It's something to do with the inbuilt noise reduction - less noise but more artefacts. I'd have to go back and try and install my earlier versions to confirm.
Cogitech - I did some processing yesterday with DPP on some shots I took on my 16-35L and the CA reduction was much better with DPP than with my main anti CA tool which is PTlens. It seems that Canon have realy used their inside knowledge on the optical design of their lenses to good advantage. I'll try the lens correction tools in Bibble as well - it's still a very viable RAW processor.
shirozina wrote:
It's something to do with the inbuilt noise reduction - less noise but more artefacts. I'd have to go back and try and install my earlier versions to confirm.
Do you remember if this is with noise reduction off in both cases?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thats weird. Sounds like the preview look before the image has had time to finish converting. So, the processed files look like this as well? All the settings in your camera which are used for JPEG should also be being used for the RAW DPP conversion automatically unless you have changed some preferences or settings. Hard to say without seeing what your doing. Your not making any additional adjustments in DPP to the curve, exposure, brightness, saturation, sharpnes, etc.?
hmm...must be me, I'll try it again, it was my first time opening it so I wasn't sure what I was doing, the same thing happened in Lightroom, I'll have a fiddle around with it
I'm amazed no one has tested Silkypix, a very good converter but needs some time to get the hang of the interface. Can produce excellent results but can sometimes take a lot longer to get the result. I'm sure after practice it would become a lot quicker.
With LR turning all sharpening off leads to very poor results IMO and sharpening only in PS can't get great results. I prefer to use a combination a large amount (70) with a very small radius (0.5-0.6), moderate to small detail (25-35) and medium to large amount of masking (35 - 75) to eliminate jaggies. I cannot stand DPP and have tried it on a number of occasions when new versions come out, but keep being underwhelmed.
C1 was the best for a long time, but left it too long to update. Haven't really bothered to try C1 4.
basically it's a review between the following (not the latest versions though)
ACR, DPP, Bible, C1, BreezeBrowser, Silkypix, SilverFast
Yes you may have noticed, DxO wasn't included, and it's quite a strong contender.
Thanks for the link.
As a Bibble user, it is not too surprising to see that Bibble:
1) basically clobbers most of the group in feature set (and much of Bibble's features are not even listed in that chart, not to mention the plethora of amazing plugins available).
2) Is easily the fastest RAW converter, twice as fast as the next fastest in the group!
3) Holds up very well on most of the image comparisons, and the situations where it does slightly poorer (WB, for example) are quite easy to correct.
basically it's a review between the following (not the latest versions though)
ACR, DPP, Bible, C1, BreezeBrowser, Silkypix, SilverFast
Yes you may have noticed, DxO wasn't included, and it's quite a strong contender.
DPP has been updated since, CA, vignette and distortion tools are new (Canon lenses only though :-( ) and it works with Mac Intel's now, which makes a huge difference in speed. It takes 6-7 sec to convert a 5D image on a 2.4Ghz MB. Its pretty easy to use, some people may prefer more features, for me its fine.
I wonder which converter corrects distortion best, correcting in DPP will loose some of the fine detail.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
I wonder which converter corrects distortion best, correcting in DPP will loose some of the fine detail.
Have you tried PTLens? I find it the best at correcting distortion and preserving image integrity. It can be used standalone (batching is possible) or as a Photoshop plugin (no batching). The native Photoshop plugin for distortion kills micro-contrast in my experience. Have never really tried DPP. I find it clunky and annoying.
I use PTLens for non Canon glass but DPP is the best for correcting Canon glass by a big margin IMO. Yes you may loose some fine detail but that is always the cost of removing CA and distortion and with some subjects where there are no straight lines you can afford to just kill the CA and not loose too much res at all.
Have you tried PTLens? I find it the best at correcting distortion and preserving image integrity. It can be used standalone (batching is possible) or as a Photoshop plugin (no batching). The native Photoshop plugin for distortion kills micro-contrast in my experience. Have never really tried DPP. I find it clunky and annoying.
I batch with PTLens in PS the whole time, it's the default first step of all of my actions.
Thanks shirozina, indeed DPP is a great help when it comes to Canon lenses. I think I tried PT lens but then I continued to correct distortion in PS until 3.2 arrived
shirozina wrote:
I use PTLens for non Canon glass but DPP is the best for correcting Canon glass by a big margin IMO. Yes you may loose some fine detail but that is always the cost of removing CA and distortion and with some subjects where there are no straight lines you can afford to just kill the CA and not loose too much res at all.
You can use DPP to correct any glass by substituting the EXIF data, using a "donor" file taken with a Canon lens. Just make sure the "donor" file is taken with the same camera.
Mark posted a how-to for DXO that works just as well on DPP. It's about 3/4 of the way down under "The Solution"
Yeah but what use is that unless the 3rd party lens has the exact same distortion and CA characteristics as the Canon lens you are copying the EXIF data from?
I don't worry too much about distortion, but I have been able to eliminate CA on some files that I've worked with (have not tried all of my lenses yet). There is a decent amount of manual control as you probably know.
shirozina wrote:
I use PTLens for non Canon glass but DPP is the best for correcting Canon glass by a big margin IMO.
I haven't had time to present a controlled test, but be careful about eliminating distortion with DPP with high ISO files -- it introduces a LOT of noise. I think the denoising algorithm is internally applied AFTER the distortion correction rather than before. It is quite obvious with a full frame and the 24-105IS at 1600ISO.
DPP > PTLens is much better than DPP + internal distortion correction.
An interesting observation - luckily I don't shoot much high ISO stuff. Some Canon lenses exhibit non linear CA (eg my 16-35L) which I find can only be effectivley corrected with DPP. Infact the addition of DPP distortion and CA correction has made the 16-21mm range of this lens much more acceptable than anything I used to get with just PTlens.
