Best RAW Developer test - for Detail Man

[thelps]

I saw this link to a RAW processor test listed on another forum and thought i would put it out here.

http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php ... Itemid=321

The text is in French so its hard to deceiper under what parameters the test was done, could tweaking the settings on some of the others have made a difference or are the settings on auto? With all these questions I have thrown it in here for a look anyhow. Someone pointed out the best raw processor is the one you know best - a good sentiment. For me I liked LR for low ISO but thought Dx0 was best for higher ISOs.

On the other point of usability, even though there are things I don't enjoy with LR, it seems to gel with me when it comes to using it. Perhaps its familiarity that wins. :roll:

 

[CHICHORNIO]

You´ve made a good point here thelps. There´s a Raw developer for any particular situation. I mostly use LR3 Beta 2 and Silkypix 4, but Dx0 it´s a good option too for b&w pictures and high noise raw files. I don´t know if anybody have posted Hugo Rodriguez´s link, but just in case I leave here the original spanish link to a Raw Developer test and it´s counterpart in english. Good reading.
http://www.hugorodriguez.com/index_reve ... rfecto.php (spanish)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... sMEZXvHJfQ (english)

 

[Detail Man]

I saw this link to a RAW processor test listed on another forum and thought i would put it out here.
http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php ... Itemid=321
The text is in French so its hard to deceiper under what parameters the test was done, ...

Tim, the text portion (which you may well have seen) is translated to English at:
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=fr&tl=en
the previous related article at:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... Fik07Bqemg
and the original test methodology and identification of software versions used is translated to English at:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... OHuYAv_w8A

...could tweaking the settings on some of the others have made a difference or are the settings on auto? With all these questions I have thrown it in here for a look anyhow. Someone pointed out the best raw processor is the one you know best - a good sentiment. For me I liked LR for low ISO but thought Dx0 was best for higher ISOs. On the other point of usability, even though there are things I don't enjoy with LR, it seems to gel with me when it comes to using it. Perhaps its familiarity that wins. :roll:

We are perhaps by nature somewhat indeed "creatures of familiar habit", as well as creatures of legitimately subjective tastes.

(To my eyes, and despite particular user-interface annoyances and druthers here and there with various software applications), there appears to be nothing else on the market that provides the acuity of the "lens-bur" corrections of DxO Optics Pro 6.x (including any Unsharp Masking type, or other, "sharpening" operations performed either at full, or at reduced, image pixel-sizes). See:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1556&start=120#p21407

and when I processed this particular image using Silkypix Pro 4.130 (other than a slight shift in the calibration point of the Gamma correction slider-control) it looked identical to this processing (using precisely the same settings in Silkypix 3.021 SE) at:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1556&start=110#p20902

which (in my opinion, and consistent with my own impressions after processing a handful of various images using DxO as well as Silkypix) offers inferior Color-Rendering (particularly in the Greenish hues), inferior Color-Contrast, and inferior Noise Reduction to that achievable by using DxO Optics Pro 6.x (when processing DMC-LX3 RW2 images, anyway). For the DxO result, see:
download/file.php?id=7011

Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder ...

"Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite.
Islanded between the arms the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river."
- Cyril Connolly

"The water in a vessel is sparkling; the water in the sea is dark.
The small truth has words that are clear; the great truth has great silence."
- Rabindranath Tagore

 

[thelps]

Hugo Rodriguez´s link, but just in case I leave here the original spanish link to a Raw Developer test and it´s counterpart in english. Good reading.
http://www.hugorodriguez.com/index_reve ... rfecto.php (spanish)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... sMEZXvHJfQ (english)

His examples are quite telling. The clock example is dramatic. Thanks for the link

 

[Detail Man]

Tim,

From your links I found an interesting statement about how DxO Optics Pro 6.x Noise Reduction operates. (If this information is true), DxO performs all Noise Reduction before demosaicing in the processing chain. This is similar to the ISL-published system-architecture of Silkypix. In the case of Adobe Lightroom, I do not know the system processing-architecture. Perhaps you know?

... "Optics Pro adds noise after conversion to restore the material and fine detail to the image. This is not strictly speaking noise is added, but rather elements of fine scale calculated on the basis of a mapping of noise contained in the original raw file. Thus, the output image demosaicing is very smooth" ... "and the brightness slider handles mostly not the rate of noise being removed but the amount of fine detail is added!" ...

... "In version 6, Optics Pro can also intervene on the level of noise reduction before demosaicing. Its operation is as follows:
0 = no noise reduction, neither before nor after demosaicing.
20 = 100% reduction in noise before demosaicing and 80% of adding fine detail image
50 = 100% reduction of noise before demosaicing and 50% of adding fine detail image
100 = 100% reduction in noise before demosaicing and any additional information for image".

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... vokoi8HHqQ

Interestingly, I have in practice reduced the numerical value of the "automatically calculated" control-setting levels of (both) DxO Luminance and Chrominance Noise Reduction slider-controls - to proportional numerical levels that are much lower in numerical value than the numerical values automatically selected by DxO Optics Pro 6.x - with good success in remedying any DMC-LX3 image-sensor noise that may emerge (when recording in "raw" between ISO=200 and ISO=400) without obscuring/smearing the fine image-details.

Shooting in "raw" up to and including ISO=400 with the DMC-LX3, I have yet to need to select control-setting values greater than values around a value of 10 on a control-scale of 100. Thus, (at least) 90% of the Noise Reduction that I select occurs prior to the demosaicing processes (and does not draw very significantly from the "elements of fine scale calculated on the basis of a mapping of noise contained in the original raw file" described in the quoted and linked article above in this post).

 

[thelps]

DxO performs all Noise Reduction before demosaicing in the processing chain. This is a different approach (from what appears to have been stated by ISL Software Company, and others) than the methods by which Silkypix approaches Noise Reduction operations. In the case of Adobe Lightroom, I do not know the system processing-architecture. Perhaps you know?

Some of the inner working revealed!!! --, while I could not say which method should be better I would guess that Dx0 have it the better way round. Leads you to wonder how much do the software companies guard their secrets - quite a lot I would bet. Unforunately I don't know how LR works - I suspect there is a forum somewhere where this has been discussed!

From the translation it looks like LR is well liked - dare I say the winner - no I didnt want to use that word - there is no real winner here, but for my tastes I like the Dx0 at high ISO.

 

[Detail Man]

... Unforunately I don't know how LR works - I suspect there is a forum somewhere where this has been discussed!

I wouldn't bet on reliable information being out there - Adobe themselves appear to be quite "tight-lipped" in general ...

From the translation it looks like LR is well liked - dare I say the winner - no I didnt want to use that word - there is no real winner here, but for my tastes I like the Dx0 at high ISO.

It looks like (from the just recently updated User Guide linked below) that having the best of both worlds (DxO Noise Reduction, Demosaicing, and comprehensive Optical Corrections PLUS Lightroom editing after that, if you like) is possible. There appears to be two separate ways to implement that. Check it out:
http://www.dxo.com/var/dxo/storage/fcke ... csPro6.pdf

and/or see this DxO web-page which summarizes elements of the User Guide linked above:
http://dxo.com/uk/photo/dxo_optics_pro/ ... lightroom2

 

[ageha]

What about color accuracy? I'm surprised Ricoh doesn't have their own RAW converter coz usually 3rd party converters never get the colors right. At least that's the case with Sony's RAWs.

 

[Cristian78]

For Mac users only I can also recommend Raw Photo Processor (RPP), here - I have used it only on a couple of photos but I have to say that the more I invest the time to learn to play with the settings, the more I like the developed image better than LR (which I still use as it has better catalogue functions, tagging, sorting, etc).

Just like it is mentioned on the link above, RPP only and serves as a RAW developer (you cannot even do cropping, and many of the controls are manual and fiddly to use) but in my view once it is mastered, it provides a better developed RAW file, micro-contrast, colors, white balance, rendition.

This one below is from Ricoh GXR + S10 module, developed using just this program, no other corrections done, except resizing the final image (RPP cannot do resize).



A crop from the center



I have a black and white version of it on my blog here

The main interface looks like below




Just a single page with settings where you input numbers or chose an option, no other tabs or tricks , all what you need is already there. It does take some time getting used to inserting numbers instead of moving sliders and to find the optimum setting, but it pays off! RPP has also some settings which can emulate film, but have not tried them much.

If you have some time to play with this program, I highly recommend it - you will be surprised of the details it produce

Cheers
Cristian

 

[CHICHORNIO]

For Mac users only I can also recommend Raw Photo Processor (RPP)

Thanks for the tip! A few days ago I was looking for the best Raw Development software for some of my 2008/9 GRD II files. I will give it a try.

 

[Cristian78]

Have been playing this weekend with RPP above and used it for developing all the photos in this thread and have to say looks like it extracts more details with better clarity, and I like more and more the film settings.