Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:26 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: RAW Converters Compared
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:12 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
Hi folks,

I came across a comparison of six RAW converters this morning which I thought might be of interest. The camera used was a Canon 5D MkII and obviously Canon's DPP software is Canon specific but the results might form a reasonable starting point for researching the suitability of the converters for other manufacturer's cameras.

The RAW converters compared were
  • Adobe Camera Raw 5.2
  • Canon's Digital Photo Professional 3.5
  • Capture One Pro 4.6
  • DxO Optics Pro 5.3
  • Raw Therapee 2.4
  • PerfectRaw 0.65.
If any or all of those are of interest then head on over to the Nature Windows Raw Converter Comparison.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:02 pm
Posts: 868
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
That's great, Bob!! Great help for us all! Thank you for your time doing that!
For my eyes, DPP has the best results. The images seem sharper to me.
I'll keep using it! 8)

_________________
Canon 40D and lots of lenses.
my Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
Hi Alex,

For me DPP also wins out, not because it's a better RAW converter but because it has corrections for my lens collection already built in.

But, laying aside my Canon bias, the free Raw Therapee software looks very interesting. Probably the biggest caveat about this test is that, for reasons stated by the reviewer, it doesn't explore the effectiveness or otherwise of high ISO noise reduction.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 31
Location: England, UK
A very limited test bed. I can think of several excellent and well-known raw development applications missing from this test so it's pretty irrelevant I think. There isn't that much raw software about so it wouldn't be too difficult or unmanageable to test and compare them all, now that would be interesting. This one is only half done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:19 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
Hi pip22,

"Irrelevant " sounds a little harsh. So which RAW converters are you thinking of?

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 2781
I'm not surprised that Rawtherapee did so well. It's excellent for recovering details, as the expense of introducing image noise and jaggies.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 31
Location: England, UK
Bob Andersson wrote:
Hi pip22,

"Irrelevant " sounds a little harsh. So which RAW converters are you thinking of?

Bob.


All those currently available which have been omitted, including 'Bibble', SilkyPix, Olympus Studio (brand specific, I know, but so is DPP). Bibble & SilkyPix are both regular topics on the raw-capture forums so they deserve inclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:19 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
.
Fair enough. Do you know of a review which includes those programs as well as the one in the test I linked to?

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:30 pm
Posts: 31
Location: England, UK
Bob Andersson wrote:
.
Fair enough. Do you know of a review which includes those programs as well as the one in the test I linked to?

Bob.


Sadly, no. Which is even more reason why this one is disappointing because a more comprehensive and inclusive review is well overdue. The fact that I don't know of such a review does not negate my previous comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:28 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
Hi pip22,

Thanks for your comments. You knew where I was leading so we'll just have to part company in this thread in the best CameraLabs tradition respecting each other's different perspectives. 8)

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:53 pm
Posts: 2
Hi.
First of all, thanks for the tip Bob.
For all of those eager to work and spread knowledge about... eh stuff, there´s been an update on the mentioned site.
You may now download the raw file and squeeze it through the raw converter of your personal desire and get them added to the comparison.
Follow Bob´s link. After the comparison you could read more about it.
:-)
Jan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:04 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9784
Location: UK
Hi Jan,

May I offer you a warm welcome to the CameraLabs forum.

And thanks for the tip. Being able to download the original RAW file used in the comparison will be particularly valuable for those whose converter didn't feature in the original article. I see that "Raw Converter Comparison Part 2, Dynamic Range, Tonal Values and Noise is coming soon" so we'll be able to see the other side of the equation as well. 8)

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M1 + ED 12-40mm f/2.8, H-F007014E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm 1:1.8, L-RS014150E.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:53 pm
Posts: 2
Thank you Bob, I´m pleased to be here.

On my way to download Raw Therapee, I found another comparison on their site:
http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/

The converters they have used are:

* Raw Photo Decoder "dcraw" v8.81 (Revision: 1.397)
* RawTherapee v2.3
* Adobe Camera Raw v4.3.1
* Bibble v4.9.9b
* Capture One v4
* DxO v5.0.3
* LightZone v3.2
* SilkyPix v3.0.15.3

Ops, I´m not sure but, some of them may be a bit dated?

:-)
Jan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 2781
I wouldn't trust that comparison posted by Rawtherapee. Looking at the ACR images, I've never seen ACR produce such artefacts.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:12 pm
Posts: 82
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
pgtips wrote:
I wouldn't trust that comparison posted by Rawtherapee. Looking at the ACR images, I've never seen ACR produce such artefacts.


That comparison was made by one of the RawTherapee forum members and it's pretty old now, more than a year, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group