Test of RAW converters

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

Bill Hilton wrote:
> This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
> British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
> converters and ranks them.
>
> Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
> also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
>
> Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
>
> Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
> 3 stars.
>
> Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
>
> I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
> BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
>
> Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
> programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
> are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
> images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
> so it's worth testing as well.
>
> http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf
>
> It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
> sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
> three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
> test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
> noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
> later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
> get the best image available from that particular converter.


ACR (and Elements?) lacks curves but otherwise performs faster than
Capture. ACR has shadow, brightness and contrast to get most pictures
right. Of course then you are in photoshop and can apply curves but that
means remembering to convert to 16 bit & convert back to 8 bit after
flattening those curves. ACR has a nicer soft sharpening & noise
reduction than capture IMO.

Some of those side by side comparisons look very different. I think
getting the same settings or trying to get them to look similar would be
more helpful. Or turn off all adjustments on all of them. I tried to do
that with this (though it's still hard to get them comparable):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-03-02-trillium-maple/more/test>

I also uploaded some tests of various converters someone else did here:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PG=1&PIC=8&PICS=9>

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

Is this some kind of joke posting?
What is the difference between the Elements and CS converters?
Since all these conversions were done via the aesthetic sense of the article
authors they are essentially worthless as comparisons of anything but the
aesthetic sensibilities of the authors.
The authors come to the startling conclusion that there really is a
difference between jpeg and raw.
What a waste of paper and electrons.

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

DM wrote:
>
> Readers may also be interested in where the RAW convertor's fail to get it
> right...
>
> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.p [...] conversion
>
> Regards
>
> DM

This Photohsop RAW has really some serious problems, I am suprized
considering the astononic price of Adobe's software and its
reputation.

>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1110047825.159057.238840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
> > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
> > converters and ranks them.
> >
> > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
> > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
> >
> > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
> >
> > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
> > 3 stars.
> >
> > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.

Its a pity, Photo SHop Pro is otherwise a low price alternative
to Photoshop and this is what we need: At least one competitor
to the PhotoShop.

Thomas

> >
> > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
> > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
> >
> > Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
> > programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
> > are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
> > images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
> > so it's worth testing as well.
> >
> > http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf
> >
> > It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
> > sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
> > three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
> > test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
> > noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
> > later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
> > get the best image available from that particular converter.
> >
> > Bill
> >

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

>bmoag writes ...
>
> Is this some kind of joke posting?

No, it's an actual reprint of a magazine article.

> What is the difference between the Elements and CS converters?

Looks like they are recommending C1 for more experienced users and
chose Elements over Photoshop because they are taking cost (value) into
account for beginners. It's a consumer-oriented magazine, what do you
expect? The Elements converter has about 95% of the functionality of
the Photoshop one but at 10-15% the cost and it's easier to use. To
quote from the pdf ... "For the complete beginner to RAW looking to
dabble ... I'd recommend the Elements 3 package". They note Photoshop
has extra features but don't feel they are worth an extra $500,
apparently.

> Since all these conversions were done via the aesthetic sense of the
article
> authors they are essentially worthless ...

As I mentioned in my original post, anyone evaluating RAW converters
should do so with various settings since the default sharpening and
noise reduction settings vary widely, but the rankings these guys came
up with are pretty much in line with what I've seen and with what
others see as well, ie, C1 on top, CS RAW next and the various Canon
engines (DPP, FVU, BreezeBrowser) below CS RAW. Here's a typical
comparison from DPR for example that reaches the same conclusions for
the 1D Mark II ...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ca [...] page17.asp

Bill

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

"Carl Miller" <carl_miller23@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:00050207102823.OUI72.carl_miller23@hotmail.com...
> On March 05 2005, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
> > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
> > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
> > converters and ranks them.
> >
> > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
> > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
> >
> > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
> >
> > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were
> > rated 3 stars.
> >
> > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
> >
> > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
> > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
>
> I use DxO (from www.dxo.com) and on informal testing, found I prefer
> images converted with it to Capture One or BreezeBrowser. I took a
> picture of an old wooden shed at sunset and found the details and color
> to be better on files converted with DxO, and the distortion correction
> that DxO does was increadible! I'm also one of those people who shoots
> RAW when they think RAW is the way to go, but also shoots JPG when they
> think JPG is the way to go, and DxO does its magic to JPGs as well as
> RAW files.
>
> --
> Carl Miller
> carl_miller23@hotmail.com
> www.stellarphotos.com
>

Looks good. Too bad it supports only a few camera mfgs.

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

On March 07 2005, "Ron Krebs" <rkrebs11@verizon.net> wrote:
> Looks good. Too bad it supports only a few camera mfgs.

Gotta agree with you there. I know one Nikon CoolPix owner who would buy
it if it supported his camera. Owners of the high-end "point-and-shoot"
digitals could really benefit from this program and I'm sure plenty of
them are serious enough about their pictures to snatch it up.

But seems like their supporting new models every month.

--
Carl Miller
carl_miller23@hotmail.com
www.stellarphotos.com

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

Doug Mitton <doug_mitton@hotmail.x.com> wrote:

>Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>
>>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
>>> This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
>>> British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
>>> converters and ranks them.
>>>
>>> Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
>>> also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
>>>
>>> Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
>>>
>>> Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
>>> 3 stars.
>>>
>>> Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
>>>
>>
>>Stange... Nobody seems to notice or discuss Bibble Lab's RAW
>>conversion software.. It's supposed to be similar in some
>>respects to C1.
>>
>>I use it only because I'm a Linux user and Bibble's RAW
>>converter is the only package out there that has a full
>>native Linux version.
>>
>>I use the 'light' version and find it's an excellent package.
>>It gets images noticeably sharper than the two other RAW
>>converters I've used to date (Canon's EVU and DPP utilities).
>>
>>It's not perfect.. There are a couple of small bugs.. But it's
>>definitley worth looking at.
>>
>>http://www.bibblelabs.com/
>
>
>Thank you so much for posting this! I have been looking for a native
>Linux GUI app to allow manipulation of RAW files. How did you ever
>find this one? Does the Lite version expire? The about dialog says I
>have 14 days left.


Sorry to reply to my own post ...

It definetly expires ... I think I read between the lines incorrectly!
:-)
--
------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
------------------------------------------------