Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2008 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6

  
 
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Gary Petersen wrote:
Print it and look then.


Yes...and no.

At ISO 800, I can see some fine noise on the screen. What I see on the screen doesn't bother me at all, but even that fine noise disappears completely in a print. And, because the detail is still there at 800, the pictures look great.

On the other hand, while the noise I see on the screen at ISO 1600 and 3200 doesn't look as bad in a print, there is loss of fine detail that deteriorates the quality of the final product. Like I said above, for shooting subjects without a lot of ine detail, 1600 and 3200 might well work out fine, but when there is fine detail, the same is not the case.

For me, the purpose of the 50D is for use with long lenses where I need to get as many pixels on the subject as possible. That being the case, I don't need the the high ISO capability, but I'd still have a hard time being convinced that the 50D is 1 to 1 1/2 stops better than the 40D. For my purposes, though, if I can get as many pixels on the subject with, say, the 50D and the 500 as I could with the 40D and the 500 plus 1.4x or with the the 1DIII and the 500 and 2x, not having to use the converters has the same ultimate effect as gaining one stop (compared to the 40D with a 1.4x) or two stops (compared to the 1DIII with a 2x), but, again, otherwise, I'd judge the 50D to be about the same as my 40D was at 1600 or 3200, and I'm not sure why, other than for marketing reasons, Canon would even bother to put the H1 or H2 settings on the camera.

I seem to recall reading that firmware version 1.0.2 is supposed to improve noise performance. I'd be interested in hearing from someone whose camera shipped with 1.0.2 and finding out what they are seeing at 1600 and 3200.

Les Zigurski



Oct 10, 2008 at 09:32 PM
bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Supposed firmware 1.0.2 50D High ISO shots...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



Oct 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM
David Estes
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


bluetsunami wrote:
Supposed firmware 1.0.2 50D High ISO shots...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



I don't get it, These shots look good at 1600 and even 6400 looks decent. Yet the few members in here that have posted High ISO shots their's don't look near as good.




Oct 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


1) There is a difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images converted by DPP 3.5 and ACR 4.6 (beta/RC).

2) There is little difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images converted by ACR 4.6 beta/RC and ACR 4.6 (official release).

3) Maybe there is a difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images shot with 50D FW 1.0.1 and FW 1.0.2. There are reports indicating this is true.

IMO ACR 4.6 does a "not so good job" at converting 50D RAW images. By oversampling of the RAW data, DPP does a much better job regarding noise levels/characteristics... but at the expense of fine detail with high ISO's (in comparison to ACR 4.6).



Oct 11, 2008 at 02:46 AM
mabidally
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


When using ACR one must apply luminance smoothing for higher ISO shots. ACR does not do this automatically for you.

For eg IMG 0087 is shot at ISO 1600 but luminance smoothing is 0, this is a bit like "buying a new car and driving it with 0 air pressure in the tyres".

The ACR sharpness also is set at the default 25 which is probably too high for an ISO 1600 image.

For ISO 1600 suggest you set LS at about 50 and sharpness at 10 see how the noise looks.

If you want to use default (easy conversions) your probably better off with the in camera JPG's or DPP. ACR gives a lot of power to fine tune and optimise RAW files of many many camera models but the defaults are just not that good.

Could you possibly share one of those RAW files and allow me a shot at processing it? I can receive email upto 10MB on mohammed at slt dot lk

BTW those shots of what looks to be a Jazz session look great! Jus gotta love that low DOF with the 85/1.2




Edited on Oct 11, 2008 at 08:11 AM · View previous versions



Oct 11, 2008 at 02:53 AM
therock
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


You did good with what you have. I like them. It's a tool that will work great in the hands of one whom knows how to use it.

Pixel peeping at 100% crops for ISO detail is like smoking crack. Once you start you are ruined. Forget about the art or composition. Just smoke over another pic @ 100%. Pity.



Oct 11, 2008 at 05:21 AM
garyvot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Yeah, try shooting that on film at ISO 3200.


Oct 11, 2008 at 07:28 AM
gooutside
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


I recently picked up a 50d and I do not think that the raw coverters are up to speed yet as the .jpgs from the camera look great at iso 800/1000 but I have great difficulty getting any better performance from raw - which is unusual. Give it some time and I'm sure Adobe will get it right.


Oct 11, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


James B wrote:
I recently picked up a 50d and I do not think that the raw coverters are up to speed yet as the .jpgs from the camera look great at iso 800/1000 but I have great difficulty getting any better performance from raw - which is unusual. Give it some time and I'm sure Adobe will get it right.


But Adobe already released the official 50D RAW support in ACR 4.6. This shows little improvement over the beta version regarding noise. Is it known that Adobe brings out ACR updates after they have officially been released?



Oct 11, 2008 at 09:45 AM
EvilZardoz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Hi,

Clearly the 50D has some very prominent 'banding' which is present in all your shots. I find these examples of such 'banding' pleasing to the eye; the 85L does such a great job for live music....

To me, the ISO 1600 looks very impressive! But I do spend most of my time in Lightroom so I'm basing this on my experience with what ACR does with its default settings. Fortunately the 85L doesn't require terribly much sharpening.

I do find with the default calibration profile, the ACR images always come up a bit rough when shot at high ISO. Might be worth getting those beta camera profiles (or maybe they're no longer in beta now). This is why I always keep my RAW images..

mabidally - just tried some of those settings on some underexposed 1Ds II images I had open... a nice suggestion!



Oct 13, 2008 at 04:36 AM
Sam Bennett
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


They look pretty terrible in terms of banding, which is precisely why I avoided this camera since you could see it even in Canon's examples. However, I have to think that you boosted the exposure in ACR - this is really bad, and looks like what happens when you try to boost Canon high ISO files.

And as someone who prints a lot of high ISO work on a regular basis, I'm here to tell you that if you see banding in a photo, you'll see it even in a 4x6 print. Noise you can get rid of - banding is much more difficult. Since I'm primarily an event photographer and the majority of our printing is done with our customers waiting for the print, doing any sort of hand-tweaking to photos to get rid of it simply isn't an option.

Will be interesting to see if the 5D Mark II suffers the same issues. The original 5D had much better banding characterstics than the 20D/30D.



Oct 13, 2008 at 09:12 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Daan B wrote:
2) There is little difference in noise levels/characteristics between RAW images converted by ACR 4.6 beta/RC and ACR 4.6 (official release).


There is a significant difference in noise levels between RAW images converted by ACR 4.6 beta/RC and ACR 4.6 (official release).

Daan B wrote:
By oversampling of the RAW data, DPP does a much better job regarding noise levels/characteristics... but at the expense of fine detail with high ISO's (in comparison to ACR 4.6).


That is because most people have yet to figure out that DPP 3.5 applies its own default settings for NR UNLESS you change that (under tools -> preferences). I find it hard to believe that after so long, many folks are still struggling with something so basic. Sigh...





Oct 13, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Sam Bennett
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


thw2 wrote:
There is a significant difference in noise levels between RAW images converted by ACR 4.6 beta/RC and ACR 4.6 (official release).


Can you give us a demonstration of this? And is this across the board, with all cameras?



Oct 13, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Sam Bennett wrote:
Can you give us a demonstration of this? And is this across the board, with all cameras?


40D (uprezzed to 15MP) vs 50D ISO 1600 - RAW converted by ACR 4.6 beta/RC, no NR/sharpening:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3112/2925812307_f0a6fcc268_o.jpg

50D ISO 1600 - RAW converted by ACR 4.6 official, no NR/sharpening:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2938540656_34434ae37e_o.jpg

The 50D RAW file is available at the Imaging-Resource website.

Tip: copy them to your PC and hold them next to eachother in PS. I don't see much difference. But maybe I don't see that well




Oct 13, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Sam Bennett
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


I'm not sure I'd call that a "significant" difference.


Oct 13, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Sam Bennett wrote:
I'm not sure I'd call that a "significant" difference.


Nope, at least not concerning noise... But notice how the strong pink-ish color in the upper left corner differs.



Oct 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Daan B wrote:
Nope, at least not concerning noise... But notice how the strong pink-ish color in the upper left corner differs.


I see you have turned off chroma noise NR. I find that with the old beta version, putting chroma NR = 25 is hardly effective, but on the official version it is much better... although the images are soft in comparison to DPP 3.5.

PS: This difference only applies to Canon 50D. Treatment of 40D and XSi is not changed as we go from beta to actual 4.6.



Oct 13, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Seth Tower
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


shrink1 wrote:
nice shots, all, and pretty noise free. jpeg or RAW?


You're kidding right?

I initially thought these were taken at 12800 and I was going to be pretty impressed. The noise and banding at that ISO would be acceptable. I about fell out of my chair when I saw they were at 1600. They look like my old 10D did at 3200! Wow. Strange color cast, too. Perhaps it was just the stage lights.



Oct 13, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Sam Bennett
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Again, I think we're missing a major part of the picture here. I'm willing to put money down that these shots were underexposed and then cranked up in ACR later.


Oct 13, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Seth Tower
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 50D lowlight shots using ACR 4.6


Sam Bennett wrote:
Again, I think we're missing a major part of the picture here. I'm willing to put money down that these shots were underexposed and then cranked up in ACR later.


Maybe, the OP said that no sharpening or NR was used, but didn't mention bumping up the exposure...



Oct 13, 2008 at 01:16 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password