the greater the chance for shadow banding.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon found a way to eliminate the banding in ther own software. If anybody would know how to correct it in software, it would be Canon. To bad DPP is not suitable for a professional workflow that contains several hundreds of shots per assignment. But maybe it can be used for some isolated cases that will show banding in other software.
Still not convinced that DPP does the trick though. I see banding in Speedmasters DPP conversion too....Show more →
the type of vertical banding the 5D3 MIGHT be able to be largely removed with raw pre-processing if fed samples of perhaps 10 black frame raws from each ISO
anyway it would still have the same non-fixed pattern noise as the 5D2 though, although reduction of banding would help get a bit more usable DR out of it
FPN cannot be removed by subtracting dark frames, pattern is fixed but values are random (White). It will get worse by subtraction because noise power is additive.
speedmaster20d wrote:
yes again, as I said it does *not* remove FPN. It has *less* color noise and a bit less FPN as you can see in the example above, this makes it possible to remove the FPN later w/o significantly degrading IQ.
It also shows less detail and color saturation. I understand it works for you, but I prefer the LR rendering in general. There is other software that will (try to) remove banding, such as DFine.
Any ways, my purpose was to demonstrate what can be done with DPP. Of course a better solution might be to sell all of your gear and buy Nikon and not have to deal with this issue if it really affects your work.
The thought has crossed my mind on several occasions
Pixel Perfect wrote:
IMO that shadow example does NOT show an advantage to DPP whatsoever. The ACR image is sharper with a bit more detail and has higher contrast.
Sorry we obviously have very different eyes.
As for the last example we have no idea what settings you used for ACR.
I agree we must have different eyes and maybe minds. I need my eyes for photography now. good luck to you and your work, at the end of the day the end result matters.
skibum5 wrote:
i still see banding in his original DPP version and the shadow are looks like mush like it's made out of blobs of 4-6 pixels at once or something
Maybe. Maybe DPP is applying a bunch of NR to the shadows.
I think I'd need to do a proper test myself to see... unfortunately I don't have a 5d3 yet
speedmaster20d wrote:
I am not sure if I agree, to my eyes DPP has just as much detail if not more, look at the stripes on the shirt. The difference in sat. is just the default profile, you can increase it.
If I look at the finer detail (for example on the boxes), LR produces more detail.
I don't like LR rendering t all, it generates coarse grain with inferior fine detail IMO...
Matter of taste. I like a bit of coarse grain. It makes the overall effect/rendering less 'digital' looking to me. Besides that, the NR engine of LR3.6 and higher is very good.
Here is one example that shows this.
If you are interested here is a field example ISO 3200, 5D3 with DPP, a result like this is just not possible with ACR.
What settings did you use for DPP and LR? Why isn't that result possible with ACR? The software can be adjusted to a number of different end results.
What puzzles me is that I could not for my life bring details to the shadows using C1, and these were clearly visible with DPP. I have to look into this further...
Ralph Conway wrote:
In this comparisment (last pic and the two crops) DPP looks indeed sharper to me and renders better colour and less noise, then ACR.
+1
I hope people do not mistake noise for details. This happens all the time.
So, I decided to grab an intentionally underexposed 5D3 shot (50mm, f/1.4 , 1/800 sec, IS 100) and process it with DPP 3.11.26 and ACR 6.7 (just released). ALL NR (luminance as well as chroma) set to zero. Increased exposure by 2 eV and compensated for heavy vignetting (expected at f/1.4) in both programs.
DPP does not have the best interface, but you can quickly organize and apply batch adjustments to hundreds of files at a time...just like LR. On my system it runs much faster than LR4 (4.2GHz 6 cores 24GB RAM SSD). When converting several hundred 22Mpixel CR2 files to 16Bit TIFFs the difference is a few minutes. 