Notice I removed my comment. I realized it after posting.
But here's the thing: I downloaded and installed it. But it did not improve the 7D noise I'm seeing one bit. Do I need to remove and re-import the 7D test pics?
jcbradshaw wrote:
Notice I removed my comment. I realized it after posting.
But here's the thing: I downloaded and installed it. But it did not improve the 7D noise I'm seeing one bit. Do I need to remove and re-import the 7D test pics?
No need to re-import. The new profiles are there automatically. As far as I can there's nothing different with noise. The only difference I've picked up on so far is the mazing in Paul Feng's color checker image from his first 7D. It's completely gone. Even the color profiles in 2.6 seem to be he same as the 2.5 profiles. As for noise, do you find it to be a problem?
Edit: I take back what I said about profiles. There are differences between colors in 2.5 and 2.6, hopefully for the better, but i haven't checked very thoroughly yet.
Fred Tedsen wrote:
No worry, it's the real deal. Mazing is gone with 2.6rc.
first peek with it and mazing is utterly gone with Paul's better copy and even seems to be all but gone on my copy
artifacting appears to be far better controlled at all ISO than with ACR 5.5 AND DPP AND C1v5 (I would rank them ACR 5.6 >> C1v5 > DPP > ACR 5.5 in terms of 7D artifacts)
i need to check noise and sharpness to see if it is cheating anything though, first peak from memory is that it might be good though, but a subtle averaging could be washing away fine low contrast details or who knows what or maybe it adds noise but randomizes it or maybe they found a way to read mask areas and do multi-pass adaptive algorithms using hyper-local avgeraging and comparing with.... etc.
so there is still a chance it is cheating away noise by losing resolution or it gets around it but some bodies will still have as much as 50% or more noise than other bodies even if it at least is of a nice appealing looking form now, but hopefully it is fully the real deal, remains to be seen, but tenatively it feels good....
again i need to go check to be sure but from memory, it appears that ACR 5.6 is devastatingly better with the 7D than any other converter and that includes DPP and C1v5. gain this is from memory but it seems to be on another planet compared to even DPP and C1v5, at least with 7D, but again take that with a huge grain of salt, i need to compare directly and a lot more different types of scenes.
IMO, most, if certainly not all, 7D are not of entirely acceptable quality using DPP, totally not using ACR 5.5 and pretty borderline with C1v5, perhaps ACR 5.6 will do it though (of course those invested in DPP or C1 are to varying degrees kinda left a little screwed unless they happen upon a copy getting to closer to Paul's or not very picky)
garyvot wrote:
"Devastatingly better"? Wow. Even though I don't currently have a 7D, I will download this to revist my existing files... Interesting development.
well devastatingly may depend how bad your 7D copy is, the worse it is the bigger the difference
ok, i looked over the DPR ISO100 sample RAW (their copy was NOT as good as Paul's and probably more similar to mine)
and in all honesty I could only fine one spot where ACR 5.6 really seemed to drop any detail compared to ACR 5.5 and one other spot where it maybe dropped a hair of detail but I also found one spot where ACR 5.6 seemed to pull a little more detail and most of the images i really couldn't find any real difference, when there was it also seemed to be less moire and fringing and probably a truer representation so I didn't count those few other spots, so I don't think it can be said to be washing away detail, again tentative but sure looks rather promising to say the least
furthermore ACR 5.6 seems to color fringe less than ACR 5.5 and suffer less from moire
it has vastly less artifacting than ACR 5.5, even the somewhat worse copies don't really show mazing, certainly not anything you could with any reason in the world complain about
it has less artifacting that C1 too, having none of the nasty back and white speckling and corners of the maze left over nor the higher ISO blocking and stray dotting left over from fighting mazing
DPP has those C1 issues only worse and with less ways to try to control and get around them
and ACR 5.5 was of course riddled with mazing even if lacking the nasty dotting and blocking and smoothing of DPP
i would say it totally blows DPP out of the water and annihilates ACR 5.5 and handily, if not shockingly beats C1v5
all this is in terms of 7D didn't try other cameras with it yet (i wonder if it if it will reduce color frigning of fine lines and moire for the other bodies compared to previous ACR)
open questions:
just in general looking over more images, i did a really rushed quick comparison
will better copies like Paul's still end with less noise at lower and mid iso? will that still be a significant body to body difference? anyway, even if it was, it is a far, far less serious concern than the nasty artifact differences and there is no saying there will turn out to be more than a relatively modest difference anyway. i'd still rather have his copy but it might not be the most horrible thing in the world if you don't. Anyway will some copies still have 50-100% more noise even if of a very pleasing to the eye form that also doesn't damage detail much, if at all
will the better copues be able to pull even a hair better fine detail? my guess is it probably wouldn't be anything to worry about even if so
but things looks pretty promising
otoh, if i was weddded to DPP or C1 and got one of the likely many worser copies of the 7D I might not still be entirely thrilled not sure what those people should do if they are finicky or gonna do lots of heavy cropping or printing big but i'm starting to get the feeling that most 7D owners who use ACR may be good to go and nearly undoubtable so for those who got better copies like Paul's
anyway i will sleep on it and hopefully nobody discoveres something major that i missed and it bares out well overnight and tomorrow....
skibum5 wrote:
again i need to go check to be sure but from memory, it appears that ACR 5.6 is devastatingly better with the 7D than any other converter and that includes DPP and C1v5. gain this is from memory but it seems to be on another planet compared to even DPP and C1v5, at least with 7D, but again take that with a huge grain of salt, i need to compare directly and a lot more different types of scenes.
So far I've found no differences in noise or sharpness between 2.5 and 2.6, that is to say 2.6 is no better or worse than 2.5, which I think is a good thing. Mazing is gone from the very few images where I was able to find it in my images. I'll be interested to hear how many of your images are improved by 2.6.
Fred Tedsen wrote:
So far I've found no differences in noise or sharpness between 2.5 and 2.6, that is to say 2.6 is no better or worse than 2.5, which I think is a good thing. Mazing is gone from the very few images I was able to find it in my images. I'll be interested to hear how many of your images are improved by 2.6.
my camera tended to maze a lot so basically pretty much every single image is anywhere from a little to a ton better (even where they didn't out and out maze it could still muddle fine details at details, look at the DPR ISO100 test scene and pluto's fur those little fur balls with acr 5.6 you see where his fur and the fuzz lines go with acr 5.5 and even some other converters to a lesser extent you get fakes lines of fur or loss of fine detail when they get confused by the imbalance; also helps even at higher iso where the noise gets a more appealing look)
i also think acr 5.5 has less demosaic color fringing and less moire so for certain images that would be an improvement regardless of what your 7D (and perhaps even other bodies) were like so i think that might be a general improvement for anyone regardless of what they thought about mazing and all that
the colors definitely seem better too although i'm sure a custom profile is still the way to go
I was doing some noise comparisons between my 20D and 7D. I converted some RAW files to TIFF using DPP, and I was surprised to find that when I imported the TIFFs into Lightroom, the noise characteristics of the TIFFs and RAWs was identical. In DPP the 7D images in particular appear much cleaner than in Lightroom. Puzzled by this, I then tried converting paulfeng's first 7D color chart. This image shows very clear mazing in Lightroom but not in DPP. But again, the TIFF processed from DPP when imported to Lightroom showed the identical mazing as the RAW. Does this say that the mazing in Lightroom is a function of how it displays images rather than how it processes RAW files?...Show more →
Now, in Lightroom 2.6, Paul Feng's body 1 color chart is free of mazing, but it is still there in the TIFF from DPP. Can someone please explain this?
worked just fine. thanks!
It looks just as sharp in my setup and puts my images to shame.
I am more and more convinced I am having AF issues too. I take the same scene with OneShot, SpotAF and then LiveView at 5x. LiveView is dead sharp.
I am playing with LR 2.6RC too, and it looks so much better than DPP for me.
Just compared LR 2. RC to DPP using Camera Standard profiles in both, and output was near identical, with LR producing slightly more detail. Adobe has gotten the colours of Camera standard almost identical to Canon, at least for the shots I checked. No mazing artefacts on my 7D at 200% view with LR 2.6.
Yeah that bronxbombers guy is very LAME...on another forum he uses another nick..Mary.
ciprian.trofin wrote:
Some guy at DPR quoted your post. Well... quoted is an overstatement - he said "a copy over of part of a thread from a different forum". Lame...
So I have been going through the manual for C.Fn 4.1 to come up with a "back focus" set up that will work for me. The manual is poorly written regarding this IMO .
The shutter button can be switched to Metering Start. The AF-ON does not have a stand alone focus start so the choice here is Metering and AF Start.
For example I am in AI Servo. I am assuming based on what the manual says that when I press the AF-ON both Metering and AF start and then when I press the shutter button the metering is overwritten from the AF-ON function I pressed earlier. Am I on the right track?
)
