Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Any comparions on ACE / LR 1.1 / C1 Pro on Raw  (Read 3440 times)
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« on: August 17, 2007, 11:53:08 AM »
ReplyReply

To all,
    There is discussion here and in other referenced links regarding the changes made in LR 1.1 and ACR and the methods used for processing Raw images and the introduction of loss of detail, etc. with the new algorithms..  Does someone have a machine where a comparison can be done against C1 Pro for example?  Perhap even a comparison of an older version of Photoshop and ACR vs. a new one?  It could help to provide a clearer example of what is being talked about.

Jay S.
Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2007, 04:04:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To all,
    There is discussion here and in other referenced links regarding the changes made in LR 1.1 and ACR and the methods used for processing Raw images and the introduction of loss of detail, etc. with the new algorithms..  Does someone have a machine where a comparison can be done against C1 Pro for example?  Perhap even a comparison of an older version of Photoshop and ACR vs. a new one?  It could help to provide a clearer example of what is being talked about.

Jay S.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

O.K., so to answer my own question..  attached is the same raw image both left "as shot" the left is LR1.1 and the right is C1 Pro 3.7.6.   All noise reduction and sharpness sliders set to zero in both packages.  Perhaps it is just my eyes, but the LR1.1 image has much less detail to the stairs and the stones.  

Jay S.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2007, 04:34:13 PM by JayS » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5498


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2007, 05:38:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All noise reduction and sharpness sliders set to zero in both packages.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Is that how you expect you use these programs? Setting all settings to zero? If not, then your test is pretty useless. You don't ven indicate what zoom you are at, what ISO ( I can jusr barely see that in C1 your image was shot with a 20D?).

If you want to have a useful contribution, you've got to do a bit more than some unspecified screenshot with settings zeroed out. All it tells you is the result of zeroing out the settings, which are there to use, not ignore.
Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2007, 06:13:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is that how you expect you use these programs? Setting all settings to zero? If not, then your test is pretty useless. You don't ven indicate what zoom you are at, what ISO ( I can jusr barely see that in C1 your image was shot with a 20D?).

If you want to have a useful contribution, you've got to do a bit more than some unspecified screenshot with settings zeroed out. All it tells you is the result of zeroing out the settings, which are there to use, not ignore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133914\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Schewe,
    Fair commentary on lack of data  ..  but some of that data was also in the LR screen.  Images are at 1:1

My reason to set all to zero was to attempt to eliminate any factors and see if, as some have suggested, LR 1.1 appeared to be doing some noise reduction even with everything set to zero.  For other purposes I would, of course, use the sliders accordingly.  In setting both packages to zero you show though that the baselines with the two different RAW packages are different.   In this case, I believe there is more detail (baseline) in the C1 Pro image.  If at a zero baseline, more detail is available, then it would stand to reason that more would be available as other factors (sliders) are implemented.

Camera Canon 20D
ISO 800
Lens Canon 24-70 2.8
Shot taken at:  1/160 f/3.5 at 35mm (not accounting for 1.6x factor)

Jay S.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2007, 06:16:32 PM by JayS » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5498


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2007, 11:46:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If at a zero baseline, more detail is available, then it would stand to reason that more would be available as other factors (sliders) are implemented.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Based on what?
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2007, 12:08:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I think what Jeff is getting at but not stating is something to the effect of this: You can't go off the assumption that baselines will produce comparable results.  One program may have fundamentally different processing of things which would rend even a 'baseline' comparison of things null.  You are assuming that all settings at 0 on one = all settings at 0 on another.

On the other hand, I do see the thinking behind what you are doing and understand it.  And, frankly, I bet your tests are more telling than we know.  As I sit here I'm going through another batch of shots on the new 1.1/4.1 engine and the detail smearing (real or percieved or whatever) is killing me.
Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2007, 01:13:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think what Jeff is getting at but not stating is something to the effect of this: You can't go off the assumption that baselines will produce comparable results.  One program may have fundamentally different processing of things which would rend even a 'baseline' comparison of things null.  You are assuming that all settings at 0 on one = all settings at 0 on another.

On the other hand, I do see the thinking behind what you are doing and understand it.  And, frankly, I bet your tests are more telling than we know.  As I sit here I'm going through another batch of shots on the new 1.1/4.1 engine and the detail smearing (real or percieved or whatever) is killing me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mac,

    Thanks..  I understand Jeff's comment.  My assumption is not that they will show comparable results with settings at zero.. in fact, I was betting on the fact that they weren't going to be comparable.  Even the George Jardin video on the new sharpening built into LR 1.1 nulls out the noise reduction to see the effect of base level NR.   He also recommends doing things at 2:1 so you can really see the effects.
    My belief is that if the base level of one package is less detailed then the base level of another package, then the package with less detail to start with will have less detail throughout the rest of the process.  I find it hard to find a flaw with that logic.  My test was only to say that at their respective base levels, the C1 Pro appeared to have more detail as a starting point.
    My guess is that if someone went back and did this with LR 1.0 and LR 1.1, you would see something similar, or with CS2 and ACR 3.7 and LR 1.1, etc.

Jay S.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2007, 10:37:55 AM by JayS » Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2007, 01:16:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Based on what?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Jeff,
    See my reply to Mac.  Simply based on the fact that visually, the base line of one package seemingly has more detail to begin with than the other.  Nothing more dramatic than that.

Also, based on your note on another thread I would be more than glad to provide you with the Raw File, as regards your comment elsewhere of people looking at 2:1 or 1:1 ratios, I point you to the same video mentioned in my reply to Mac.


Jay S.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2007, 01:30:16 AM by JayS » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad