Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Raw converter looks promising

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:38:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
available.

So far it is doing fine on some Canon Raw files I've tested. The
conversion quality is very good IMHO, although it is best to start
with (the innovative) Sharpening turned all the way down if you want
to avoid Luminance aliasing (but color aliasing is hardly visible).
That would be especially important for cameras with very mild low-pass
filters (e.g. D70) or no filter (e.g. Kodak Pro SLR/c). Most Canon
cameras can get away with higher settings, but restraint is adviced.

I have yet to test color accuracy but it looks promising sofar.
Noise handling is not as good as with Neat Image/Noise Ninja, but may
still be useable at low settings.

The workflow takes a bit getting used to, but it looks logical enough
to be no real issue. The whole interface is very well thought through
and intuitive, but then the software is from a former C1 programmer so
he had a good reference. There is lots of informative feedback about
clipping and such, so combined with the large preview the results will
be predictable even before the actual conversion, which is done in
batch-mode as you prepare the next image.

Bart
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:38:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
> (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
> free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
> they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
> will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
> available.
>

I've been playing with it extensively today, and I really really like it.
Just about any image looks better straight out of the box, before any tweaks
whatsoever, than with C1Pro. About a fifth of my RAWs went straight through
without being touched - something that I have never really seen with C1,
which almost invariably requires some fiddling. I have not personally seen
the black screen syndrome that others have talked about, but then I'm on a
vanilla-flavour XPPro Dell, albeit a pretty beefy one. It's missing some of
the niceties that C1 has at the moment, but I understand they're in the
pipeline. One example is C1's ability to upsize - to date I've found nothing
better than C1 for directly outputting 60Mb TIFFs for the agency. Certainly
is strange to adjust one's workflow to get by without levels and curves
though, but you get used to the alternatives soon enough. I'm hooked.
H.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:10 -0000, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
>news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>> (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>> free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
>> they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
>> will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
>> available.
>>
>
>I've been playing with it extensively today, and I really really like it.
>Just about any image looks better straight out of the box, before any tweaks
>whatsoever, than with C1Pro. About a fifth of my RAWs went straight through
>without being touched - something that I have never really seen with C1,
>which almost invariably requires some fiddling. I have not personally seen
>the black screen syndrome that others have talked about, but then I'm on a
>vanilla-flavour XPPro Dell, albeit a pretty beefy one. It's missing some of
>the niceties that C1 has at the moment, but I understand they're in the
>pipeline. One example is C1's ability to upsize - to date I've found nothing
>better than C1 for directly outputting 60Mb TIFFs for the agency. Certainly
>is strange to adjust one's workflow to get by without levels and curves
>though, but you get used to the alternatives soon enough. I'm hooked.
>H.


Hannah, I wonder... does it bother you that this
freebie works better than C1Pro -- for which you
spent considerable $$$?

I don't mean this in a nasty way, I'm just curious.
If I'd spent $700 on Photoshop CS, only to find
out that the Acme Image Editor was better, and for
free, I'd be pretty annoyed.

I use C1LE, so I've got somewhat less at stake
than you, I think. (Besides which, I've got an
Athlon running Win2K, so this new product isn't
for me, yet.)

In any case, I remain vaguely skeptical that
Raw Converter Y can produce output that is so
much markedly better than Raw Converter X.
Unless the folks that wrote X were just plain
incompetent.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Related resources
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:38:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
news:g6adnea_SqghB4LfRVnygw@pipex.net...
>
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>> (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>> free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
>> they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
>> will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
>> available.
>>
>
> I've been playing with it extensively today, and I really really like it.
> Just about any image looks better straight out of the box, before any
> tweaks
> whatsoever, than with C1Pro. About a fifth of my RAWs went straight
> through
> without being touched - something that I have never really seen with C1,
> which almost invariably requires some fiddling. I have not personally
> seen
> the black screen syndrome that others have talked about, but then I'm on
> a
> vanilla-flavour XPPro Dell, albeit a pretty beefy one. It's missing some
> of
> the niceties that C1 has at the moment, but I understand they're in the
> pipeline. One example is C1's ability to upsize - to date I've found
> nothing
> better than C1 for directly outputting 60Mb TIFFs for the agency.
> Certainly
> is strange to adjust one's workflow to get by without levels and curves
> though, but you get used to the alternatives soon enough. I'm hooked.
> H.
>
>


I've downloaded it but none of the sharpening and noise setting seem to be
enabled. Any one know why?

--

Rob
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:15:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:e09v11lor3ocb6qc4e166qelv4ofcoaon7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:10 -0000, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hannah, I wonder... does it bother you that this
> freebie works better than C1Pro -- for which you
> spent considerable $$$?
>
> I don't mean this in a nasty way, I'm just curious.
> If I'd spent $700 on Photoshop CS, only to find
> out that the Acme Image Editor was better, and for
> free, I'd be pretty annoyed.
>
> I use C1LE, so I've got somewhat less at stake
> than you, I think. (Besides which, I've got an
> Athlon running Win2K, so this new product isn't
> for me, yet.)
>
> In any case, I remain vaguely skeptical that
> Raw Converter Y can produce output that is so
> much markedly better than Raw Converter X.
> Unless the folks that wrote X were just plain
> incompetent.
>
Well rafe, some of the same people wrote it as originally wrote C1, and it's
easy to see the similarities, but I agree, it's a bit bothersome that the
product is (at the moment) free, and apparently time unlimited. I spent a
lot on C1P sure, and I have generally liked it, but always with some
niggling reservations. I've tried the others out there, but always stuck
with C1P until now, having discovered RSE. It all seems too good to be
true, I'll agree. RAW conversion is a mystical process, and it's odd to me
that different products can produce such markedly different results, but
certainly, opening the same RAW in C1P and RSE and immediately saving as
TIFF without touching any controls gives *very* different results. I will
keep playing with it but so far, after a whole day of experimentation (oww,
my aching neck!) I'm *very* impressed.
H.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:15:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:15:32 -0000, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
wrote:

>
>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:e09v11lor3ocb6qc4e166qelv4ofcoaon7@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:10 -0000, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hannah, I wonder... does it bother you that this
>> freebie works better than C1Pro -- for which you
>> spent considerable $$$?
>>
>> I don't mean this in a nasty way, I'm just curious.
>> If I'd spent $700 on Photoshop CS, only to find
>> out that the Acme Image Editor was better, and for
>> free, I'd be pretty annoyed.
>>
>> I use C1LE, so I've got somewhat less at stake
>> than you, I think. (Besides which, I've got an
>> Athlon running Win2K, so this new product isn't
>> for me, yet.)
>>
>> In any case, I remain vaguely skeptical that
>> Raw Converter Y can produce output that is so
>> much markedly better than Raw Converter X.
>> Unless the folks that wrote X were just plain
>> incompetent.
>>
>Well rafe, some of the same people wrote it as originally wrote C1, and it's
>easy to see the similarities, but I agree, it's a bit bothersome that the
>product is (at the moment) free, and apparently time unlimited. I spent a
>lot on C1P sure, and I have generally liked it, but always with some
>niggling reservations. I've tried the others out there, but always stuck
>with C1P until now, having discovered RSE. It all seems too good to be
>true, I'll agree. RAW conversion is a mystical process, and it's odd to me
>that different products can produce such markedly different results, but
>certainly, opening the same RAW in C1P and RSE and immediately saving as
>TIFF without touching any controls gives *very* different results. I will
>keep playing with it but so far, after a whole day of experimentation (oww,
>my aching neck!) I'm *very* impressed.
>H.


Ah, I think I see. It sounds like what's changed
may either be some automatic actions (replacing
what you had to do manually in C1Pro) or better
default settings for conversions.

Do you have a feeling yet for how the "best case"
results might be different? Did you typically
do a lot of tweaking of the images in C1Pro?

Can you describe what's better about the images?
Better color? Contrast? Sharper?



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 26, 2005 2:35:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like it, it fits perfectly in the workflow of someone shooting raw.
However, I miss a black point setting and a global contrast control.

Florian.

Hannah wrote:
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>>...
February 26, 2005 2:35:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like it, it fits perfectly in the workflow of someone shooting raw.
However, I miss a black point setting and a global contrast control.

Florian.

Hannah wrote:
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>>...
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:41:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like it, it fits perfectly in the workflow of someone shooting raw.
However, I miss a black point setting and a global contrast control.

Florian.

Hannah wrote:
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>>...
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:32:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xt6dnXzRX4DQLYLfRVn-1g@giganews.com...
SNIP
> I've downloaded it but none of the sharpening and noise setting seem
> to be enabled. Any one know why?

It only becomes active if you zoom in to 100% or more.
That actually makes perfect sense because you cannot judge sharpness
at lower levels.

Bart
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>rafe bustin writes
>
>Can you describe what's better about the images?
>Better color? Contrast? Sharper?

Rafe, I played with RSE a couple of hours (it's easy to pick up for C1
users) and there are several things it offers that are improvements
over C1 (which I've used since last April ... I feel it's the best
converter available, after having tested the Canon converters,
BreezeBrowser and Photoshop's ACR). Here are some things that make RSE
easier to use than C1:

1) Snapshots let you freeze the image at any given group of settings,
then make more changes and take another snapshot etc. By clicking a
tab you can then display the original vs the changed preview at any
point you've saved off. C1 has nothing like this and it's very handy.

2) I'm not a fan of auto-anything but the auto exposure does a good job
of getting you real close real fast, at least on the images I tried it
on.

3) With C1 you get clean previews at 100/25% or 400/100% (after a
delay while the preview is regenerated) but not at the intermediate
views (200/50, 300/75). With RSE you get clean non-pixelated previews
at any %, just like with ACR. Nice.

4) "Fill Light" works like the shadow part of Photoshop's
Shadow/Highlight tool and there is no comparable tool in C1.

5) The preview files are less than half the size of the C1 preview
files, which is a big deal to me when traveling and checking several
thousand files on a laptop.

6) 'Appearance' gives you a quick look at seven different tone curves.
C1 has three (plus linear) and they aren't as wide ranging as these,
unless you have Magne's custom profiles (another $30 per camera model).

For the most part the program is similar to C1 (even has the same ISO
50 exposure bug for the 1Ds and 1D M II cameras) but the interface
gives you more options for getting better looking conversions faster,
and the extraneous stuff for tethered backs is gone. I'm going to run
thru my test suite of images today (the ones I use to compare ACR to
DPP etc) and see if the conversions are actually better but at first
glance it appears they are on the files I've converted so far.

Phase One has some catching up to do, I feel.

Bill
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 2:51:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Florian writes
>
>I miss a black point setting ...

Turn on the clipping warning and move the 'shadow contrast' slider to
set the black point while watching the histogram. You'll see the
clipping indicator when you've gone too far.

> ... and a global contrast control.

I prefer having the contrast controls split into shadow and highlight,
makes it easier to fine-tune the contrast. I guess it boils down to
taste.

Bill
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:30:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:lucv11dkiqgraain1mmrohd9sth0ptvhdj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:15:32 -0000, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Ah, I think I see. It sounds like what's changed
> may either be some automatic actions (replacing
> what you had to do manually in C1Pro) or better
> default settings for conversions.
>
> Do you have a feeling yet for how the "best case"
> results might be different? Did you typically
> do a lot of tweaking of the images in C1Pro?
>
> Can you describe what's better about the images?
> Better color? Contrast? Sharper?
>

Yes, I'm sure the default untweaked settings in RSE are kinder than C1's.

Some of the things I like:
Cleaner colour. C1 could often muddy and oversaturate my liking for
colours, whereas RSE seems to keep them cleaner and better defined
More accurate colour. During autumn and winter I've been seeing C1 give dead
leaves on the ground and on trees an ugly magenta cast which is quite tricky
to correct. RSE seems to get them browner.
Highlights. Often tricky to avoid blown highlights and get a balanced
finish with C1. It seems I can keep things more evenly spread with RSE. RSE
doesn't use curves and levels so you have to play with different concepts.
There's a slider called Fill Light which is uncanny in getting things up out
of the shadows in ways I often couldn't do so well with C1.
RSE gives better sharpness, no doubt on that, even with the slider on zero
(which still sharpens somewhat). It looks like a good algorithm.
Faster to develop when you hit the Go button (the insert key). Haven't timed
it but it feels much faster.

One prob I've identified with RSE: good heavy reds (say a poppy in sunlight
for example) can look quite artificial, almost posterised, with RSE; C1 got
it better.

Well anyway, I'm just finishing off a batch for Alamy using RSE entirely, so
let's see what the punters think!

H.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:32:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xt6dnXzRX4DQLYLfRVn-1g@giganews.com...
>

>
> I've downloaded it but none of the sharpening and noise setting seem to be
> enabled. Any one know why?
>
Although they are apparently greyed out, those sliders CAN be used at best
fit.
February 26, 2005 4:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:10 -0000, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
>>news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>> I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>>> (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>>> free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
>>> they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
>>> will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
>>> available.
>>>
>>
>>I've been playing with it extensively today, and I really really like it.
>>Just about any image looks better straight out of the box, before any
>>tweaks
>>whatsoever, than with C1Pro. About a fifth of my RAWs went straight
>>through without being touched - something that I have never really seen
>>with C1,
>>which almost invariably requires some fiddling. I have not personally
>>seen
>>the black screen syndrome that others have talked about, but then I'm on
>>a vanilla-flavour XPPro Dell, albeit a pretty beefy one. It's missing some
>>of the niceties that C1 has at the moment, but I understand they're in the
>>pipeline. One example is C1's ability to upsize - to date I've found
>>nothing
>>better than C1 for directly outputting 60Mb TIFFs for the agency.
>>Certainly is strange to adjust one's workflow to get by without levels and
>>curves
>>though, but you get used to the alternatives soon enough. I'm hooked.
>>H.
>
>
> Hannah, I wonder... does it bother you that this
> freebie works better than C1Pro -- for which you
> spent considerable $$$?
>
> I don't mean this in a nasty way, I'm just curious.
> If I'd spent $700 on Photoshop CS, only to find
> out that the Acme Image Editor was better, and for
> free, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Why? Do you always get annoyed if something comes out that is better than
what you bought for less money? Hmm never mind....



>
> In any case, I remain vaguely skeptical that
> Raw Converter Y can produce output that is so
> much markedly better than Raw Converter X.
> Unless the folks that wrote X were just plain
> incompetent.
>


Why, because =you= paid money for converter X so it must be the best product
on the planet? Since you always seem to "remain skeptical" about anything
you don't own without ever using it to find out, this is nothing new.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 6:20:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:47 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
>free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
>they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
>will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
>available.
>
>So far it is doing fine on some Canon Raw files I've tested. The
>conversion quality is very good IMHO, although it is best to start
>with (the innovative) Sharpening turned all the way down if you want
>to avoid Luminance aliasing (but color aliasing is hardly visible).
>That would be especially important for cameras with very mild low-pass
>filters (e.g. D70) or no filter (e.g. Kodak Pro SLR/c). Most Canon
>cameras can get away with higher settings, but restraint is adviced.
>
>I have yet to test color accuracy but it looks promising sofar.
>Noise handling is not as good as with Neat Image/Noise Ninja, but may
>still be useable at low settings.
>
>The workflow takes a bit getting used to, but it looks logical enough
>to be no real issue. The whole interface is very well thought through
>and intuitive, but then the software is from a former C1 programmer so
>he had a good reference. There is lots of informative feedback about
>clipping and such, so combined with the large preview the results will
>be predictable even before the actual conversion, which is done in
>batch-mode as you prepare the next image.
>
>Bart

Say, I have a question...trying to download the converter i got the
email that gives a link to get the actual proggy; say's it's a trial
version,,,,am i on the same page with you here? Specifically,
is it a limited use issuance?

thanks

Ken
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 3:00:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ken Ellis" <kenellis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2e4121116g026j1mb4g3og7203p65df8m9@4ax.com...
SNIP
> Say, I have a question...trying to download the converter i
> got the email that gives a link to get the actual proggy; say's
> it's a trial version,,,,am i on the same page with you here?
> Specifically, is it a limited use issuance?

It is not a time-out version, but a fully functional (within the
restrictions of the XP operating system as noted on their webpage)
version for free, to try and see if you like it. There will be future
versions out with more functionality, but those will require payment.
The free product will get the job done with high quality output as the
result.

Bart
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:27:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Download this yesterday, unfortunately no go. I have checked the authors web
site and found in the forums a number of issues where it wont work with
certain files, namely the raf files from Fuji and some Nikon files. The
authors say that this is a known problem and are going to have an update
soon. So if anyone reading this has difficulties have a look at the forum on
the web site, there's a fair chance that others have hit the same glitch.

Hopefully it wont be too long before an update comes along

John D




"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:421f8cd6$0$28978$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
> (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
> free at the time. There are some issues with Athlon based systems, but
> they will be resolved and the update will also be free. Later versions
> will have more features, but pricing details for those are not yet
> available.
>
> So far it is doing fine on some Canon Raw files I've tested. The
> conversion quality is very good IMHO, although it is best to start
> with (the innovative) Sharpening turned all the way down if you want
> to avoid Luminance aliasing (but color aliasing is hardly visible).
> That would be especially important for cameras with very mild low-pass
> filters (e.g. D70) or no filter (e.g. Kodak Pro SLR/c). Most Canon
> cameras can get away with higher settings, but restraint is adviced.
>
> I have yet to test color accuracy but it looks promising sofar.
> Noise handling is not as good as with Neat Image/Noise Ninja, but may
> still be useable at low settings.
>
> The workflow takes a bit getting used to, but it looks logical enough
> to be no real issue. The whole interface is very well thought through
> and intuitive, but then the software is from a former C1 programmer so
> he had a good reference. There is lots of informative feedback about
> clipping and such, so combined with the large preview the results will
> be predictable even before the actual conversion, which is done in
> batch-mode as you prepare the next image.
>
> Bart
>
February 27, 2005 1:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:47 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software is for
<snip>
>Bart

Excellent! IMHO much better than C1LE. The only thing I miss after playing for
an hour is cropping.

And the $64K question: I wonder how much it will cost?????
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:59:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"DJ" <dontemail@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:9b32211u7k7erbd05hgl9g37dd8jalg7i8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:47 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
> <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software
>>is for <snip>
>>Bart
>
> Excellent! IMHO much better than C1LE. The only thing I miss after
> playing for an hour is cropping.

Yes, but the free version does allow to automatically open the
converted image in an editor of choice.

> And the $64K question: I wonder how much it will cost?????

According to the info on their Forum, this entry version will remain
available for free. A more advanced version (or additional modules?)
will become available at a price that seems to be in the US$ 100 or so
range.

Bart
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 1:59:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:42212937$0$28977$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "DJ" <dontemail@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9b32211u7k7erbd05hgl9g37dd8jalg7i8@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:47 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
> > <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
> >>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software
> >>is for <snip>
> >>Bart
> >
> > Excellent! IMHO much better than C1LE. The only thing I miss after
> > playing for an hour is cropping.
>
> Yes, but the free version does allow to automatically open the
> converted image in an editor of choice.
>
> > And the $64K question: I wonder how much it will cost?????
>
> According to the info on their Forum, this entry version will remain
> available for free. A more advanced version (or additional modules?)
> will become available at a price that seems to be in the US$ 100 or so
> range.
>
> Bart
>
It seems to me that every RAW converter has it's own unique failings.
I have, after searching for most of 2 years, begun using DxO for no other
reason than it corrects the lens faults of Canon's 'L' series lenses and
repairs the colour mangling of 20D cameras. It's shortfall is sharpness.
Doesn't always get it right. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) gets the sharpness right
but has no correction for specific lens problems.
C1 is the worst nightmare of confusion any non European could ever get into.
Bible takes so long to convert an image, you have to use 5 PCs just to
process the day's shoot before going home. And now comes a 'new' converter
with the same confussing interface as C1. I wonder if anyone will ever come
up with THE Raw converter?
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 4:31:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:57cUd.177115$K7.94923@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
SNIP
> It seems to me that every RAW converter has it's own unique
> failings. I have, after searching for most of 2 years, begun
> using DxO for no other reason than it corrects the lens faults
> of Canon's 'L' series lenses and repairs the colour mangling
> of 20D cameras.

I'm not sure what color mangling you are referring to, but lenses are
full of compromise, so there will always be some aspect that someone
values more than others, but that doesn't make it a bad lens for most.
With "L" lenses there has been more effort put in to address some of
those aspects (e.g. CA, or field flattness, or ...), but it doesn't
mean they are perfect in all aspects.

> It's shortfall is sharpness. Doesn't always get it right.

Probably because it also (in addition to lens-to-lens variation) has
to balance between different mutually conflicting aspects, but perhaps
you can elaborate on the less successful attempts (what's not right?).

> Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) gets the sharpness right but has no
> correction for specific lens problems.

It can correct some Chromatic Aberration and vignetting, but it
doesn't address distortion. For that you can use more dedicated
programs, such as "Radcor"
(http://www.uni-koeln.de/%7Eal001/radcor.html or
http://super5.arcl.ed.ac.uk/baspmirror/radcor.html) for the Windows
platform.

Bart
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 12:22:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:39:02 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Why, because =you= paid money for converter X so it must be the best product
>on the planet? Since you always seem to "remain skeptical" about anything
>you don't own without ever using it to find out, this is nothing new.


Well, actually Bill Hilton gave a useful
response, but thanks for trying.

The "skepticism" I'm referring to is this
naive thing I often see among digital
newbies and rubes who thing some new hunk
of software is going to turn their Nikon
Coolpix 950 into a Canon 1Ds MKII.

You can process images eight ways till
Sunday but you can't invent new information.

You might find a *better* way to process
existing information, but seeing as how
C1 Pro was generally considered top-end
to begin with, it's hard to imagine that
they'd so completely missed the boat.

(And it's not like I haven't toyed with
a few other RAW converters.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 2:03:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:22:34 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:39:02 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why, because =you= paid money for converter X so it must be the best product
>>on the planet? Since you always seem to "remain skeptical" about anything
>>you don't own without ever using it to find out, this is nothing new.
>
>
>Well, actually Bill Hilton gave a useful
>response, but thanks for trying.
>
>The "skepticism" I'm referring to is this
>naive thing I often see among digital
>newbies and rubes who thing some new hunk
>of software is going to turn their Nikon
>Coolpix 950 into a Canon 1Ds MKII.
>
>You can process images eight ways till
>Sunday but you can't invent new information.
>
>You might find a *better* way to process
>existing information, but seeing as how
>C1 Pro was generally considered top-end
>to begin with, it's hard to imagine that
>they'd so completely missed the boat.
>
>(And it's not like I haven't toyed with
>a few other RAW converters.)
>
>
>rafe b.
>http://www.terrapinphoto.com


I'd like to add that I also appreciated
Hanna's reply, and did not mean to include
Hanna among the "newbies and rubes."

Still and all, I'm generally skeptical of
this product category and some others like
it (eg. Genuine Fractals, many "sharpening"
plugins and addons, etc.)

I certainly understand that RAW converters
can vary with regard to UI, general "usability,"
convenience, robustness, etc. Some might be
better suited for a hands-off approach, others
might be better for compulsive fiddlers and tweakers.

Where I'm skeptical is the suggestion that a
new-and-improved RAW converter will vastly
improve the images from either of the
digicams I now own.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but I
don't think I will be. Meanwhile, two
"known limitations" of this new product
preclude my even trying it (won't work
on Win2K or on Athlon PCs.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 28, 2005 10:50:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:51:46 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"DJ" <dontemail@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:9b32211u7k7erbd05hgl9g37dd8jalg7i8@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:38:47 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
>> <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm currently having a look at a new Raw converter software
>>>(http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) for Win XP. The software
>>>is for <snip>
>>>Bart
>>
>> Excellent! IMHO much better than C1LE. The only thing I miss after
>> playing for an hour is cropping.
>
>Yes, but the free version does allow to automatically open the
>converted image in an editor of choice.
>
>> And the $64K question: I wonder how much it will cost?????
>
>According to the info on their Forum, this entry version will remain
>available for free. A more advanced version (or additional modules?)
>will become available at a price that seems to be in the US$ 100 or so
>range.
>
>Bart

Ah! Thanks Bart, I failed to find that.
!