Adobe Carmera Raw 2.4 beta version

[rufis6]

I have a Canon 20D and I have Adobe Camera RAW 2.3 installed with Photoshop CS; it works just fine. Is there any reason why I should remove it and install the new version: Acobe Camera RAW 2.4?

[cmM]

does 2.4 officially support 20D raw files ?

[tommykjensen]

I have a Canon 20D and I have Adobe Camera RAW 2.3 installed with Photoshop CS; it works just fine. Is there any reason why I should remove it and install the new version: Acobe Camera RAW 2.4?

If it is a beta version I would wait, but I would definately update. Adobe continuously improves the conversion so there is probably bug fixes and or improvements in 2.4.

[Bootscreen]

Does anyone known if the RAW update would be used for Elements as well or are they different?

[gramps]

Does anyone known if the RAW update would be used for Elements as well or are they different?
PhotoShop Elements ver.3 will process raw with doing any plug ins.............at least the trial verision will. I downloaded it yesterday and was surprised by this.

[gramps]

does 2.4 officially support 20D raw files ?
here is the link http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2682 the beta versions does support the 20 D.

[drisley]

Adobe really has improved ACR alot since the first version.
In fact, even v2.3 was a nice improvement. Image quality is much better now, and on par with C1 Pro in my opinion. I also like the workflow better than C1 Pro.
When the new C1 Pro is released (if it ever is), I may not switch back as I now like ACR so much.
There would have to be a big image quality advantage for me to switch back.

[tumb]

I downloaded it (the beta 2.4). I've had time to compare now but it is a little faster and a noticable quality difference. It comes with a nag screen though, reminds you that it's beta and expires some time in Feb so they'll probably have the full version complete by then. This one seems stable and an improvement but I see no funtional difference.

[drisley]

I downloaded it (the beta 2.4). I've had time to compare now but it is a little faster and a noticable quality difference. It comes with a nag screen though, reminds you that it's beta and expires some time in Feb so they'll probably have the full version complete by then. This one seems stable and an improvement but I see no funtional difference.A noticable quality difference? In what way? An improvement would be great!
:)

[tumb]

drisley - to be honest I can't be absolutely sure, at first I noticed considerably less noise but at second thought I'm not so sure if it is the new v2.4 or the new camera firmware. Maybe a combination of both. That dawned on me right after I posted. I'm in the process right now of loading the same image with both versions and if I have time I'll post my results later.

[tumb]

Okay, a quick test. Both of these were processed with the same raw file. 100% crops. It's more noticable in the full size but there's definately more noise in the 2.3 version. First image is v2.3, second is 2.4 beta:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/mdwsr/23test.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/mdwsr/24test.jpg

[Belmondo]

I agree....the noise is much more evident in 2.3.

[defordphoto]

Good camparison Tumb! That is very significant.

[drisley]

Ok, I just did my own tests between ACR2.3 and ACR2.4 beta.
First off, there is NO difference in image quality, not even a little bit. Noise is the same, colours the same, and histogram is identical.
I opened an ISO1600 image, and converted both, then put the new 2.4b conversion over the old 2.3 one in a layer. I switched back and forth while viewed at 200%, and the images are absolutely identical. I also repeated with another ISO400 image. Same identical results.
Then I did a timing test and averaged 3 conversions on the same image.

ACR2.3 = 11.3 seconds
ACR2.4 = 11.3 seconds

So, from what I can see, they only difference is it now currently officially supports a few new cameras.
I switched back to 2.3 for now so I don't have to deal with the annoying "this is beta" message every day.

[tumb]

That's odd, I noticed the difference right off. Comparing the different ways I can convert raw, it goes in this order from bad to good (in some cases quite a difference):
DPP
EVU
PSP9
PSCS 2.3 raw
PSCS 2.4 beta

The only thing I didn't check is to see if the default's were the same when I processed the two pictures above but there was a definate difference in quality. If the defaults were different it could cause this I suppose, I'm not sure how PSCS handles defaults but my guess would be that they would be the same.

[evilenglishman]

agree 100% with drisley - there is no difference

[drisley]

The only thing I didn't check is to see if the default's were the same when I processed the two pictures above
That was exactly what I figured had happened with your results.
I did fresh comparisons of many images with the same settings in both ACR2.3 and 2.4beta. The image quality is 100% identical, so is the speed (or if there is a speed difference, it is insignificant).

[tumb]

My test was a quickie, but unless my defaults came up different I can't think of any other reason for the difference. After tomorrow I'm off work for a couple weeks (woohoo!) and plan to do this in a little more depth. I also need to get my laptop and desktop settings and software to be equal, right now I do most of my editing from the couch with the laptop but I know I'd get better overall editing results from my other machine.

By the way, I have read a few other reports exactly like mine, I know it's a stretch but I wonder if the difference might be in the machines?

[timmyquest]

Good, they've fixed the IQ issues, now how about the slowness factor.

[drisley]

IQ and speed are the same for the 20D with ACR 2.3 and ACR2.4b... absolutely identical.
Not even 1 pixel is different. So far I've tested 8 images with different ISO settings, etc.
I use the built in Photoshop timing to test timing down to the tenth of a second, and found the speed is the same. I've read many people, like EvilEnglishMan above, who have reported the same.
I'm not sure why others would see a diff unless their defaults changed (which is more than likely the case).
Timmyq, the image quality of ACR2.3 is much improved over older versions. I was a big C1 Pro user for the 300D because I hated the output quality of Adobe Camera Raw.
I was forced to use ACR with my 20D, and I was pleasantly surprised to find the improvement of ACR since even version 2.0
Also, the workflow using PS CS fits my style much better than using C1 Pro, so when/if C1 v3.6 is released, I will probably stick with ACR.

[drisley]

Ok, here are 2 conversions of the same image with the same settings in ACR2.3 and ACR2.4b. The image is an ISO1600 image blown up 200%.
As you can see, there is no difference. The best thing is to download both, put one on top of the other in layers in photoshop, and toggle the visibility of the top one.
Or even easier, just open these in different browsers, and minimize/maximize on to toggle visibility.
There isn't even a slight difference.

ACR2.3 +200% Magnification (http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/acr23.jpg)

ACR2.4b +200% Magnification (http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/acr24.jpg)