fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2009 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Well then, starting from a discussion in the following thread (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829160), I decided to make something of a comparison between four popular RAW converters to see which one produced the best results.

The camera used for the comparison was a 5D2 w/ 70-200 f/4L IS & 85L, it may very well be probable that your results will vary depending on the brand/model of your own camera.

I chose the following Images for the comparison (samples from the C1 conversions):

http://uploadingit.com/file/bcjuvqdhlziwms59/Warthog_DEMO.jpg

http://uploadingit.com/file/hnusjijvebsuer1e/Chestnut_DEMO.jpg

http://uploadingit.com/file/74vwdk9rede8j03x/Park_DEMO.jpg

http://uploadingit.com/file/qzhd7xw14lnnm613/Sparrow_DEMO.jpg

I converted the images at different times to try and get the best out of each one, then I ran them all through an action in Photoshop CS4 that did some curves and sharpening in LAB mode, this was done to test the integrity of the conversion and show any flaws better; most of the conversions looked similar until I started doing post work on them.

http://uploadingit.com/file/pycky3vn1gkg3jpz/Warthog_Compo.jpg

Looking at the photo at 100 and 200%...
Bibble 5 beta got hit pretty bad, a bit more artifacts and loss of detail than DPP but not as much as Lr2.
DPP was surprisingly good, like C15 in detail, but strong mazing artifacts.
Lr2 was free of artifacts, but obliterated the fine details.
C15 had the best detail.

http://uploadingit.com/file/ypwolx89gfzkheih/Chestnut_Compo.jpg

Basically the same story, C15 and DPP lead the way, though I think I sharpened the DPP result a bit too much.

http://uploadingit.com/file/etw5pnsu1t8dsg8c/Park_Compo.jpg

This photo I chose to see how the converters would react to heavy over-exposure, here present in the building at the top of the photo.

Again, C15 leads in the tree detail as well as recovered detail in the over-exposed building, followed by Bibble 5, DPP and Lr2 in that order.
C15 managed to recover the most detail in the roof part of the building by far, while Lr2 exhibited lots of purple fringing (B5b and DPP showed green fringing).

http://uploadingit.com/file/pd1zmxpimk9u2pw0/1.2%20Sparrow_Compo.jpg

Wanted to include a bird photo, but my only one was taken with an 85L at 1.2, so there's only a shred of sharpness with to test with.
Seemed to have used tad too much sharpening on the Lr2 variant, but other than that the results are really close... B5 and DPP show maze artifacts.

Verdict: I did most of my comparing at 100 & 200%, which pretty much already says that in most cases any differences are likely to be lost in print, unless you print over A3 size (12x17") @ 360 DPI and still expect to see pixel perfect detail.

Capture One 5 does edge out in detail and ability to recover highlights then the other converters, and has pretty decent default settings to start from. it's files can take the biggest beating from post-processing. on my PC it ran the slowest in real-time handling and rendering.

Lightroom 2 was pretty quick to work in, as it should be (for those of you who regularly go through a sea of photos that all need cataloging and sorting) and wins on the interface front too, but seemed to deteriorate image quality the quickest as well.
I wanted to get the v3 Beta of Lr but was running low on C: disk space and decided that it didn't bring enough changes for me to bother with it, I hear the NR was improved though.

Bibble 5 v2 is certainly really fast, but I was confused on the image controls. The default preset is also pretty useless. In general, it felt like an in-between of the other 3 converters, and perfomed like it too.

Digital Photo Professional couldn't have had a more archaic interface, but I got some surprisingly good results from it. Based on past experience, anything is better than DPP at noise reduction.

I suppose you could say it all depends on your needs/budget/workflow more than an absolute "this one is better", as many depend on Lr's cataloging or the fact that DPP is free. I personally will continue using C15 as I usually need the maximum quality from the photos I take professionally.

�
��High ISO NR test

Here's part two of my little test on RAW converters, this time on noise handling.
Since noise is (within reasonable expectations) non-existant @ ISO 100~400 on the 5D2, I'll only be testing ISO 800~6400.

This is the scene used:
http://uploadingit.com/file/roknshrzkmghm6xp/ISO6400demo.jpg

ISO 6400:
http://uploadingit.com/file/8dxz3ehhvxx28477/ISO6400%20comp.jpg
...might have used a tad too much sharpening in Bibble 5 result.

ISO 3200:
http://uploadingit.com/file/56ztnsrvtkrlk5cn/ISO3200%20comp.jpg
Noise is a lot less noticable now, so change of crop location.

ISO 1600:
http://uploadingit.com/file/vafwpi6bm3mnycvq/ISO1600%20comp.jpg

ISO 800:
http://uploadingit.com/file/49ctpzv06mesytq6/ISO800%20comp.jpg
Not much difference between results at 800, though DPP still smooths detail.

My takeaway:
-The 5D2 + a good NR algorithm make for a surprisingly clean image at high ISO.
-Big bump in visible noise between 3200 and 6400.
-DPP's noise gets a blotchy look to it when NR is enabled, and smooths detail. Can't seem to get rid of chroma noise.
-Bibble 5 has Noise Ninja built in, so there's really not much to say. With a custom profile you can expect results to be better than above.
-C15's noise is close behind Bibble's, but the texture is coarser. Has a knack of getting rid of chroma noise entirly.
-Lr2's NR is a tad better than DPP's, but behind C15. It looks like there is less noise in the 6400 shot compared to the others, but in a different area it's clear that there is more chroma:
http://uploadingit.com/file/uixyaexcpvadz5uf/ISO6400%20comp2.jpg

For kicks, I also tried outputting an ISO 6400 varient with no NR, and applied Nik software Dfine 2.0 afterwards in CS4 to see if a plugin is any better.
I did not bother posting up the result however, because it is essentially identical to the C1 vs B5/NN scenario; nither removes more noise, but C1 has a coarser noise texture.

Lightroom 3 supposedly has better NR, which might place it on par with C1.
In any case, a Photoshop plugin like Dfine/NoiseNinja/NeatImage is usually a better option (will probably always be the better option, short of becoming integrated into the converter as in Bibble's case).

NR verdict:
I'd place them in this order:
Dfine/NN/Bibble 5 -> Capture One 5 -> Lightroom 2 -> DPP

Full ISO 6400 Jpegs: C15 - B5 - Lr2 - DPP
Full ISO 3200 Jpegs: C15 - B5 - Lr2 - DPP
Full ISO 1600 Jpegs: C15 - B5 - Lr2 - DPP
more coming soon...

Edited on Nov 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM · View previous versions

Nov 07, 2009 at 11:40 AM

AlanD
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Great pics. Any opportunity to test Aperture?

Nov 07, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Nope, I don't have a Mac, so I'm limited to Windows-based converters.
I could make some of the RAW files available though, and I didn't take into account DxO and many other converters as well so perhaps others can help do those?

Nov 07, 2009 at 12:06 PM

mfurman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Thank you for the tests. I have already decided about C1 PRO 5 though

Nov 07, 2009 at 12:33 PM

15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Nice job with the test. For fun i tried comparing LR2.5 with C1 v4 and v5 (non pro versions) this morning. I got similar findings to you, though with a rather lower end camera (a 350D). LR seems to get a lot less detail out of pictures with fine structure, and in particular seemed to dislike twigs against a blue sky - it renders the brown twigs as blue tinted, while C1 does a much better job separating them from the sky.

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned in these evaluations (though is obvious in your pictures) is the colour and the general rendering of the scene. For me this is where DPP and C1 win out, and LR tends to lose: I don't know how LR is for more expensive cameras, but the profiles for my 350D give annoying colour hues in some situations.

I don't know if i'm missing something, but i can't see any difference at all in the output between v4 and v5 of Capture One. In fact the only difference i can see between v4 and v5 (non pro versions) is a "long exposure" noise slider.

PS: Where did you get that picture of my mother in law?

Nov 07, 2009 at 02:49 PM

JimboCin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Kolor-Picker

Thanks for the excellent work! This took you a lot of time to do, and we appreciate it.

Jim

Nov 07, 2009 at 06:16 PM

Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Kolor-Pikker - How is the noise control in Capture One 5?
I'm curious - I agree that DPP's noise handling isn't the best.

Thanks for the test.

Nov 07, 2009 at 06:49 PM

WebDog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Have been trying DPP/ACR and C1 and I keep using C1 for all my processing. Always gives the newest version of DPP a go, just to see what's Canon been up to!

So far I am disappointed of the result from ACR, seems unable to get the details that I can see in C1 and DPP. But, for me DPP is not up to snuff when processing lots of pictures. And I fancy the C1 IQ too!

So I keep using C1, and honestly cannot see a lot of difference between v4.8 and v5!

But you have a 30 days free trial so why not give C1 a go just for fun?

Nov 07, 2009 at 08:17 PM

clausjepsen
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Thanks for the testing. Would have been nice with LR3, because they say it is on par with C1.

Nov 08, 2009 at 02:55 AM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Thanks for the replies, guys. I see your experiences are similar to mine.

I didn't test out the noise reduction of the software this time around, so I'm gonna have to dig up some ISO 1600 night shots, and push those around.
[rant]Oh, one thing I don't quite get is people complaining about noise and showing shots with chroma in it (usually red), seriously you can push chroma noise reduction a fair way before filtering becomes even visible on an image.[/rant]

I don't know if i'm missing something, but i can't see any difference at all in the output between v4 and v5 of Capture One.
So I keep using C1, and honestly cannot see a lot of difference between v4.8 and v5!

Pretty much the only differences are productivity-related and minor tweaks so yeah, it'll probably be a few more sub-versions before C15 will be a compelling enough upgrade for 4.8 users. Kind of a shame, since I was expecting more.

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned in these evaluations (though is obvious in your pictures) is the colour and the general rendering of the scene. For me this is where DPP and C1 win out, and LR tends to lose: I don't know how LR is for more expensive cameras, but the profiles for my 350D give annoying colour hues in some situations.

Hmm, now that I think about it, I did like the colors from C1 and DPP better as well. Even though it's fully possible to color-match the shots with each of these programs, each one seems to push you in a slightly different direction on choice of color and tone.
And I wouldn't say that Lr2 is for expensive cameras, more like photographers with expensive time

PS: Where did you get that picture of my mother in law?
lol! the Moscow zoo, apparently. She was just kinda standing around there and posing for me.

Nov 08, 2009 at 02:55 AM

15Bit
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Hmm, now that I think about it, I did like the colors from C1 and DPP better as well. Even though it's fully possible to color-match the shots with each of these programs, each one seems to push you in a slightly different direction on choice of color and tone.

Funnily i never managed to get LR output to look the same colour, or as good as C1. I'm not great at PP though.

PS: Where did you get that picture of my mother in law?

lol! the Moscow zoo, apparently. She was just kinda standing around there and posing for me.

Don't feel special, she does that for everyone.

Nov 08, 2009 at 03:45 AM

Leslie168
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

many thanks for above !

I think I need to try to C1 very soon, now I am using LR2 only and I found the DPP is better then LR2 when those files from 450D RAW, and LR2 is better then DPP for the files from 1D RAW.

Nov 08, 2009 at 10:46 AM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Well then, starting from a discussion in the following thread (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829160), I decided to make something of a comparison between four popular RAW converters to see which one produced the best results.

The camera used for the comparison was a 5D2 w/ 70-200 f/4L IS & 85L, it may very well be probable that your results will vary depending on the brand/model of your own camera.

...................

I suppose you could say it all depends on your needs/budget/workflow more than an absolute "this one is better", as many depend on Lr's cataloging or the fact that DPP is free. I personally will continue...Show more →

Thanks for the comparison. I doubt there's one best image editor available and it really does depend on what you shoot, how you expose, and what your requirements/standards are. Adobe has an easy win for most of us, but it certainly is NOT the best tool out there as you show conclusively.

I think the biggest take-away from all these comparisons is that people should shoot RAW files; jpeg is too much of a compromise and frozen in time, while RAW gives you the opportunity to convert now with the "best of breed" and then convert again later with improved tools.

Thanks for an interesting and informative comparison.

Nov 08, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Just downloaded C1-5 and will be evaluating for 30 days. Not much time today, but I should have plenty of high-ISO shots tomorrow evening from an outdoor evening event.

So far, just on a quick comparison, I like what i see.

Nov 08, 2009 at 02:57 PM

joekraft
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

My short experience with LR3 beta so far makes me think it is subtly, but significantly better than LR2. I don't think one can say it doesn't bring enough changes to look at, since the very core of it - the rendering engine - is being re-engineered. I think it will likely be seen as a success when it comes out, as the files I looked at were sharper, and had better appearances of depth. These are things that get lost when the details are all mushy, as you mention Kolor-pikker.

Nov 08, 2009 at 05:40 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

try LR2 with ACR sharpening set to 20, at smallest radius it lets you set, detail at 25 and masking at 0 and NR to luma 0 see if it doesn't pull out better micro detail then

also you may need to apply different levels of sharpening in CS4 from each, since each does pre-sharpening differently

Nov 08, 2009 at 11:03 PM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Wow, I've actually been getting replies!

My short experience with LR3 beta so far makes me think it is subtly, but significantly better than LR2
Wanted to try the beta out, but I guess i'm just too lazy to bother with it. Besides, until the final version is out I suppose most people will be content with v2.

try LR2 with ACR sharpening set to 20, at smallest radius it lets you set, detail at 25 and masking at 0 and NR to luma 0 see if it doesn't pull out better micro detail then.
also you may need to apply different levels of sharpening in CS4 from each, since each does pre-sharpening differently
Might try that out next time I do a Lr conversion, but damn if these comparisons arn't a time sink.
In CS4 I used some light high-pass and a high-radius USM, so I don't think it had too much effect on the micro detail.

Not much time today, but I should have plenty of high-ISO shots tomorrow evening from an outdoor evening event.
almost done on my contolled ISO800~6400 tests, so stay tuned.

Thanks for the comparison. I doubt there's one best image editor available and it really does depend on what you shoot, how you expose, and what your requirements/standards are. Adobe has an easy win for most of us, but it certainly is NOT the best tool out there as you show conclusively. I think the biggest take-away from all these comparisons is that people should shoot RAW files; jpeg is too much of a compromise and frozen in time, while RAW gives you the opportunity to convert now with the "best of breed" and then convert again later with improved tools.

Pretty much that... now if only more people could be convinced to use RAW instead of jpeg; capturing a photo is only half of the experience. (on the other hand, if you're a pressed-for-time pro, I suppose one could get workable OOC results with careful setup of picture styles beforehand)

Nov 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Updated! - added a section on noise reduction.

Nov 11, 2009 at 08:18 AM

Tom_W
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

Thanks for adding that section on Noise Reduction. I shot at 12,800 Monday evening (had to keep the shutter speed up), so naturally, I had some VERY noisy images. I messed around with C1-5 and couldn't seem to get anything better than what I was getting from DPP ( ver. 3.7.2 ). Wasn't any worse, really. It was a little temperamental on chroma noise - you'd move the slider too far over and suddenly, your detail was washed away.

DPP was inadequate for some of the images - I had the chroma slider all the way to 20 and still had some color noise. Luminance noise was not as objectionable so I treated it more gently (hitting luminance seems to hit detail as well, though none of these ISO 12,800 images are going to make the Sports Illustrated centerfold). Naturally, I sacrificed some micro-contrast for lower noise. Didn't much matter in this situation.

I tried Noiseware on a few - it is very effective, but with these shots, I sometimes got a very blotchy, plasticy look. Had to be careful how much I applied. Although, a 21 mpx plasticy image sometimes beats heavy color noise grain, especially if you're keeping the final image small.

The 5D2 struggles a bit at 12,800 to say the least. On many images, it showed strong pattern noise in the mid-dark regions of the image. Black areas were less prone, and medium-bright portions of the shots did not have the pattern, but those mid-dark areas really did have a mess. Full +20 NR and some brightness/contrast adjustment cleaned some of it up but on others, it remained.

The moral of the story - at ISO 6400, the 5D2 is very good. 12,800 is for those rare occasions where there's no other way to get the shot. Oh, they're usable at web-sized photos or for newsprint or surveillance purposes, but they're not pretty.

Nov 11, 2009 at 08:59 AM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · C15 vs Lr2 vs DPP vs Bibble 5

12,800 is for those rare occasions where there's no other way to get the shot.

Yeesh! sounds like it needs the kind of NR DxO optics pro is currently bragging about.

Btw, ISO 6400 & up on the 5D2 are "fake" ISOs, where the camera digitally boosts the ISO 3200 signal, so 12,800 is the equvelent of shooting at ISO 3200 at -4 ev and adding it back in post... at least from what I've heard.
So... 100 is native ISO, 200~3200 is analog amp and 6400~25,600 is digital amp... most likely. Should make sense since during my tests I saw an almost straight increase in noise from 3200 -> 6400.

Nov 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end