| |
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in message news:436304CE.1080709@qwest.net...
SNIP
> I've been looking at these converters too, and while they seem to
> produce an apparently sharp image, they seem to have extreme level
> changes from pixel to pixel with the result that the the images
> appear pretty pixelated when zoomed in to 100%.
In the case of higher ISO settings (e.g. to freeze wildlife motion
with longer focal lengths or nature wind motion) that may be the case.
In my workflow, the lower ISO captures are quite noiseless on the
EOS-20D and 1Ds Mark II. Remaining noise will help to avoid
posterization in print. Only major enlargements may need some manually
tweaked "Neat Image" intervention.
RawShooter (RSE 2005 or RSP 2006) has a significant bias towards
enhancing/restoring Raw detail (apparently a bit like Capture One, no
surprise since they were produced by the same chief programmer),
compared to other Raw converters.
If you intend to do postprocessing, like resampling (and/or RL
restoration) or significant tonality or noise adjustments, make sure
you turn off *ALL* sharpening in the Batch tab or set the default
sharpening processing to -50. "Detail sharpening" may still be needed
(e.g. set to 0 or more) to avoid featureless low contrast areas.
I've yet to compare the difference between RSP + sharpening and
resampling (resampling is new in RSP) output, to non-sharpened but
RL-processed and/or Qimage (2x) resampled print output files. I
registered the RSP licence just to make sure I got the provocative
introduction discount, further technical testing will follow.
> In contrast the photoshop converter produces a softer pixel to pixel
> variation so that one does not notice pixelation nearly as much when
> zoomed in 100%. The result is that I can do a pretty good job of
> image restoration using Richardson-Lucy deconvolution with both the
> Canon converter and Photoshop.
The Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw Converter (ACR), in addition to more
modest default sharpening, doesn't handle Chromatic Aberrations as
efficiently as the RawShooter (Essentials 2005 or Premium 2006)
version by default. Other converters (e.g. Capture One and especially
Bibble) also seem to do a better CA reduction job at default settings.
Obviously most of the residual Lateral CA can be reduced in
postprocessing, but ACR seems to be less efficient than other (e.g.
RSE/RSP ) solutions (presumably partly due to the limitations of
bi-cubic resampling).
Bart
|
|