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/
|
