Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: X-Trans and Photo Ninja  (Read 17947 times)
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2014, 02:04:21 PM »
ReplyReply

When I first tested PN, one of the first things I did was try to turn the adjustments all the way down then increase them to see how it improved over what I thought would be the closest to raw version of raw. I found large waves of color forming in the image which said to me a wiener filter for noise reduction of increasing radius. NN was very good at noise reduction. Strong negative adjustments at "0" in a raw converter was not what I expected. Having said that PN did produce good looking images at default settings.

Saying a system looks good at 20% is saying nothing. Everything looks good if the original image was decent. You are looking at the rendering scaler result not the image.

All raw converters should be able to make fine detail without artifacts at 100%. If someone wants a setting with "punch", that is fine as a default, but you still need the neutral in case the punch does not work well on that particular image.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2014, 02:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

that was exactly the route PN selected - to create a lot of false details to create a pleasant visual experience for users like Rogbo2  Grin ... nothing wrong w/ it, on the contrary

To repeat, I never see false detail in my Photo Ninja images from Pentax and Sony cameras, so please do not insinuate that this is a regular occurrence with PN.  I have no experience with X-Trans sensors and cannot comment on how well PN handles those kind of files.

Rob
Logged
G*
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2014, 06:59:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Am I the only one seeing colored letters (red/green) on the wine bottle in PN whereas LR renders something more neutral. I would call this a typographic error
Logged
armand
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913



« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2014, 09:57:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I just discovered this post, here is a link to a quick test that I've done: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=86367.60
For those landscape shots it did a better job. Comes up with slightly more saturated greens I think. LR did a crappy job, used to do better but I think it doesn't like the San Francisco area  Wink
Unfortunately it keeps the same issues with reddish-magenta rendering http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80713.msg651675#msg651675  (this is for most cameras though)

Just because of this issues I didn't give up the thought of getting a regular Bayer camera, as even my 12 MP D90 is often competitive with the 16 MP X-E1.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3474



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2014, 10:21:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Am I the only one seeing colored letters (red/green) on the wine bottle in PN whereas LR renders something more neutral. I would call this a typographic error
Nope, I see that too and the label also seems to have a green cast. The red on the lettering seems to be chromatic aberration.
Logged

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

Posts: 3474



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2014, 10:28:20 AM »
ReplyReply

and what is the point in default settings, more so when you can create your own default settings ?
My thoughts exactly. Surely you should always compare the best image you can get out of a piece of software not its non-optimised setting?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JRS11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2014, 05:47:44 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, this is the sort of answer that I hear from those who are invested in a particular raw convertor and don't want to entertain the possibility that there might be something better.  Every comparison that I have seen of Photo Ninja and ACR/LR with X-Trans files shows PN to be far superior.  The same is true with other cameras and sensors.  I have performed countless head-to-head comparisons of PN and ACR with files from a Sony RX1 and a Pentax K-5, and there is nothing that I can do to bring the ACR images up to the level of the PN images.  It's not simply a matter of default settings.  I can work for hours in ACR and not equal what I get from PN with relatively little effort.  Run the comparisons, and see for yourself.  Just take the time to learn how Photo Ninja's defaults and adjustment tools work.

I can understand how one might prefer LR, because of it's workflow and organization, but not because of its IQ.



Rob
I wonder how PN compares with Iridient for X Trans.  Iridient i am seeing as quite good and better to my eyr than CapOne.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 05:57:34 PM by JRS11 » Logged
JRS11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2014, 05:49:36 PM »
ReplyReply

With X-Fuji files I have found that Photo Ninja does a good job on natural subjects.  I tend to back off from sharpening too much in PN instead using Focus Magic to focus the conversions.  I don't like their toolset setup however.

LR is doing better at version 5.3 with greens but still renders other details on rocks strangely to me.  LR toolset is excellent so I tend to lead with it. 

Best result I have gotten is from Iridient raw developer.  But it's MAC only and my workflow is mainly PC based.  But I have the use of one MAC since I use a MacBook Pro with boot camp. 

Paul C




 

Posted too soon....here is the answer to my question
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1828


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2014, 12:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Since I wrote that, I have come a ways with Iridient. 

Iridient, is very good at pulling details, with it's sharpening, but that's about all IMO.  The tool set is very limited to me.  I also found out yesterday that Iridient has trouble with images that are 1 to 1.5 stop underexposed.  It can't seem to grasp the detail that should be in the shadows and instead seems to create a LR like smearing.  If the image has a good even exposure and doesn't need a lot of work (I prefer now to do most of the work on a file in the Raw converter due to the excellent toolsets that some offer), Iridient will do a very good job, but when the file is mixed lighting, I don't feel so good.  But this topic was on Photo Ninja. 

Photo Ninja I have also learned to back way off on the sharpening and sharpen later with Focus Magic in CS.  Just give the file enough sharpening to get by.  Photo Ninja has an OK tool set, I don't understand why they don't have a 100% saturation slider instead of forcing you to pick one of 6 colors and adjust.  I may have missed something in the tool but can't seem to find that. 

Actually looking back, LR 5.3 is doing much better on the greens.  However it still has problems with things like leaves (brown or green) and bare tree limbs against a blue sky.  Here LR can't seem to figure out what to do and I guess that's part of the demosaicing (spelled wrong) process.  But the effect LR often gives me in situations like this is a strange halo look to the object against the blue sky.  5.3 is better with this but still has issues.  If you attempt to darker the blue or change up much like hue or sat this effect get worse.  It's too bad since the tool set in LR is so good.  Of course this same issue comes up in ACR also as they are the same engine.

Paul C.
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2014, 12:06:48 AM »
ReplyReply

ACR and LR are not the same. ACR uses 1.8 gamma and LR is linear.  Iridient released ver 2.4 Thursday.
I consider PhotoNinja to be overpriced by a factor of two, and their update policy is almost as bad as CC subscription. All or nearly all Raw converters except Adobe are just dcraw with clothes on anyway, with the possible exception of DxO and Cap One, not sure there's any real difference.
Neither PN or Iridient have editing tools beyond developing the image, so you have to have another app, and you can get PS Elements 12 for about sixty bucks that has developing and tools and the latest ACR.
I'd like to see an objective test of the developing capabilities of the dozen or so raw converters. I have a lot of them myself, but have no idea what a starting point image might be that would push the envelope .
I have CS5 with ACR 6.7, PSE with whatever version of ACR it supports, AfterShot Pro(Bibble), ACDSee Pro 3 for Mac, PaintShop Pro X6, Capture One Express 7.x.x, AccuRaw, RawTherapee for OS 10.7, Aperture, and bunch of other minor league players.
Maybe one of the real experts in LuLa has an image that would wring out a converter.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 04:46:42 PM by Lundberg02 » Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1828


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 12, 2014, 08:08:57 PM »
ReplyReply

As far as I have been able to tell ACR and LR both use the Process version 2012 which is the raw converter engine. This is true from LR VR 4 and ACR 7.   My point was that both tools share the same conversion issues with the X-trans files.

Photo Ninja has some basic image editing tools nothing as strong as LR or ACR. As for Iridient it's limited tool set forces you into a save and reopen in another software tool to finish mode.

Paul

Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2014, 03:35:58 AM »
ReplyReply

their update policy is almost as bad as CC subscription.

Eh?

With Picturecode you get a year's worth of updates - which are usually pretty regular throughout the year - and excellent, easily accessed, no-additional-cost support, for your payment; and if you choose not to continue paying, the software you've bought continues to work.

Forever.

What's wrong with that?

The annual upgrade is only $59 (UK 35 to me) which is excellent value for money, and - as a Noise Ninja owner from way back - the cost of entry to PN was only $79/46, which is again, great value.

Quote
All or nearly all Raw converters except Adobe are just dcraw with clothes on anyway, with the possible exception of DxO and Cap One

If the inference there is that Photo Ninja is just a skinned/tweaked DCRaw, you really don't know much about Photo Ninja: all DCRaw code does for Photo Ninja is the file decompression step: everything related to the quality of output is Picturecode's own code.

Quote
not sure there's any real difference.

There's a big difference - as you'd know if you'd actually used these converters: I routinely use Photo Ninja, Capture One 7 Pro, DxO Optics Pro 9 and Lr 5, and I can see their signature "look" in every file I convert.

To use Optics Pro as an example of differences in results, there are files that Optics Pro simply can't usefully convert because of its useless "dynamic range" tools (specifically its highlights and shadows tools) no matter what you do, that are a moment's work for Photo Ninja.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 03:49:41 AM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2014, 10:42:37 AM »
ReplyReply

All or nearly all Raw converters except Adobe are just dcraw with clothes on anyway, with the possible exception of DxO and Cap One, not sure there's any real difference.
really ? so they all use simple matrix profiles (mostly supplied to DC by Adobe folks I guess) for color transforms... dcraw shows how to extract the data and gives examples of demosaicking, it also has some simple matrix color transforms - but a normal raw converter is not just that (w/ all due respect to dcraw author and contributors)... even lightzone has a lot of things on top of running dcraw executable
Logged
Lundberg02
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2014, 12:07:32 AM »
ReplyReply

PhotoNinja charges $79 per year not $59. It's now $129 to buy.
DxO doesn't do DNG, and I think it doesn't have the ProPhoto space. I don't own it.
Capture One catalog drives me completely nutty.
ACDSee Pro 3 will only do DNG conversions from my camera files.
PhotoLine is very capable but it has a learning curve. Everything is layers.
LightZone is primarily exposure oriented.
RawTherapee is ubergeeky.
Iridient just released ver 2.4 and I haven't tried it yet. Ver 2.3.4 wouldn't produce a usable image for my file.
The GIMP UI is not intuitive.
Aperture 4 seems ok so far.
What I actually use is ACR 6.7 in CS5 with DxO Perspective.
Logged
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 344


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2014, 06:48:20 PM »
ReplyReply

PhotoNinja charges $79 per year not $59. It's now $129 to buy.

Where you are getting your information?  Photo Ninja's upgrade price is $59/year, which entitles you to all of the releases for one full year.  In my view, that's a huge bargain given the superb quality of the output, but upgrades are not compulsory in order to continue using the software.

Rob
Logged
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2014, 04:07:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Not getting it from Picturecode, that's for certain:
https://www.picturecode.com/purchase.php

(As if I wouldn't have checked here first before I posted last time...)

He's confusing the one-off NN - PN upgrade price with the ongoing PN - PN upgrade price...

« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 04:12:30 PM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad