Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Processin version 2010 vs 2003  (Read 10729 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2010, 03:12:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Open 3 beta 2 and in Develop module convert to PV 2010 with compare, so now both 2003 and 2010 versions are side by side on screen. No difference to my eyes at all, they look identical, exactly the same amount of colour noise at any magnification.

At what zoom? 1:1? There will, of course be issues viewing any images at less than 1:1 since your display is a low resolution device.

Don't know why you aren't seeing a substantial difference between Process 2003 and Process 2010. I see it on all my cameras including my P-65+ back.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2010, 03:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
At what zoom? 1:1? There will, of course be issues viewing any images at less than 1:1 since your display is a low resolution device.

Don't know why you aren't seeing a substantial difference between Process 2003 and Process 2010. I see it on all my cameras including my P-65+ back.

I am zoomed at 1:1 and 2:1, Jeff. If you are seeing it on a P-65 I should be seeing it on a CFV-39, I am sure. Sorry for the rather peevish post, but I feel left out. I think I'll just have a beer and think about something else.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2010, 03:29:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
Point taken, and I understand the concern.

I don't think that will happen, though. Please keep in mind that the default settings for PV 2010 sharpening still have the same numbers as before (e.g., 25/1/25/0) and if you're bringing in new images into LR 3 and just using the defaults, this should not result in "overcooked" sharpening. The only cases where you should have to be careful is if (1) you are using a custom per-camera default or import preset with different sharpening numbers, or (2) if you're going back to work on older images -- which of course is what we've been discussing in this thread. In both cases you may have to do some tweaking, which as Jeff noted is why we made the PV change a manual switch (instead of forcing an automatic PV change to existing images, without asking).

The larger topic being explored in this thread is how does one deal with backwards compatibility in a parametric (non-destructive, if you prefer) editing environment like LR. We struggled with this, with many discussions internally and externally. We didn't want to change the appearances of your existing images behind your backs yet we also wanted to provide you with improvements you've been asking for. It's a tricky balance.

The dual approach seems to be a sensible combination, and I don't think there's much to be concerned with when users know what's happening. People who don't read forums like these might get confused with the results or options, though - ie. majority of LR users
Logged

John McDermott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106



« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2010, 04:29:54 PM »
ReplyReply

A question. If you go from process 2003 to 2010, can you go back again? That is change your mind and go from 2010 to 2003.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2010, 05:02:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jemcder
A question. If you go from process 2003 to 2010, can you go back again? That is change your mind and go from 2010 to 2003.
Yes
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2010, 06:57:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
It's not that the sharpening was changed a lot (the changes are subtle but important) but it's the noise reduction component of the demosiacing being removed makes the Process 2010 look sharper. Process 2003 required a much stronger sharpening "bite" in order to over come overcome the built in and non-adjustable noise reduction...

Thanks for the explanation, Jeff.  Makes a lot more sense now.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2010, 10:12:01 PM »
ReplyReply

This new pipeline has changed the game with my old G9 RAWs ... stuff that at ISO 400 didn't look so good can now be made MUCH more palatable.

Here's an example:
[attachment=21143:g9_iso400_LR3beta2.JPG]
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2010, 10:43:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The new demoisacing is so good on my A900 that it's practically like getting a new firmware update.  I'm in shock!
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2010, 10:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
This new pipeline has changed the game with my old G9 RAWs ... stuff that at ISO 400 didn't look so good can now be made MUCH more palatable.

Here's an example:
[attachment=21143:g9_iso400_LR3beta2.JPG]

No kidding.  LR3 is a zero day purchase.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2010, 02:27:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
This new pipeline has changed the game with my old G9 RAWs ... stuff that at ISO 400 didn't look so good can now be made MUCH more palatable.

Here's an example:
[attachment=21143:g9_iso400_LR3beta2.JPG]

Ah. Perhaps the penny has begun to drop. Your definition of "noisy" and mine are somewhat different. Now that is a seriously noisy file, I agree. I have to blow my image up to 2:1 and go searching in the shadows to find a bit of noise to play with.

John
« Last Edit: March 30, 2010, 04:43:42 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2010, 04:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
If you have an image at PV 2003 and want to see what it looks like at PV 2010, you may want to reset sharpening & NR set to their default values (maybe we should take care of that automatically when you click on the warning icon).

Eric, I have been thinking some more about this, and actually I reckon you should implement precisely your suggestion here. So, when you hit the conversion option for PV 2003 to 2010, it would bring across all your edit settings except for sharpening and NR, which would be reset to the defaults in PV 2010. This would ensure that nothing strange or extreme could possibly happen. I have already seen bad results with several of my own B/W files where I had sharpening up around 60-75 with a fairly high detail setting. Of course it is fine if you are already aware of the differences between LR2 and LR3, but it could be very confusing for those who do not lurk on forums like this but who have merely upgraded when LR3 is released. Your other comments are noted and taken into account.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2010, 09:21:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Your definition of "noisy" and mine are somewhat different.
I doubt it ... I think we both agree that this file is seriously noisy!  When I owned the G9, I only really used ISO 80-125 with the every so rare stretch to 200.   At the time when I was using it a lot I found ISO 400 completely useless for my purposes.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2010, 06:02:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
I am zoomed at 1:1 and 2:1, Jeff. If you are seeing it on a P-65 I should be seeing it on a CFV-39, I am sure.

To be sure, I went back and found some ISO 200 P-65+ captures and examined them. At 1:1 and with "Default Settings" (meaning amount 25, radius 1, detail 25 and masking 0 and luminance noise turned off) I do indeed have a hard time seeing the differences with the Process 2003 and Process 2010. But the moment you go into the file and "optimize" the sharpening and noise reduction, toggling back and forth between 2003 and 2010 does indeed show at 1:1. The new luminance noise reduction allows me to go into the amount and detail sliders more while smoothing out the ISO 200 noise.

Is is earth shattering? No...is it a noticeable and significant improvement in IQ? Yes...it is definitely worthwhile. The trick for the P-65+ file is moving off of "default".

I don't have any "real" higher ISO shots (all I've got are some ColorChecker shots at higher ISO) so I can't say for a fact that as the ISO moves up the benefits of Process 2010 increase...I'm sure it does (it does for my other cameras).

I just don't have the visual proof for my P-65+ files...which are only supported in a "preliminary" manner in LR 3 B2I suspect the normalization may change the defaults when LR 3 ships.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2010, 08:03:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Based on what I've seen so far, I'm not likely to update most of my old images ... I'll probably go back and revisit anything shot at ISO 1600 and above, but anything under that will probably remain process 2003 forever ...

Done is done, and done is good.
I was just going through some work from 2006 yesterday and looked at the new process compared to my old versions. Much, much better and after seeing the G9 shot, I shall test my compact out with higher ISOs as previously they have been too horrible to use [even though I like grain]. This is why I like shooting RAW, as even years down the line I can improve on my images, should I so desire.
And I'll simply update if and when I use any again.

It takes a little getting used to initially, as mentioned and explained above some older images may look a bit wrong. But once you get the feel for the new sliders, you can get much better results than before. But this applies mainly to higher ISOs/smaller sensors, so those with better initial results say from a Hasselblad, will see less improvement.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2010, 08:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
It's not that the sharpening was changed a lot (the changes are subtle but important) but it's the noise reduction component of the demosiacing being removed makes the Process 2010 look sharper. Process 2003 required a much stronger sharpening "bite" in order to over come overcome the built in and non-adjustable noise reduction...

In Process 2010, the noise reduction component has been removed (well, essentially removed) and all the noise reduction has now been put into the 5 noise reductions sliders under the sharpening sliders.
It's a bit like having the anti alias filter removed from in front of your sensor. The base image is now sharper, so needs less sharpening by the software.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2010, 04:11:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
To be sure, I went back and found some ISO 200 P-65+ captures and examined them. At 1:1 and with "Default Settings" (meaning amount 25, radius 1, detail 25 and masking 0 and luminance noise turned off) I do indeed have a hard time seeing the differences with the Process 2003 and Process 2010. But the moment you go into the file and "optimize" the sharpening and noise reduction, toggling back and forth between 2003 and 2010 does indeed show at 1:1. The new luminance noise reduction allows me to go into the amount and detail sliders more while smoothing out the ISO 200 noise.

Thanks for taking the time to check this, Jeff. I just spent some more time this morning looking at it again, and yes you are right. Once you start optimizing the file in PV 2010 I can indeed see differences in my 3FR files. But I have to be at 2:1 to see them, believe it or not. Even then, to my eye, they are more slightly "different" rather than hugely better or worse. This is in colour, of course, in order to see the colour NR more clearly. Luminance noise I am really unsure about - I have to confess I am not terribly certain exactly what I should be looking for in order to observe it. I see very little gain from applying any Luminance NR in my pictures so far, anyhow.

At present (and with all due respect to the Adobe software engineers) I have to say that I don't feel terribly inclined to shell out an extra 90 quid or whatever for the LR3 upgrade when it is released.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2010, 05:02:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Just did some quick comparisons on 5D2 files at 400ISO and I have to say the improvement in the noise control jumps out of my screen and bites my bum. Very little loss of detail and great control of noise. Even after such a quick comparison, it's a no-brainer. Just need to find some good bum protection.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2010, 03:16:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Er, right. Well, it's sort of egg on face time. I have finally seen what you chaps are on about.

For the last four weeks my CFV-39 back has been away being fixed under warranty, so I was working on LR3 b2 with my existing landscape shots. I just got the CFV returned to me today, and managed to get out this afternoon to take some test shots.

It turns out that I couldn't see this noise thing because my existing shots just didn't show it up - trees and fields and stuff full of intricate detail just don't, apparently. What it seems to need is a smooth area of white or pale colour in just the right amount of partial shade - like a window frame, in this case. And bingo, there was not only colour noise but yes - a sort of speckly texture a bit like porridge which shouldn't have been there. Luminance noise, at last. So I proceeded to attack this tiny section of the picture in LR2, and got it fairly well smoothed out. Then I pulled it into LR3, converted it to PV 2010, and had another bash. And yes, LR3 does a much better job, so you are all correct, and at last I know I am not entirely blind, stupid or mad. Which is quite a relief, really. Interestingly, though, of the six test shots I took around the cottage and garden, only this one showed luminance noise (that I could detect).

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 416


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2010, 09:48:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
To be sure, I went back and found some ISO 200 P-65+ captures and examined them. At 1:1 and with "Default Settings" (meaning amount 25, radius 1, detail 25 and masking 0 and luminance noise turned off) I do indeed have a hard time seeing the differences with the Process 2003 and Process 2010. But the moment you go into the file and "optimize" the sharpening and noise reduction, toggling back and forth between 2003 and 2010 does indeed show at 1:1. The new luminance noise reduction allows me to go into the amount and detail sliders more while smoothing out the ISO 200 noise.

Is is earth shattering? No...is it a noticeable and significant improvement in IQ? Yes...it is definitely worthwhile. The trick for the P-65+ file is moving off of "default".

I don't have any "real" higher ISO shots (all I've got are some ColorChecker shots at higher ISO) so I can't say for a fact that as the ISO moves up the benefits of Process 2010 increase...I'm sure it does (it does for my other cameras).

I just don't have the visual proof for my P-65+ files...which are only supported in a "preliminary" manner in LR 3 B2I suspect the normalization may change the defaults when LR 3 ships.

At higher ISO values the difference is indeed very visible (i use Nikon D700). At base iso (ISO 200), the difference is less apparent, except for landscape (foliage, grass), there the 2010 rendering shows also a striking improvement. So all in all a definite improvement over the 2003 rendering concept.
Will need to schedule some extra time in my agenda this fall to completely redevelop my best images, assuming LR3 will ship before fall.
Looking foward.


Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2010, 06:02:38 AM »
ReplyReply

For me, the real benefit of 2010 processing is how it handles my old(er) 35mm slides (Nikon 5000).  This breathes new life into many of those images.

In LR 2x I would struggle between Amount, Radius, Detail, and Masking, never really feeling as though I "found" the right combination for a particular image.  With 2010 processing, I have a much stronger perception that I've "got it" with those settings.

Dave
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad