New DPP better than LR?

Along with the 5D3 Canon announced a new version of DPP. Without having read up on it some of the acclaimed functionality is missing in LR (like HDR). What do you think? Will the new DPP be a better converter than LR4? Will it be available for us who don't buy a new camer?

Personally, I prefer the current DPP over LR3 and LR4. To me, it has better demosaicing, pre-sharpening, and color rendition.

It will be available to those who don't buy the 1DX/5D3, but the new features may be greyed out on files not shot with the new bodies.

I wonder what the source of your information is. The only information Canon has released about the version of DPP to be released with the 5D3 is that it will have DLO which is apparently an integration of the already available corrections for Canon lenses with a measure of capture sharpening (probably camera specific, determined by the strength of the AA filter in that model - whether data for earlier models will be included is at present unknown). The Canon press release refers to DPP 3.11 which has been with us since November '11, the most recent version being 3.11.4, released in February. If the next issue of DPP will be as different and expanded as you seem to think (HDR blending?), I would expect that it would merit the title DPP 4.0 or at least DPP 3.12.

And even if a new DPP has additional functions beyond the present, would that make it "better"? Large numbers of people have no problem going from LR to either a plugin HDR blender or to an independent program. The quality of an HDR is often dependent on the quality of the conversions from which it is built and this is often a function of the level of control exercised on those conversions, an area in which DPP does not seem likely to exceed LR. Indeed, I doubt there is another software in the world today that can equal the Edge Detection Laplacian Filter technology incorporated in LR4 for artifact free detail enhancement and shadow tone mapping.

tzalman wrote in post #14013336
I wonder what the source of your information is. The only information Canon has released about the version of DPP to be released with the 5D3 is that it will have DLO which is apparently an integration of the already available corrections for Canon lenses with a measure of capture sharpening (probably camera specific, determined by the strength of the AA filter in that model - whether data for earlier models will be included is at present unknown). The Canon press release refers to DPP 3.11 which has been with us since November '11, the most recent version being 3.11.4, released in February. If the next issue of DPP will be as different and expanded as you seem to think (HDR blending?), I would expect that it would merit the title DPP 4.0 or at least DPP 3.12.

And even if a new DPP has additional functions beyond the present, would that make it "better"? Large numbers of people have no problem going from LR to either a plugin HDR blender or to an independent program. The quality of an HDR is often dependent on the quality of the conversions from which it is built and this is often a function of the level of control exercised on those conversions, an area in which DPP does not seem likely to exceed LR. Indeed, I doubt there is another software in the world today that can equal the Edge Detection Laplacian Filter technology incorporated in LR4 for artifact free detail enhancement and shadow tone mapping.

The information is from canonrumors.com or from website they've linked too.

What would make DPP better? Well, if it gives better image quality, is easier to use and has more features I would say it's better. Now (as I said) I haven't read up on it and that is the reason for this thread. It's mainly a subjective thing and I wonder what other people (like you for example) think. Personally I haven't used DPP att all for a couple of years, making it difficult for me to have a valid opinion.

DPP is currently easier to use at a basic level than LR3. It's more of a journalistic approach..... it's easy to develop the scene your eye saw with a few quick adjustments. It has a few annoying things, but it's very usable. The fact that it previews the RAW file with the camera picture style is a HUGE basic advantage over lightroom, although that is fixable.

LR3 is tougher to use because it doesn't preview your files in your shooting style. With its advanced features, ability to do a lot of local edits, and plug in acceptance, it's a better program to develop the scene your heart saw, or maybe the scene you wish you would have seen.

I currently use DPP more than my LR4 beta. I do have LR3 on the way to the house (don't like doing too much with betas), and we'll see which one I end up using more.

'Nuff said.

Easier is better? More features isn't going to make it easier.

So if your camera is a recording machine, DPP is better, but if it is a creative tool, LR is better? OK, I can accept that. But the OP is talking about HD, which is somewhat more than simple journalism.

I use both DPP and ARC (in LR and PS) Sometimes DPP does a better job converting a raw and sometimes ARC does.

tzalman wrote in post #14014113
'Nuff said.

Easier is better? More features isn't going to make it easier.

So if your camera is a recording machine, DPP is better, but if it is a creative tool, LR is better? OK, I can accept that. But the OP is talking about HD, which is somewhat more than simple journalism.

Nuff said? Why? I'm not talking about a rumor. I read about an interview someone had done with Canon. Does it matter if the link was from canonrumors.com?

Yes. Easier is better. If you can accomplish the same thing in two ways. One hard way and one easy way, which would you choose? How about full photoshop functionality with MS DOS interface? With a very good interface you can have lot's of features and it still is intuitative to use. Remember how hard it was to set up a printer or a network 10 years ago? I dare to say you can do more with todays software, and yet it's easier to use.

tzalman wrote in post #14014113
But the OP is talking about HD, which is somewhat more than simple journalism.

Sorry, wandered off from that..... I agree that a built in HDR feature wouldn't be a bad thing, but if it follows DPP's current ability mapping, it would likely be the simple combining of the 3 files and probably wouldn't have the capability to take it as far as a lot of people like too, ie the overdone HDR. I look forward to any changes and would definitely check them out.

And by journalistic, I just mean more of a sense of making corrective edits to the captured scene, or that there hasn't been substantial alterations to the capture. It's not a dig by any means. Heck, an HDR capture with very limited edits has its place for sure.

Well, one huge question will be if the implementation of HDR in DPP will only be for the newer cameras, or will it work with all Canon Raw files? So, we'll have to see!

In which case wouldn't it be good to share the link with the rest of us, instead of merely alluding to some vague predictions of new features? Without knowing what is coming beyond Canon's brief press release, it is difficult to relate to your question, "Will the new DPP be a better converter than LR4?"

tzalman wrote in post #14014555
In which case wouldn't it be good to share the link with the rest of us, instead of merely alluding to some vague predictions of new features? Without knowing what is coming beyond Canon's brief press release, it is difficult to relate to your question, "Will the new DPP be a better converter than LR4?"

Well, here you go!
http://blog.planet5d.c​om …-the-canon-press-release/

And the important part, for those of you who don't feel like reading it all:

"DPP Digital Photo Professional – new version of the software comes with the camera – includes HDR and multiple exposure processing.

This new feature called Digital Lens Optimizer – unique to this sofware (Adobe doesn’t have it, nor does Apple or DXo) – we have a database for 29 compatible lenses initially, including:
Spherical aberration
Astigmatism
Sagittal Halo
Curvature of field
Chromatic aberration (both kinds)
diffraction
Effects of a low pass filter on a CMOS sensor

And this will be available for all EOS RAW files for cameras released since 2006!"

I actually found that DLO thing more interesting than the camera announcement itself...very curious to see it in action.

woos wrote in post #14015671
I actually found that DLO thing more interesting than the camera announcement itself...very curious to see it in action.

Do you currently use DPP or some other raw developer?

JimAndersson wrote in post #14016154
Do you currently use DPP or some other raw developer?

I rarely use DPP...doesn't mean I'm not excited to see how good this tech works though. ^_^ It claims to be able to counteract just about everything--coma, both types of CA, etc.