Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: acr4.4 vs c1v4.1  (Read 5226 times)

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« on: June 04, 2008, 01:38:47 pm »

source file 1 is a 450d .dng format, both use default parameters except temp and tint, which is manual set to 5400k and +7, c1 uses a dng neutral color profile(450d generic is totally uncorrect in color) as import, acr4.4 can not assign import profile. both use adobe 1998 as export icc profile.

again the sharpen parameter is very different in them, c1 have a big value but not much effect, i have to pull it all the way up but still not that sharp(maybe it's because digital backs normally dont have an AA filter, and c1 is mostly designed for the digital backs), so at last I'm bored and just leave it there and as you can see they are quite different about softness, and this is not the issue at all.

light source is diffused sky light and a metz54 with umbrella(which tend to warm the temp)

source file 2 is a sinar emotion75 .dng format, both used generally the same parameters except sharpening.

hope this can help.

btw lightroom is used as host program for acr4.4.

dustblue
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 11:58:43 pm by dustblue »
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2008, 02:39:27 pm »

Quote
source file is a 450d .dng format, both use default parameters except temp and tint, which is manual set to 5400k and +7, c1 uses a dng neutral color profile(450d generic is totally uncorrect in color) as import, acr4.4 can not assign import profile. both use adobe 1998 as export icc profile.

again the sharpen parameter is very different in them, c1 have a big value but not much effect, i have to pull it all the way up but still not that sharp(maybe it's because digital backs normally dont have an AA filter, and c1 is mostly designed for the digital backs), so at last I'm bored and just leave it there and as you can see they are quite different about softness, and this is not the issue at all.

here is the 100% crop
light source is diffused sky light and a metz54 with umbrella(which tend to warm the temp)

as you can see the acr generated a better skintone(in this particular situation)

hope this can help.

btw lightroom is used as host program for acr4.4.

dustblue
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should post it in the correct forum.  
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2008, 04:47:49 pm »

deleted
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 04:48:31 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2008, 11:56:49 pm »

Quote
again the sharpen parameter is very different in them, c1 have a big value but not much effect, i have to pull it all the way up but still not that sharp(maybe it's because digital backs normally dont have an AA filter, and c1 is mostly designed for the digital backs), so at last I'm bored and just leave it there and as you can see they are quite different about softness, and this is not the issue at all.

I'm a big fan of ACR and use it as my preferred converter but use C1 frequently as well.

Your posted example,in no way,reflect the type of file sharpness I usually see from
CaptureOne whether processing DSLR or DBack files.

I think you should go back and try to sort out why the resulting file is so soft-maybe your
noise reduction defaults are set too high


Mark
Logged

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2008, 12:05:42 am »

I'm sorry. I've add a sinar emotion75 file as the comparing source. c1 and acr dont support .mos so I didnt do it on leaf. Phase one is better supported by it's own c1 so I didnt do it either.

Quote
You should post it in the correct forum. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2008, 12:15:38 am »

luminance is set to 25 and color is set to 38 for the 450d file in c1. it's a little weird that the c1 preview is much sharper than the exported image(opened in photoshop use its own Icc which is adobe 1998), I really don't know why.

Quote
I'm a big fan of ACR and use it as my preferred converter but use C1 frequently as well.

Your posted example,in no way,reflect the type of file sharpness I usually see from
CaptureOne whether processing DSLR or DBack files.

I think you should go back and try to sort out why the resulting file is so soft-maybe your
noise reduction defaults are set too high
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2008, 12:18:37 am »

Quote
luminance is set to 25 and color is set to 38 for the 450d file in c1. it's a little weird that the c1 preview is much sharper than the exported image(opened in photoshop use its own Icc which is adobe 1998), I really don't know why.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These may be high NR settings, but I think you need to look at the "process" tab and make sure the box "Disable Sharpening" is unchecked.  I use sharpening in C1 as a guide for the [review and sharpen in CS3, so I disable sharpening on output.  Perhaps that is what's going on if your preview is sharp but not the exported file.
Logged

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2008, 12:22:38 am »

Thank you! you got it!  I appreciate it a lot:)

Quote
These may be high NR settings, but I think you need to look at the "process" tab and make sure the box "Disable Sharpening" is unchecked.  I use sharpening in C1 as a guide for the [review and sharpen in CS3, so I disable sharpening on output.  Perhaps that is what's going on if your preview is sharp but not the exported file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2008, 12:26:25 am »

Quote
Thank you! you got it!  I appreciate it a lot:)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No problem!
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2008, 04:54:07 am »

Quote
luminance is set to 25 and color is set to 38 for the 450d file in c1.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use 0 and 0 for my D3 files up to ISO 800, and with adequate sharpeness settings C1 4.1 extracts detail better that any other converter I know off, except Raw DEveloper 1.72 that is even better.

Per my experience, C1 4.1 is better that the Adobe Raw engine.

cheers,
Bernard

dustblue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
    • http://www.moko.cc/dustblue
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2008, 05:41:25 am »

sounds like a good idea, I'll try that. the noise is always easy to remove by the noise-filter plugins like neat image.



Quote
I use 0 and 0 for my D3 files up to ISO 800, and with adequate sharpeness settings C1 4.1 extracts detail better that any other converter I know off, except Raw DEveloper 1.72 that is even better.

Per my experience, C1 4.1 is better that the Adobe Raw engine.

cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2008, 06:29:49 pm »

Quote
I use 0 and 0 for my D3 files up to ISO 800, and with adequate sharpeness settings C1 4.1 extracts detail better that any other converter I know off, except Raw DEveloper 1.72 that is even better.

Per my experience, C1 4.1 is better that the Adobe Raw engine.

cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I haven't been happy lately with C4 re sharpness and NR dunno why. I think one should be able to get substantially better detail without noise out of the P45+  files, although I do like the C4 color.

Edmund
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 06:33:12 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

SecondFocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • SecondFocus
acr4.4 vs c1v4.1
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2008, 11:48:48 pm »

I have just been trying out C1 4.1 and very unfamiliar with using it. But last night I took a Canon 5D RAW file with little adjustment, cropped it extensively, and then exported it into CS3 just to output USM and came up with this. I think it is pretty good. Correct me if I am on the wrong track, software is not my favorite thing.

I will be using it with P45+ files in the next few days.
Logged
Ian L. Sitren
[url=http://SecondFocus.co
Pages: [1]   Go Up