Breezebrowser or Capture 1? [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Malok

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 11:23

I am sorry for posting this thread as I am sure that it must have been discussed numerous times, however; I was not able to find any of these threads in my various search attempts. :oops:

Which RAW converter is most recommended by people in this forum: Breezebrowser or Capture 1? I am shooting with a D300 and so I realize that Capture-1 has a special Drebel option as well as the LE version. I've heard some people say that Breezebrowser is the only way to go and others who have said that Capture 1 (Phase One) is the best. What are your thoughts on these programs?

Malok

CyberDyneSystems

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 12:03

I think both offer a free 30 day trial?

The answer though is "it depends"
There are pluses for both...

Breezebrowser is a peice of cake to use and get the hang of. It also uses Canon's own code for the actual conversion from what I understand, so it may have some advantages in that regard (arguably) and it does a lot more than just convert RAW files.

Capture one seems to give the most spectacular results. It has great batch processing options and is the choice of many pros.

scottbergerphoto

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 13:31

Reading the manual for C1LE made my eyes glaze over. I use BreezeBrowser and then PSE2 or PS CS. As CDS says, try the 30 day freebie and decide for yourself.
Regards,
Scott

MediaMagic

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 15:33

Capture One has a little steeper learning curve with a few extra tweaks that can push the conversion up a notch in "punch" (for lack of a better term). I liked LE so much that I bought the Pro version. The pro version adds a little more to the learning curve. I'd say it's probably overkill for an amateur like myself, but I love having the absolute control over the conversion process, although it did take me a while to get the hang of the settings and I still haven't mastered the program. C1 is analogous to Photoshop in that the more you learn, the more doors open up and the more options you have of which to take advantage - which leads you back to having to learn more, etc. The circle.

I envision both C1 and Photoshop much like Hydras. Chop of a head, two spring up from where the one was... and so on, and so on, and so on...

Now, if you do like the C1 trial, I would recommend also checking out the excellent camera profiles available as add ons here:

http://etcetera.cc/pub/

All of that being typed, I would say that for the majority of photography enthusiasts, Breezebrowser would be more than adequate to handle your Raw conversion needs.

Whaler

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 15:53

KennyG

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 16:20

Which RAW converter is most recommended by people in this forum: Breezebrowser or Capture 1?

Breezebrowser uses exactly the same system to convert as Zoombrowser that comes with your camera (both built with the Canon SDK), and C1 is built from the ground up.

Breezebrowser is a superb file manager but has very little or no advantage over Zoombrowser for RAW conversion, other than being integrated into a much superior file manager.

C1 on the other hand is a poor excuse for a file manager but is top of the class for RAW conversion.

You can try both for free. Test them out on a variety of shots, including under and over exposed, then make your choice.

robertwgross

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 16:27

Mark me as a stick-in-the-mud.

I use ZoomBrowser to convert.

---Bob Gross---

CyberDyneSystems

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 21:41

Okay, please do not flame the messenger. . . according to an article in this months "Digital Photo Pro" magazine, they suggest that you use software that came with the camera when working RAW files. They stated that the third party software is good but, the OEM (for RAW) is better.

Mike :D

This is a valid point,. and why I mentioned that Breezebrowser uses the Canon code,.(which KennyG confirms using more knowledgable language :) )... Breezebrowsers results should be as good as Canon's "zoombrowser",. it is just far more flexible, usable and stable.

The Digital Photo Pro article makes sense,. however you will notice that the entire article revolved around the Nikon conversion software,.

...and quite frankly Nikon's RAW software is miles ahead of Canon's "Zoombrowser" so it is a lot easier to write positive articles about it than it is to do so with zoombrowser.

The other thing you may notice upon further study of that article, is they seem to be singling PSCS out as "the wrong choice"

When you compare PSCS which tries to be the RAW converter for everything ,. this is quite different from C1 which was looking to solve the Canon RAW problem alone.

I suspect that the software that is bundled with the 1D line is better than Zoombrowser,. and suposedly the new version that will ship with the MkII will be even better yet..

I am anxious to see as none of the other programs will support the MkII for a while anyways.

Whaler

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 21:59

Upon reading the aforementioned, I conclude that, this is why CDS is a moderator. This "newbie" hopes, one day, to know as much as CDS AKA "Jake" has forgotten.

defordphoto

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 22:03

Upon reading the aforementioned, I conclude that, this is why CDS is a moderator. This "newbie" hopes, one day, to know as much as CDS AKA "Jake" has forgotten.

:roll: Stand back. CDS' head is going to explode any minute now!

defordphoto

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 22:04

CyberDyneSystems

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 22:06

CyberDyneSystems

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 22:10

Mark me as a stick-in-the-mud.

I use ZoomBrowser to convert.

---Bob Gross---

Actually, the measurebators out there agree with you, Bob. They say that ZB produces the cleanest, noiseless results from RAW photos than any other converter so far.

And this goes right back to what Whaler was mentioning,. and it does make good sense.. really.

The Digital Photo Pro article contests that the Manufactuerers' own software or "SDK" will do the best job because they know there hardware and file type best.

Breezebrowser is an exception because it is in fact the SAME converter as ZoomBrower,. it just has a snazzier interface.

defordphoto

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 22:29

:oops: Damn,. I can hardly breathe in this little room now with my swollen head taking up so much room!!!!! ROFL!

in the meantime I went back and corrected about 20 typing errors in my "genious' post :roll: :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: I love it when people can laugh at themselves. Where's that thumbs-up icon when you need it?

defordphoto

19th of March 2004 (Fri), 22:31

Breezebrowser is an exception because it is in fact the SAME converter as ZoomBrower,. it just has a snazzier interface.

Cool. Good to know. I was not aware that BB used the exact same engine. One thing I love about BB is its gallery creator. It's awesome! It'll USM, watermark, take out the trash and cook dinner.

Whaler

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 07:58

SH!T. . . look what I started. :lol:

defordphoto

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 08:17

SH!T. . . look what I started. :lol:

Actually Malok started this thread. ;)

BTW: I love DPP magazine! I got their first issue free and subscribed right away. Great stuff on photoshop, RAW vs. JPEG and other slick stuff.

Malok

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 14:14

khkohl

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 15:13

Malok, the best news on this topic is that we do have choice. I have had the best results for me with ---->Downloader Pro---->C1SE----->Photoshop CS

Jesper

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 15:50

...When you compare PSCS which tries to be the RAW converter for everything ,. this is quite different from C1 which was looking to solve the Canon RAW problem alone.

C1 is not only for Canon cameras - it also supports the Nikon D100 and D1X. Anyway, there isn't that much difference between cameras of different manufacturers; almost all of the cameras have Bayer sensors, so the same interpolation algorithms can be used. The only notable differences are the file format and the native color space of the camera.

I'm using C1 LE for my 10D RAW images.

CyberDyneSystems

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 16:39

Really? there is no difference between Canon's CMOS sensors and Nikon's CCDs ???

defordphoto

20th of March 2004 (Sat), 18:55

Hey, Don't blame me! I'm just a beginning photographer looking for advice. Had no idea I was going to start this trouble. :wink:

Another question about the raw converters. I see that the Capture 1 software actually allows me to make some corrections for exposure. I haven't been able to find out how to do this in Breezebrowswer. Does it support this?

Malok

Heheheh...No one is blaming you for anything. :) There is no trouble here. I don't understand why anyone would say that. Just like we have many choices and setting on our cameras, we have many choices for software. They all have their good points and NONE of them are perfect. Just like there are no perfect cameras. :)

Jesper

21st of March 2004 (Sun), 01:23

Really? there is no difference between Canon's CMOS sensors and Nikon's CCDs ???

Ofcourse, the physics of CMOS and CCD are different, but they both have the same pixel layout - the Bayer pattern (http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/digital_3.htm). Each pixel records only one color - red, green or blue. In the final output image that's computed from the RAW data, the missing colors on each pixel are computed by averaging the information from the surrounding pixels (see the link, it explains it much better than what I can tell you in this post.... :? ).

CMOS and CCD sensors probably react a little differently to light, so the native color space of the camera is different. C1 comes with ICC profiles for different cameras, which it uses to convert the colors from the RAW data to your preferred color space (such as sRGB or Adobe RGB).

TonyKInTexas

21st of March 2004 (Sun), 10:37

Who reads a manual? :lol:

Seriously, I've not cracked the manual on either BB or C1LE and have had no issues. Not to say I have not visited forums and read FAQs. The operation of both is easy enough to not be too confusing in my opinion.

Reading the manual for C1LE made my eyes glaze over. I use BreezeBrowser and then PSE2 or PS CS. As CDS says, try the 30 day freebie and decide for yourself.
Regards,
Scott

HKdom

21st of March 2004 (Sun), 22:36

I’ve also wondered about his before and after reading an interesting article the other day about Sports Illustrator’s workflow at

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821

Then, after reading this thread, I have come to this conclusion:

SI go to great lengths ensure top quality and the fact that they are using Canons stock RAW converter leads me to believe that it is good enough for the best. From what I’ve gathered here, if BB uses the same engine as Canon then BB should yield the same most acceptable results.

Then again, price, speed, features, interface... are also a consideration.

--All this TOP quality talk and I still edit off of an LCD monitor hooked up to my laptop :oops:

drisley

22nd of March 2004 (Mon), 09:21

I like C1 Pro, but you may find this comparison interesting:
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/19_c1vsbb.htm

Nice read about SI, Hkdom!

billfranklin

22nd of March 2004 (Mon), 12:30

Malok,
You can change the exposure in BB +or - 2 stops. Go to "tools">"convert raw image". From here you can make several changes in your raw image.

Bill F.

Malok

22nd of March 2004 (Mon), 12:32

Thanks for the information Bill! I couldn't find it after quite a while of looking.

Thanks

Malok

TonyKInTexas

22nd of March 2004 (Mon), 18:08

Can you do that on a shot by shot basis and still batch process? I know in C1 I can.

Thanks,

Malok,
You can change the exposure in BB +or - 2 stops. Go to "tools">"convert raw image". From here you can make several changes in your raw image.

Bill F.

billfranklin

23rd of March 2004 (Tue), 08:35

Hi TonyK,
Answer is yes for BB. You can make your changes frame by frame or batch process. In the tools menu go to "convert raw Image" From here you can change conversion method, white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpening, exposure, tiff, jpeg, or PNG, 8 bitt or 16 bitt. After making your changes, click either "convert" (does just one frame), or "convert all" (does a batch conversion). It's really very easy. Just a note, unless you know what you are doing, just use the "normal" conversion method. If you use linear, you will have to go through some extra steps in Photo shop.

Bill F.

martcol

23rd of March 2004 (Tue), 09:44

If you use linear, you will have to go through some extra steps in Photo shop.

Bill F.

Any chance of explaining those "extra steps"

Martin

billfranklin

23rd of March 2004 (Tue), 14:53

Hi Martin,
What I did was go to Fred Miranda's web site and downloaded his linear conversion action. You can find it here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/software/
I have the old one for my D60, but this new one looks even better. According to Fred, linear conversion at 16 bitt tiff is better than normal conversion, and his examples show this is true. Even so, it does take more time. I highly recommend any of Fred's actions, and use them everyday.

Bill F.

swblackwood

23rd of March 2004 (Tue), 22:40

Breezebrowser also converts much faster and has Noise Reduction.

Mark me as a stick-in-the-mud.

I use ZoomBrowser to convert.

---Bob Gross---

Actually, the measurebators out there agree with you, Bob. They say that ZB produces the cleanest, noiseless results from RAW photos than any other converter so far.

And this goes right back to what Whaler was mentioning,. and it does make good sense.. really.

The Digital Photo Pro article contests that the Manufactuerers' own software or "SDK" will do the best job because they know there hardware and file type best.

Breezebrowser is an exception because it is in fact the SAME converter as ZoomBrower,. it just has a snazzier interface.

TonyKInTexas

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 15:47

Before making an assumptions it would be a good thing to know the knowledge level of the person being answered. I try to make as few assumptions as possible.

I am a knowledgable user and have used BB longer than C1. And I have also used Linear output (as well as combined) in BB.

My question is very simple. Does BB maintain a queue like C1 where processing values can be applied individual images. I don't believe it does. I believe BB either allows a user to convert a single image with a set of specific options or a batch on all selected images with a single set of options.

C1 allows me to select an image, process it and add it to a queue. I can start it processing and work the next image and put it in the queue while the first image is being processed. I can continue working this way until I am done processing.

This is a feature I do not believe BB has.

There was an implied statement that BB allowed for queued processing.

Hi TonyK,
Answer is yes for BB. You can make your changes frame by frame or batch process. In the tools menu go to "convert raw Image" From here you can change conversion method, white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpening, exposure, tiff, jpeg, or PNG, 8 bitt or 16 bitt. After making your changes, click either "convert" (does just one frame), or "convert all" (does a batch conversion). It's really very easy. Just a note, unless you know what you are doing, just use the "normal" conversion method. If you use linear, you will have to go through some extra steps in Photo shop.

Bill F.

billfranklin

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 16:39

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that BB would query anything. As far as I know, BB will only batch process, and the same fixes will be applied to only those images selected for the process.

Bill F

swblackwood

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 17:24

One caveat, however. BB will allow you to apply as-shot WB to your images regardless of the WB chosen on the first processed file. Otherwise, you do have to diddle with the files individually, which I don't mind.
Steve

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that BB would query anything. As far as I know, BB will only batch process, and the same fixes will be applied to only those images selected for the process.

Bill F

TonyKInTexas

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 21:28

I think it is a matter of workflow and if BB works then it is the tool to use. I have both BB and C1LE and there are times I use BB and times (more often though) that I use C1LE.

After all they are just tools. :)

One caveat, however. BB will allow you to apply as-shot WB to your images regardless of the WB chosen on the first processed file. Otherwise, you do have to diddle with the files individually, which I don't mind.
Steve

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that BB would query anything. As far as I know, BB will only batch process, and the same fixes will be applied to only those images selected for the process.

Bill F