I did finally try your raw file in DPP and the difference between ACR's
conversion and DPP's conversion is that the base image conversion in ACR
shows many very dark areas as black (0) whereas DPP shows small but
distinguishable dark gray values (from 1-12). Also, in the green patch
DPP shows a red value of 1 whereas ACR shows 0.
So, for whatever reason, ACR is not correctly converting very dark
values and the color shift is due to 0 not scaling upward with the other
non-zero values of the pixel.
Sounds like a bug in ACR.
Chuck Norcutt
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Simple. I don't use DPP because I don't like to use DPP. I think its
> usage is rather primitive relative to ACR. I also don't lend much
> credence to your test image because it's 4 stops down. I wouldn't be
> trying to recover that. I find it curious that the black parts of the
> image (already near 0) can be 4 stops down yet be recovered by DPP. CS4
> is showing 0 for those parts which is what I would expect. Is DPP
> inventing numbers? It has produced a slightly graduated scale of dark
> grays but how did it do that? What are the values of those dark
> grays/blacks before boosting?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> Why your guys don't use the free software came with your Canyon camera? CS
>> has BIG PROBLEM in rendering at least the 5D II files, see here a test image
>> that undered 4 stops:
>>
>> Converted with DPP +2 stops:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_7217_DPP.JPG (142KB)
>>
>> Converted with CS4 +2 stops:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_7217_CS4.jpg (174KB)
>>
>> both W/B on the "White" color. See the serious color shift in CS4 converted
>> one, not to mention the different in exposure.
>>
>> Try it out yourself if you are interested, may be I have missed something:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_7217.CR2 (6.8MB)
>>
>> Back to the noise issue, here are two crops from DPP, one normal
>> exposure and the other +1 stop in DPP.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_6442.JPG
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_6442+1.JPG
>>
>> There are visible noise even with the non boost one, remember this is
>> an ISO100 image, just hard to accept!
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>>
>>> I must be blind. I didn't open this file before because my CS3 can't
>>> handle 5D MkII files. However, I decided to try an ACR conversion in my
>>> trial version of Elements which does handle it. I do see banding on the
>>> wood paneling in the background at lower far right. But to make it
>>> visible I have to increase fill light to 100 while also increasing
>>> exposure by a full stop. That's something I'd never do. Are my new
>>> eyes or monitor that bad?
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>> Moose, I think you are right, it is highly possible A/D problem, I have
>>>> checked with some low ISO images, there are large size "noise" at the
>>>> shadow
>>>> area even without boost up, what 14 bit A/D seems not doing better than
>>>> the
>>>> E-1, all are BS, even the 40D images look better.
>>>>
>>>> There has been a long time curious for me why some OOF background didn't
>>>> look as smooth as they should be, it was not enough bit deep. Now there
>>>> is
>>>> one more thing to look for when checking out a new camera.
>>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "C.H.Ling"
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is similar problem even at full resolution:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_6442.CR2 (23MB)
>>>>>
>>>>> I really have no idea how this happen as a totally dark low ISO image is
>>>>> very clean even boost up, at the mean time high ISO image is clean
>>>>> except
>>>>> the shadow, just like problem with low ISO image.
>>>>>
>>>>> C.H.Ling
>>>>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
