ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:01 pm

I stumbled onto this web site and found it pretty informative. I just discovered it this evening, so I haven't gone through the whole thing yet, but thought I'd pass it on for those interested.

http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20503&gal_col=4

He compares output of PhaseOne's CaptureOne (C1) converter, Adobe's Camera Raw converter, and Canon's Raw Image Converter (RIC), Canon 1D images.

There are tons of samples and comparisons.

Happy reading,

Bill
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:41 pm

Interesting - shame its on a 1D though - results for a Canon CMOS could be very different.

Certainly I'm convinced the C1 does a better job than Canon RAW convertor or Breezebrowser ... I haven't tried the Photoshop one yet since it doesn't fully support 10D. I'm eagerly awaiting the new version (due November) with the RAW conversion built in.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:46 pm

Does the Canon 1D not have a cmos sensor?
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:29 am

No - the 1D uses a CCD ... presumably to acheive a high frame rate. The 1Ds uses a CMOS.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:05 am

Cool, Learn something every day! Thanks Colin.
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:33 am

Let's hope the new version of Photoshop allows for batch RAW conversions. The current plug-in (as far as I know) is only on single images.

I found that site helpful in that it discusses what to look for in a good, digitally produced image. There are so many subtle differences between digital and traditional film. Seems you never stop learning.
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sun Oct 05, 2003 4:47 am

Bill,
I thought the benefit of shooting RAW (NEF in my case) was the ability to post process each image on its own merit. Are you saying you want the ability to process a series of images with the same post processing settings while converting out of RAW? Or batch processing a bunch and keeping them RAW. I could see batch processing something like white balance, but not a whole lot more then that. Just curious, to me that defeats the purpose.

Jeff
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:49 am

Jeff,
In some cases, like when I need to convert all my frames to show a client a digital "proof sheet," I need to batch convert. (For example, I recently shot portraits of a company's entire staff. Over 1000 frames!) Right now, I use the Canon software for batch conversions. Once a client has made their selects, I then convert one by one adjusting as needed for exposure, white balance, etc. For that I use Photoshop RAW.

Just a workflow thing. I always shoot commercial work in RAW to maintain scalability for larger outputs later.

Bill
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: RAW Conversions. A Very In-depth Comparison.

Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:14 am

Ah, That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests