Anybody using After Shot Pro (formerly Bibble)

[Robert Roaldi]

I never see mention of Corel's After Shot Pro (formerly Bibble). Is it forgotten?

[Keith Reeder]

Worst commercially-available Raw converter on the market, by a country mile - it's shockingly bad.

Image quality is abysmal (the demosaicing algorithm is prehistoric); it has far and away the worst highlight recovery out there; it still has significant bugs that were first raised (some by me) way back in 2007; and it has new bugs with horrendous impact on image quality, courtesy of the new - and useless - Athentec noise reduction.

Honestly: run, don't walk, away from this POS.

[francois]

Worst commercially-available Raw converter on the market, by a country mile - it's shockingly bad.

Image quality is abysmal (the demosaicing algorithm is prehistoric); it has far and away the worst highlight recovery out there; it still has significant bugs that were first raised (some by me) way back in 2007; and it has new bugs with horrendous impact on image quality, courtesy of the new - and useless - Athentec noise reduction.

Honestly: run, don't walk, away from this POS.

I believe that a trial version is available… This way, people can easily and quickly have an idea of After Shot!

 

[Keith Reeder]

I believe that a trial version is available… This way, people can easily and quickly have an idea of After Shot!

 

Yep, agreed - but the original question was pondering the apparent lack of interest shown on this site for the software, and I think my answer addresses that.

[Kumsa]

I've been using Bibble through ASP2 for several years, with a cycle of love/hate.

Currently, it's back in the glow. They've worked hard to re-engage with their community and have been coming out with more frequent updates. I find the workflow very efficient. I'm a Canon user with a crop and FF. If I'm shooting at high ISO (3200) then I'll start with DPP, turn it into 16bit TIFF and finish up most work in ASP2.

Try the trial and let us know your response.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Worst commercially-available Raw converter on the market, by a country mile - it's shockingly bad.

Image quality is abysmal (the demosaicing algorithm is prehistoric); it has far and away the worst highlight recovery out there; it still has significant bugs that were first raised (some by me) way back in 2007; and it has new bugs with horrendous impact on image quality, courtesy of the new - and useless - Athentec noise reduction.

Honestly: run, don't walk, away from this POS.

Agreed, I've had it loaded on my Mac Mini for a year now and after about 15 minutes playing around with it back then I concur with your findings especially with the demosaicing algorithms implemented and have never used it since. Been meaning to uninstall it but I keep forgetting about it cuz I just don't want to hassle with it.

Thanks for reminding me.

[Kumsa]

So, all this furor over the state of ASP2's RAW conversion made me wonder, if the opinions are based on current releases or not. So, I made a comparison between Canon's latest DPP 4.0 and ASP2 2.0.3.25. I think it's indisputable that Canon's latest DPP for FF is going to be the reference model for its own CR2 RAW conversion. My test is neither scientific nor comprehensive, I simply wanted a quick sanity check. Either ASP2 is way off, or it's still in the game and may be worth the time for a closer look. I understand that if it works well for CR2, it might do poorly for Pentax or DNG or whatever else RAW format is used.

1. I used a color calibrated monitor.
2. I deliberately chose a terrible image, as I'm looking for conversion aberrations. I picked an underexposed image, to see what detail could be pulled out. The image was for a family group shot, at a wedding in the church. It was after the ceremony, and I was asked if I would capture a family moment. They wanted it at the moment, even though the lighting was truly bad (even at 32,000).
3. I ran DPP 4.0 on the CR2 (it's a Canon 6D), pushed up the exposure, corrected the white balance and adjusted the unsharp. Nothing dramatic, but good enough to hand the family a 4x6. I took a screenshot of the DPP during process, and also the final jpg.
4. I ran ASP2 (2.0.3.25) and mirrored the steps I took with DPP.

I checked the image at 100% and cannot discern any difference.

If ASP2's conversion is equal to DPP 4 under the conditions that I checked, then I don't see it as quite the pariah that it's been labeled.

My read is that the current release of ASP2 is matching DPP, for what I examined.

http://www.aftershotpro.com/en/support/updates/default.html

[Keith Reeder]

Try something with hot highlights, Kumsa.

Being "as good as" DPP is nothing to shout about for a commercial converter - it needs to be as good as (or better than) Lightroom, or Capture One 7, or Photo Ninja, but it's so far behind them in every meaningful way that it's not even funny any more.

DPP has about a million fewer bugs than ASP, too.

[Tim Lookingbill]

I ran DPP 4.0 on the CR2 (it's a Canon 6D), pushed up the exposure, corrected the white balance and adjusted the unsharp. Nothing dramatic, but good enough to hand the family a 4x6. I took a screenshot of the DPP during process, and also the final jpg.

You can really hide a lot in a 20MP full frame image viewed at 100%. Also from my experience with several Raw converters that include ACR/LR judgement on image quality needs to be based on several images taken at various distances to captured detail especially concerning artifacts caused by demosaicing algorithms combined with sharpening and noise reduction.

I base my assessment on my 6MP Pentax K100D PEF's where ASP shows way too many odd looking artifacts and overall texture in 100% views even in close up shots. ACR/LR will show sawtoothed edge artifacts depending on the distance from the lens, but nothing as bad as ASP.

[Kumsa]

So, I think the points that are raised about ASP2 have validity--I'm not espousing that the most recent release of ASP2 is the premier RAW converter. What I can say is that for the image that I tested against DPP 4, I didn't notice any anomalies. I didn't speak to PEF or any other format. And, I'm trying to be specific, rather than vague about "millions" about bugs.

I've already settled that ASP2 works appropriately--it's a solid performer for my files.
You guys can keep talking about old versions of ASP, but I'm good with what I saw with ASP2.

Next up, it would be useful to have a comparison of the major converters (and maybe include FOSS offerings like DarkTable) which included more parameters. I'm not qualified to test every aspect of these tools. Maybe someone like ct-digiphoto.com would do a RAW back-off.

Finally, I think workflow is an issue, and it would be interesting to learn what it is that draws someone to ACR, LR, DXO or ASP2.
 

[Isaac]

Try the trial and let us know your response.

You guys can keep talking about old versions of ASP, but I'm good with what I saw with ASP2.

What incentive is there for someone who's already worked the Bibble trial and the AfterShotPro trial to put yet more time into AfterShotPro2?

I think my time is better spent improving my RawTherapee and ReMask skills.

[Keith Reeder]

The ASP 2 trial lasted precisely 20 minutes on my machine before I uninstalled it again.

Some of the bugs I first reported in 2007 still exist; the quality of demosaicing is abysmal as it was during the Bibble days (have a 100% peek at a file with dark-to-light transitions - the rendering in the transition looks like a pointilist painting); I found two show-stopping bugs in the new NR - horrible artifacts and "tiling"; and worst of all for me, the highlight recovery is every last bit as bad as Bibble's used to be.

And Bibble was utter crap, even then. Yet all these years later, not a hint of an improvement from ASP 2.

Again: I found all of this in twenty minutes, which begs the question - what on God's Green Earth were the beta testers doing? Not testing, apparently...

So why - exactly - would anyone waste their time and money on this mess?

When I can use ASP (20?) to get from this to this, I might have another look.

But not before.

Kumsa, don't assume that my comments on this thread are the result of a quick, careless exposure to ASP/ASP 2: I've been a damn' sight more diligent in coming to my conclusions than many - especially the beta-testers, evidently - about the quality of the software. I know what I need from a converter (and it's not much: decent rendering, effective highlight recovery, and reasonable high ISO handling - and a relative lack of bugs) and ASP - especially ASP2 - fails catastrophically to achieve any of those utterly basic expectations.

[Kumsa]

Keith, I appreciate you taking the time for the before and after -- it makes your point quite nicely.

 I will take a closer look at Lightroom for the highlight recovery. It's not something that normally enters my workflow, but your image was very nicely cleaned up.