dhphoto wrote:
One thing that I am, perhaps unsurprisingly finding is that the conversions form the different programs do look very different, in contrast,colour, sharpness, almost everything.
I seem to go to different tools in different converters to achieve the same things, like in DPP to increase the blacks I use the slider on the histo, on LR I use the blacks command and on C1 I use levels or curves.
So any 'contest' is going to be very subjective about what an individual likes best IMHO. No bad thing - we just have more and better tools to work with
David
Sorry mate but you're the one who's been goin on about how the C1 does the best conversion and now you're saying they just look "different"?
One area C1 is vastly better than LR is moiré control. C1 has a dedicated adjustment to control moiré. Luckily it's not something I come across too often other than certain bird feathers and insect eyes.
I've been a CI user since the original product was released, but have not used v4 very much. But since trying the new version on 7D files, I'm getting excited about it again.
Some of my 7D files converted with DPP have not been fully convincing to me. They seem to lack a certain clarity and sharpness that I see in my 5D Mark II conversions. However, the same files processed in C1 seem to sparkle and have some of that missing depth.
I don't think it's merely a different default sharpening strength. There seems to be more microcontrast, and better per-pixel sharpness. Color looks nice too.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the way the products are handling the 7D's green channel. Looking at ISO 100 files at 200%, I see slighly more signs of maze artifacts in the C1 Pro 5 conversions. They're also there in the DPP conversions, but they look suppressed or blurred somehow, and I've read that algorithms for reducing the mazing can also reduce resolution...
In any case, I have generally felt that DPP produces the best output from Canon files at least since the 5D shipped, but I am liking what I'm seeing in C1 Pro 5 so far. I'll definitely be playing with it some more.
garyvot wrote:
Some of my 7D files converted with DPP have not been fully convincing to me. They seem to lack a certain clarity and sharpness that I see in my 5D Mark II conversions. However, the same files processed in C1 seem to sparkle and have some of that missing depth.
I don't think it's merely a different default sharpening strength. There seems to be more microcontrast, and better per-pixel sharpness. Color looks nice too.
I could not agree with your assessment more. If the difference were merely the result of default sharpening parameters, we should be able to approximate the C1 result with some changes to sharpening parameters. Nothing I was able to do with LR sharpening could reproduce the sharpness and clarity of the C1 result. C1 looks better for files from all of the bodies I've used over the years (1DsII, 1DsIII, 5D, 5DII, 50D, 7D). The colors are also more accurate. I love the LR workflow, but it is all about the image and I plan to use C1 at this point because it is producing the highest image quality by a fair margin.
One thing that I am, perhaps unsurprisingly finding is that the conversions form the different programs do look very different, in contrast, colour, sharpness, almost everything.
Which makes me think about the comparison now, would it be more "fair" to try and attain the best result possible from each converter as though it was the only software you knew of and still wanted to squeeze out that last bit of juice... or an apples-to-apples approach where one would adjust the "look" of each version one step at a time to see which software does the best job?
I'm thinking a subject matter architecture, foliage, a portrait, and a bird would make for enough diversity. (alas, the only bird I have is a sparrow shot with my 85L at MFD; not much that's sharp lol)
Oh yeah, to throw another bone to C1, I noticed that it usually gave better highlight recovery than Lr2, which caused discoloration in the recovered area (yellow turns magenta!).
I just shot some portraits of my daughter to test skin tones. Images are ruined with maze effect in skin tones on C1 v5 (view at 200% to see patterns) ... effect is present in ACR ... effect is not visible in DPP. What gives? If this is the final version of the software for the 7D, than it is not acceptable. I'm thinking of returning the 7D now ... these files are junk compared to the 5DII.
UCSB wrote:
I just shot some portraits of my daughter to test skin tones. Images are ruined with maze effect in skin tones on C1 v5 (view at 200% to see patterns) ... effect is present in ACR ... effect is not visible in DPP. What gives? If this is the final version of the software for the 7D, than it is not acceptable. I'm thinking of returning the 7D now ... these files are junk compared to the 5DII.
After doing some searching, this appears to be a known problem. It's probably due to a combination of the 7D's two green pixels not being identical in color (like in sony cams) and sharpening.
I guess until Adobe and Phase One update their software, DPP is the way to go... or return the 7D and get a 1D3 on the cheap
p.6 #11 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Which makes me think about the comparison now, would it be more "fair" to try and attain the best result possible from each converter as though it was the only software you knew of and still wanted to squeeze out that last bit of juice... or an apples-to-apples approach where one would adjust the "look" of each version one step at a time to see which software does the best job?
Yes, IMO you must get the very best out of each converter or the subtle differences and improvements won't show up. This isn't about baseline conversions it's about what is the BEST RAW converter
As for NoBo's comment, did I say they all looked the same? They all look different but to my eye and in my opinion C1 is clearly the best, I thought I made that clear. Why jump on me about it?
p.6 #13 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
dhphoto wrote:
As for NoBo's comment, did I say they all looked the same? They all look different but to my eye and in my opinion C1 is clearly the best, I thought I made that clear. Why jump on me about it?
What the... I was just confused by your previous post, so settle grettle, I'm not jumping on anyone.
You've been saying the C1 does the best conversion and when I asked for some more comparison shots, you said,
dhphoto wrote:
One thing that I am, perhaps unsurprisingly finding is that the conversions form the different programs do look very different, in contrast,colour, sharpness, almost everything.
I seem to go to different tools in different converters to achieve the same things, like in DPP to increase the blacks I use the slider on the histo, on LR I use the blacks command and on C1 I use levels or curves.
So any 'contest' is going to be very subjective about what an individual likes best IMHO. No bad thing - we just have more and better tools to work with
Which to me implied that they all can pretty much achieve the same result only by using different ways. I was thinking, "Why did he say that? Because if that's really the case, then this thread is rather pointless. Or maybe he just can't be stuffed doing comparison?"
p.6 #14 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
I don't see how my post can be misconstrued. To achieve the results *I* like I'm using sliders in one program and curves in another program et al.
What is surprising about that, they all have different interfaces? The results from the different programs are different. That's really not surprising either.
All in all, I'm preferring C1. That's about it. Not sure how that is confusing.
p.6 #15 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
I find I vastly prefer the out-of-the-box conversions done by C1 to LR. That was the case with v4 and maybe even more with v5. If LR just wasn't so incredibly convenient I'd have jumped ship quite a while ago. Still, I'm going to take the jump. Color reproduction and detail of C1 is just too good to be true and what blew me completely away is the way it handles CA and purple fringing (especially helpful with the 24 TSE Mk I).
p.6 #16 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
The v5 demo completely hosed my Vista box.
It installed fine, but it bluescreened immediately after running it. To make things even more fun, the machine wouldn't boot back into windows, not even in safe mode. I was on the road for work last week, so I ended up having to backup and rebuild my machine in my hotel room until 2am.
After doing some forensics, it turns out that there's a copy protection "driver" that gets installed with the demo. The driver hosed a disk controller driver which prevented me from rebooting.
Since I'm a glutton for punishment, I decided to give it another chance after my clean install of windows 7. Since there I didn't have my data copied over yet, there was really nothing to lose. The program runs ok and I'm pleased with the quality, but I still get a windows message box that pops up from time-to-time telling me that it has suspended the driver from causing damage to my machine. This thing is way to sketchy to keep on my computer. I'd have to run it in a virtual machine to have any confidence in it.
Hopefully they'll address this ridiculous copy protection driver, because there's no way I can justify spending $400 for this app as it stands now, no matter how good the results are.
p.6 #17 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
Something is really up with Capture one compatibility with Vista and W7... C1 won't even launch on my Windows 7 laptop period (even version 5) so I can only use it on my work computer (win XP).
On XP is runs just fine... till I turn on the new focus mask, then it kinda bogs down, but the PC is like 5 years old now so yeah.
p.6 #20 · Capture One 5 Available, it's very good!
C1V5 won't run on a Mac PPC. I just might have to finally upgrade from my otherwise perfectly capable G5 with the quad 2.5 ghz processors.
I'll probably download the trial version to my wife's 6-month old iMac just to play with it and see if a Mac Pro upgrade is really worth it.
Frankly, I hate when the software people do this. Yeah, I understand that its expensive to maintain support for several OS, but this is just plain sneaky.
