7D & Mk4 - Does RAW Converter matter?

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

For no good reasons, i've always used ACR for my RAW conversions while using PS. I believe this is the same RAW converter found in LR. While testing the 7D against new Mk4, and based on comments in ARtie's blog and an earlier thread, I decided to try Canon's DPP and relook at BreezeBrowser and CaptureOne by Phase One as RAW converters.
The above test image of a dollar bill against a color checker was taken using the 7D with a 70-200mm/f2.8L lens at f2.8 1/400 on a tripod with timed shutter release. There is a slight shadow on the left because the natural sunlight was coming from the right. All images are shown at 100% (100ppi) . For the RAW conversions, all sliders and defaults in each pgm were set to zero. No further post processing (ie-sharpening, NR, WB, ..) was applied.

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

For the repost, each image was White Balanced and the presets were again set to their default values (except ACR where Blacks was left at 0). Again no further post processing was applied.
From this image and several others - with regard to IQ/Noise, DPP would appear to be the preferred RAW converter. Test images on the Mk4 showed similar results. I posted the 7D images because PhaseOne hasn't released an update supporting the Mk4 yet.

1)Do these differences matter and can they be fixed entirely in post processing?
2)Are familiarity and/or user interface the deciding factors for most people? How many people are using DPP?
2)For those using DPP what are typical default/starting values for Sharpen under the RAW and RGB tabs in Tools?

All comments are welcome - Thanks
PH

[Ben_Sadd]

I also switched from Camera Raw to processing the files in DPP. I found that Camera Raw produced very grainy images from the 7D, even when the exposure was correct. It is a shame, as my workflow is much smoother when it incorporates Camera Raw instead of DPP. Switching programs is tedious, and also there is a loss of the original file name when saving the converted file as a TIFF.

[John Chardine]

Interesting results Peter. I am surprised that DPP is performing some form of NR even with all the settings to 0. It really has no business doing this does it?

I agree DPP seems to do the best job for noise but there is a trade-off with sharpness- it also produces the softest images to my eye. Therefore I would suggest a different processing path for low and high ISO images with the low ISO images being processed with the software that provides the best detail (here it appears to be CaptureOne or ACR) and for higher ISO images using the one that performs best for noise (DPP).

Quick question- what did you have High-ISO Noise Reduction set to in-camera? If you had it set to say Standard, I wonder if DPP performs NR even though it's NR sliders are set at 0?? In other words I'm saying are there two levels of NR- in-camera and DPP which are in a sense independent. Shouldn't be hard to test this.

[arash_hazeghi]

Looks like you turned off sharpening in DPP, ACR and other converters apply sharpening be default, default value for DPP is 3.

ACR also applies NR by default and even when all the sliders are at 0.

For a fair comparison DPP parameters should be as follows:

NR chroma (4-8) depending on camera
NR luminance =0
Sharpening = 3
ALO = OFF

I use Canon DPP for RAW conversion, it uses proprietary Canon algorithms which yield superior results to that of third party converters (just like Nikon Capture NX2 does much better for Nikon cameras). The drawback is limited features and a few awkward bugs compared to Light Room.

[Alfred Forns]

Thanks for the info Peter !! I usually like to compare end results after all processing has been done and pick the best !! Still experimenting !!!

[Doug Brown]

Therefore I would suggest a different processing path for low and high ISO images with the low ISO images being processed with the software that provides the best detail (here it appears to be CaptureOne or ACR) and for higher ISO images using the one that performs best for noise (DPP).

Once I get to about ISO 1600 with 7D RAW files, I do exactly what you're suggesting (move from LR to DPP).

[arash_hazeghi]

Here is an example with "normalized" parameters

http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eahazeghi/Photos/examples/acrdpp.jpg
100% crop 5D MKII ISO 1600 500 f/4

With correct parameters, DPP produces not only cleaner but also sharper output for any EOS camera. Many people who complain about grainy photos with 7D are using LR.

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

Arash - Your comments and post are very informative.
When i did all four RAW conversions - i set all NR and sharpening slider/controls to 0, to see what the basic algorithms would do. But as you suggest, i suspect ACR still performs some sharpening, and DPP still performs some NR. When i get home tomorrow afternoon, I'll try your recommended settings

What NR Chroma do you set for the 7D?

John - The High ISO-NR function was turned off on the 7D.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash - Your comments and post are very informative.
When i did all four RAW conversions - i set all NR and sharpening slider/controls to 0, to see what the basic algorithms would do. But as you suggest, i suspect ACR still performs some sharpening, and DPP still performs some NR. When i get home tomorrow afternoon, I'll try your recommended settings

What NR Chroma do you set for the 7D?

John - The High ISO-NR function was turned off on the 7D.

Hi Peter,
DPP has two NR options, chroma and luminance. Chroma noise reduction only affects color blotches and does not have any visible side effects on detail unless you go beyond 15 at which point it can distort the red channel. Luminance NR in DPP is not very mature yet, it softens the detail so I don't use it often

For 7D I use the following setting

100<= ISO <=400 Chroma = 4-5 luminance =0 Sharpening = 3
400< ISO <=800 Chroma = 8-9 luminance =0 Sharpening = 3
800< ISO <=1600 chroma = 10-12 luminance =0 Sharpening = 1-2
1600< ISO<=3200 chroma = 12 luminance = 1-3 (depending on detail) sharpening =0-1
ISO>3200 --> don't bother!


Other cameras will have different optimal parameters.

ACR usually tries to give a polished and creamy output without much effort so the baseline values include some NR and sharpening. One other issue that I have with ACR is the struggle I have to go through to achive correct WB and tonal balance. I can't quite replicate the accurate WB and tonal consistency that I get from DPP. (e.x. see the red cast on the dollar bill above).

[Roger Clark]

What is interesting, and no one has yet commented on, is the color cast differences between the raw conversions. Peter, since you have the originals, which one has the best color?

To some degree, the trade of noise versus sharpness can be made in post processing and that does not surprise me.

Roger

[Alan Stankevitz]

Roger,

Wouldn't the RAW converter's temperature and tint settings skew this? It seems that every RAW converter has different parameters/defaults for color cast. If you set the temperature and tint settings identically between two different RAW converters, would you get the same results?

Alan

[Peter Hawrylyshyn]

Alan - You're correct. But i forgot to point out that all the conversions were done "As Shot" - all the temp's displayed/selected by the RAW converters were within 100 degrees Kelvin. No adjustments were made to any tint or color sliders.

Roger - I have looked at a number of test images, and i'm inclined to agree with Arash that without any White Balancing , DPP followed by CaptureOne come closest to the true colors. The differences are more noticeable in the blue tones, as seen in the above image showing a larger section of the GM ColorChecker.