csp Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 when a raw file is well exposed AP does a decent job, sharp maybe with a little more digital artifacts than others but nothing to worry about except for pixel peepers. very high iso and heavy underexposed files do better in other converter and fuji x trans is not only a challenge for AP but other raw converter too. @ r10k is it possible to render a printable file from your extreme underexposed fuji raw with AP ? well see for yourself...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coranda Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Actually, I don't think the X100 uses an X-trans matrix. The X100S does but not the X100. I agree that when we are dealing with a file as seriously underexposed as the example r10k has produced there are bound to be limits and, ideally, you wouldn't produce that sort of exposure. On the other hand, it's not unreasonable to compare AP's performance against other convertors on such a file. I too am, at times, critical of pixel peepers but when you want to print A3-A2 at 360 dpi pixel peeping can sometimes be important. In that case you'd rather have a smoothed image than that maze pattern. But, to cut to the chase, I'd like to know why AP produces that maze pattern when I could not reproduce it with any of these eight demosaicing algorithms: amaze, igv, lmmse, eahd, hphd, vng4, dcb and ahd. I'd just like to know what it's doing and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csp Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 only the developers can tell... but c1 had this maze like pattern for years, only since v7 it is less visible but still there, LR makes fine detail mushy so no danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkt Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 So, I still don't agree with you. And, this thread is about the quality of AP's RAW conversion. Not about that blog post, specifically. I posted that because it showed clearly the results I was getting. (meaning it wasn't limited to my exact setup) I didn't post any images because it's annoying to do that in a forum. That's why I submitted an original photo so you could see the results for yourself. Or more importantly, so the developers could see them. I don't think this whole thing has much to do with noise reduction at all. And your statement that if I opened my RAF file in Photos and boosted some stuff it would look like a mess that no noise reduction would fix, is 100% false. The photo I adjusted in Photos (and ACR) looked remarkably good, after boosting things. (mostly though, for best results I adjusted the black point) Have a look for yourself. But let's keep this on topic to what is happening in AP- what's coming from the Develop RAW conversion process is producing remarkably different (and I would say undesired) results compared to the majority of popular RAW processors out there. Of course you had to change the black point in Photos - that was my point. Each raw converter requires its own individual adjustments to achieve an acceptable image. I do not disagree with your assessment that there is room for improvement with the AP conversion. There are much better raw converters for the Mac than the Develop persona in AP - Raw Photo Processor and Iridient Developer to name two of them. Raw Therapee permits experimentation with a variety of demosaicing algorithms and a very detailed noise reduction control that gives the user plenty of control over how and where NR is applied. Fortunately for Mac users, we have plenty of viable raw converter alternatives, especially if one plans to incorporate AP into their image processing workflow to completely eschew Adobe products from their suite of tools. kirk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r10k Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Yeah, the X100 isn't X-trans. csp, I'm not sure what you're asking for. Coranda, I'd like to know too. I hardly print images, but there are times I need to crop or push colours a bit and I'd prefer not to have the results AP produces. Kirk, I may not be a RAW processing algorithm expert, but I do realise different settings need tweaking in different apps to produce a similar result. But aside from that, at least we're in agreement about AP. Now we just await Serif to possibly comment on things...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csp Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 @r10k this was a rhetorical question. i too would appreciate that the demosaicing algorithm used by ap renders a more grain like structure i ´m sure we will see improvments here but i don't think it is inferior to photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r10k Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 It's down to personal opinion, but I do. When you have red dots on your image that you have to remove with extreme levels of noise reduction (AP's definition of extreme) that don't present in a more natural representation of the original scene via other RAW processors, I call it inferior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.