Advised to use DPP over LR by Canon

stsva wrote in post #11057632
By default, ACR applies the white balance "As Shot," which presumably would include a custom white balance.

tzalman wrote in post #11057653
Yes, it will put it up as the "As Shot" WB, but the rendering may be different from the camera/DPP version because of the difference in camera profile used. However, the target grey should be rendered as neutral in any conversion.

Then why can't ACR get the CWB that is set in a converted IR camera correct? On the camera LCD and in DPP, the images are a perfect B&W. In ACR, bright red.

CannedHeat wrote in post #11058724
Then why can't ACR get the CWB that is set in a converted IR camera correct? On the camera LCD and in DPP, the images are a perfect B&W. In ACR, bright red.

That's interesting -- I've never messed with an IR converted camera.

It's true that when LR does WB, it has to read a value put into the Exif by Canon and interpret it, and it may not come out exactly the same way as DPP, since DPP has a direct understanding of the values that the camera stores and how they should be interpreted. Fortunately it's quick to pick a WB target in LR as well as DPP.

Curious, did you use green grass, or another specific WB target? And, when you chose the WB target in LR, did it get pretty much the same results as DPP?

As a follow-up to my earlier no-NR comparison, here's another 7D ISO 6400 image, this time with NR applied in DPP 3.8.1 and ACR 6.2 (none in CS5, however). This one was shot a stop or more too dark, so plenty of noise to work with. I may not know how to use DPP's NR properly, but the ACR conversion looks clearly superior to me. DPP on the left, ACR on the right, 100% crops.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I decided to try again with DPP, since the one above looks so bad. This is the best I could do. If I push the NR more, it really blurs out the details.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Heh! Watch out, there, you are going to make some ACR/LR converts -- not very nice!

tonylong wrote in post #11060077
That's interesting -- I've never messed with an IR converted camera.

It's true that when LR does WB, it has to read a value put into the Exif by Canon and interpret it, and it may not come out exactly the same way as DPP, since DPP has a direct understanding of the values that the camera stores and how they should be interpreted. Fortunately it's quick to pick a WB target in LR as well as DPP.

Curious, did you use green grass, or another specific WB target? And, when you chose the WB target in LR, did it get pretty much the same results as DPP?

The usual green grass method. No adobe product can correctly interpret the IR CWB images. However, they are not alone. Bibble cannot either, tried Capture One and a few others. To date, DPP is the only one that I have found that can produce an image duplicating what is seen on the camera LCD when the shot is taken.

Have you tried just using a WB eyedropper clicker in the other software? How does that compare to the Canon Custom WB?

stsva wrote in post #11060357
I decided to try again with DPP, since the one above looks so bad. This is the best I could do. If I push the NR more, it really blurs out the details.

Do you want to upload the raw-file?
Megaupload.com is great to do that.

tonylong wrote in post #11061968
Have you tried just using a WB eyedropper clicker in the other software? How does that compare to the Canon Custom WB?

Doesn't work. I have tried repeatedly over the last two years with updates of many apps, using both files from a converted 20D and 5D. Other than DPP, they all look similar to this.

Edit: In DPP, the files look like this (which is what they look like on the camera):

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Interesting -- so you are saying that if you click the WB eyedropper on part of the reddish backgound in that image it does not adjust the image?

Could you post a Raw file for that at a site like YouSendIt.com so we can check it out? That's the first I've heard of it. With YouSendIt, if you uplead the Raw file, and give your email address as the "receiver", then you will get a link in your email that you can then post here so that we can download the file.

PeterWem wrote in post #11062809
Do you want to upload the raw-file?
Megaupload.com is great to do that.

No - just showing my NR results on a test image. I'm interested in how well DPP does versus ACR in processing 7D RAW files, especially with regard to noise reduction. If you'd like to post a test image showing a better NR result from DPP, that would be fine.

Yeh, I'd be interested in seeing the Canon Maker's Notes in that.

stsva wrote in post #11063644
No - just showing my NR results on a test image. I'm interested in how well DPP does versus ACR in processing 7D RAW files, especially with regard to noise reduction. If you'd like to post a test image showing a better NR result from DPP, that would be fine.

Here´s a file. Do the best NR you can do and I see if I can do better in DPP 3.9.1.0.

http://www.megaupload.​com/?d=M6EYNVVW

First image, deafult settings in DPP. Second Image, Luminance noise 8/20 and Chrominance noise 12/20. Unsharp mask: strengh 3/10, fineness 5/10 and threshold 2/10.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

PeterWem wrote in post #11062809
Do you want to upload the raw-file?
Megaupload.com is great to do that.

Peter-
I was very tired last night when I first responded to this post - I thought you were offering to "fix" my crappy picture. Thanks for posting your own - I'm very interested in seeing how DPP compares to ACR, and think a lot of other people will be also.

A little crosstown traffic, here. A little confused on who's requesting a raw from whom.