C1LE Plastic Image Definition Example

[pschia]

With C1LE, I find that I need to do much less post-processing like
color correction, white balance correction, USM, noise reduction,
etc than when I was using BB. In fact, most of the time, I found
that I did not need to carry out any more USM if I had carried out
sharpness adjustments within C1LE.

I had downloaded your RAW file and gave it a try on C1LE the way I
would do my own RAW files with EC, contrast, grey balance, curve,
BP/WP, sharpness adjustments, etc. Here's the result against your
original BB conversion:



Perhaps now you might say 'hey, the dope oversharpened them' but
that is subjective and depends much on personal preferences. But my
point is that I could sharpen it during raw conversion with C1LE
and save myself the trouble of carrying out further sharpening
afterwards; and C1LE give the user much better control over the
degree of sharpening than BB.

Pschia, I've tried every setting/sharpening I could with C1LE and
still get a loss of definition. I guess I couldn't win, if I had
sharpened them at all then someone like you would say, well the
dope oversharpened them. But sharpening's not the issue.

So, if you think you can get a perfect image out of this, then
download the raw file I've provided and show us! But please don't
insult someone you know nothing about.

David

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

 

[Don Lashier]

Don, this looks better, but I still see some loss of detail.

Sorry, I just don't see what you're talking about. One thing I've noticed from looking at many, many comparisions is that there is essentially no difference in real detail resolution between the various converters - detail is determined by the camera. But the various converters do treat tonality differently, particularly in shadows and highlights, and tonality is key to perception of detail.

Perhaps our tastes or expectations are just different, but I've never had the slightest issue with detail or 'plasticky' look with my 1D images. To my eye they look a lot more like film than what I get from other converters.

• DL

Here's a C1 version with only tonality adjusted. I've perhaps
overdone it a bit to illustrate the point, but all I did was adjust
BP slightly and apply a slight curve.

NICE image btw! It's beautiful, nicely composed, exposed, etc. etc.

• DL

• Dl

I've really struggled with C1. I really like the software, the
workflow, and the color balance. What I can't seem to deal with
though is the loss of detail in the image. I'll call it image
definition. Take a look at the examples...These are full size crops
from a raw 10D image.

The first one was done using BreezeBrowser, no sharpening applied



The second one is with C1, As shot settings with Sharpening
disabled in preferences, and noise reduction at low.



I tried to get them as close as possible, I know the color is a bit
more robust in the C1 image. But aside from the color, do you see
the difference in the leaves, the brush, and the tree trunk? I
think it's that plastic look people have been describing. I've
tried all different settings with C1 and had zero luck improving
the image. The BB image is soft, but the detail in the leaves is
clearly there.

For those who want to play around, here's a link to a ZIP file that
contains the RAW file, full size JPGs of the C1 & BB versions and
these two crops:

http://davidbostock.com/files/BBvC1.zip

Let me know what you all think. I'd like to use C1, but not with
this look.

--
db

--
http://www.lashier.com

--
db

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[Eric Cohen]

This is very useful, and interesting. Thanks for taking the time.

I would love to know what settings you used for Gray balance, exposure, and what you did with curves and levels. If it were easy could you share your values or post a pic of them?

Still trying to learn the program. Great job.

Eric

With C1LE, I find that I need to do much less post-processing like
color correction, white balance correction, USM, noise reduction,
etc than when I was using BB. In fact, most of the time, I found
that I did not need to carry out any more USM if I had carried out
sharpness adjustments within C1LE.

I had downloaded your RAW file and gave it a try on C1LE the way I
would do my own RAW files with EC, contrast, grey balance, curve,
BP/WP, sharpness adjustments, etc. Here's the result against your
original BB conversion:



Perhaps now you might say 'hey, the dope oversharpened them' but
that is subjective and depends much on personal preferences. But my
point is that I could sharpen it during raw conversion with C1LE
and save myself the trouble of carrying out further sharpening
afterwards; and C1LE give the user much better control over the
degree of sharpening than BB.

Pschia, I've tried every setting/sharpening I could with C1LE and
still get a loss of definition. I guess I couldn't win, if I had
sharpened them at all then someone like you would say, well the
dope oversharpened them. But sharpening's not the issue.

So, if you think you can get a perfect image out of this, then
download the raw file I've provided and show us! But please don't
insult someone you know nothing about.

David

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

 

[David Bostock]

Thanks for the clarification Pschia, I appreciate it.

I see that you've improved the image nicely. Thanks. guess it really boils down to personal taste. When I look at the C1 images I see less "realizm" than the BB or FUV images. Could be it's just me.

Thanks for the exercise anyway.

Cheers,
David

With C1LE, I find that I need to do much less post-processing like
color correction, white balance correction, USM, noise reduction,
etc than when I was using BB. In fact, most of the time, I found
that I did not need to carry out any more USM if I had carried out
sharpness adjustments within C1LE.

I had downloaded your RAW file and gave it a try on C1LE the way I
would do my own RAW files with EC, contrast, grey balance, curve,
BP/WP, sharpness adjustments, etc. Here's the result against your
original BB conversion:



Perhaps now you might say 'hey, the dope oversharpened them' but
that is subjective and depends much on personal preferences. But my
point is that I could sharpen it during raw conversion with C1LE
and save myself the trouble of carrying out further sharpening
afterwards; and C1LE give the user much better control over the
degree of sharpening than BB.

Pschia, I've tried every setting/sharpening I could with C1LE and
still get a loss of definition. I guess I couldn't win, if I had
sharpened them at all then someone like you would say, well the
dope oversharpened them. But sharpening's not the issue.

So, if you think you can get a perfect image out of this, then
download the raw file I've provided and show us! But please don't
insult someone you know nothing about.

David

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

--
db

 

[Al Pacheco]

I've viewed all of the so-called improvements offered for your image and not one comes close to the clarity and sparkle that the basic BreezeBrowser (SDK) conversion provides.

Granted, the colors are superior (IMO) via C1, but there is a loss of local contrast at the individual pixel level which actually makes your C1 image look like it was taken with a much cheaper camera. At a 100% size it is very obvious.

Can you alter this in post-processing? Sure...depending upon you skill-level with a good editor. But should you have to?

I see that you've improved the image nicely. Thanks. guess it
really boils down to personal taste. When I look at the C1 images I
see less "realizm" than the BB or FUV images. Could be it's just me.

Thanks for the exercise anyway.

Cheers,
David

With C1LE, I find that I need to do much less post-processing like
color correction, white balance correction, USM, noise reduction,
etc than when I was using BB. In fact, most of the time, I found
that I did not need to carry out any more USM if I had carried out
sharpness adjustments within C1LE.

I had downloaded your RAW file and gave it a try on C1LE the way I
would do my own RAW files with EC, contrast, grey balance, curve,
BP/WP, sharpness adjustments, etc. Here's the result against your
original BB conversion:



Perhaps now you might say 'hey, the dope oversharpened them' but
that is subjective and depends much on personal preferences. But my
point is that I could sharpen it during raw conversion with C1LE
and save myself the trouble of carrying out further sharpening
afterwards; and C1LE give the user much better control over the
degree of sharpening than BB.

Pschia, I've tried every setting/sharpening I could with C1LE and
still get a loss of definition. I guess I couldn't win, if I had
sharpened them at all then someone like you would say, well the
dope oversharpened them. But sharpening's not the issue.

So, if you think you can get a perfect image out of this, then
download the raw file I've provided and show us! But please don't
insult someone you know nothing about.

David

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

--
db

 

[Al Pacheco]

Thinking that this issue is profile related I aplied the C1 10D generic profile to the Canon-processed image. The colors were altered, of course, but the detail stayed crisp and separated. The profile does alter the exposure/contrast of the image....a no-no in my book. But the actual conversion process needs to be addressed by the programmers.

I see that you've improved the image nicely. Thanks. guess it
really boils down to personal taste. When I look at the C1 images I
see less "realizm" than the BB or FUV images. Could be it's just me.

Thanks for the exercise anyway.

Cheers,
David

With C1LE, I find that I need to do much less post-processing like
color correction, white balance correction, USM, noise reduction,
etc than when I was using BB. In fact, most of the time, I found
that I did not need to carry out any more USM if I had carried out
sharpness adjustments within C1LE.

I had downloaded your RAW file and gave it a try on C1LE the way I
would do my own RAW files with EC, contrast, grey balance, curve,
BP/WP, sharpness adjustments, etc. Here's the result against your
original BB conversion:



Perhaps now you might say 'hey, the dope oversharpened them' but
that is subjective and depends much on personal preferences. But my
point is that I could sharpen it during raw conversion with C1LE
and save myself the trouble of carrying out further sharpening
afterwards; and C1LE give the user much better control over the
degree of sharpening than BB.

Pschia, I've tried every setting/sharpening I could with C1LE and
still get a loss of definition. I guess I couldn't win, if I had
sharpened them at all then someone like you would say, well the
dope oversharpened them. But sharpening's not the issue.

So, if you think you can get a perfect image out of this, then
download the raw file I've provided and show us! But please don't
insult someone you know nothing about.

David

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

--
db

 

[David Bostock]

You articulated it much better than I did.

Cheers,
David

I see that you've improved the image nicely. Thanks. guess it
really boils down to personal taste. When I look at the C1 images I
see less "realizm" than the BB or FUV images. Could be it's just me.

Thanks for the exercise anyway.

Cheers,
David

With C1LE, I find that I need to do much less post-processing like
color correction, white balance correction, USM, noise reduction,
etc than when I was using BB. In fact, most of the time, I found
that I did not need to carry out any more USM if I had carried out
sharpness adjustments within C1LE.

I had downloaded your RAW file and gave it a try on C1LE the way I
would do my own RAW files with EC, contrast, grey balance, curve,
BP/WP, sharpness adjustments, etc. Here's the result against your
original BB conversion:



Perhaps now you might say 'hey, the dope oversharpened them' but
that is subjective and depends much on personal preferences. But my
point is that I could sharpen it during raw conversion with C1LE
and save myself the trouble of carrying out further sharpening
afterwards; and C1LE give the user much better control over the
degree of sharpening than BB.

Pschia, I've tried every setting/sharpening I could with C1LE and
still get a loss of definition. I guess I couldn't win, if I had
sharpened them at all then someone like you would say, well the
dope oversharpened them. But sharpening's not the issue.

So, if you think you can get a perfect image out of this, then
download the raw file I've provided and show us! But please don't
insult someone you know nothing about.

David

--
My Canon EOS D60 Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/cichlids
http://www.pbase.com/pschia/canon_cats

--
db

--
db

 

[David Bostock]

You were able to make it work nicely Daniele. Which camera do you have?

Hi, I've done a similar test using BB and C1 DSLR.
Four samples.
First, BB vs C1 with default settings.
Second, BB vs C1 with my standard USM (radius 2, amount 100).
IMHO, C1 is always superior.
ps: I know it's out of focus, the subject (my daughter) is not
included
-
BB no USM



C1 no USM



-
BB w/ USM



C1 w/ USM



ciao
-----------------------------------
daniele borghi
http://www.casaborghi.it
-----------------------------------

--
db

 

[David Bostock]

http://davidbostock.com/files/10DRaw.zip

could u please post just the raw file (should be half the size of
current zip)?
tnx

----------------------------
daniele borghi
http://www.casaborghi.it
----------------------------

--
db

 

[dab63]

You were able to make it work nicely Daniele. Which camera do you
have?

EOS 10D
Canon lense EF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6

ciao

--------------------------------
daniele borghi
http://www.casaborghi.it

 

[Mishkin]

This was an example given by iirc John Davis to illustrate C1's sharpness. Well, by applying a simple USM 100/1/0 in PS to FVU image, I got the same sharpness and detail as C1's image. Which proved that C1 DOES NOT HAVE ANY EDGE IN SHARPNESS.

But look at that plastic look of leaves! So flat and plastic as if a shot from Mavica or something.

--
Mishkin

 

[dab63]

Just converted your raw with my default settings .. C1's jpg is really 'plastic'!

For me, it's the first time it happens, and I'm wondering which is the parameter giving such result.

An hypothesis: exposure time is 5 second, so for sure there is a micro-movement of subject (due to wind); maybe C1 translates it in a sort of out of focus result?
Can you perform a similar test with a shorter exposure time (1/60 or less)?
Ciao
--
Here are results with your raw file.
BreezeBrowser



C1



---------------------------------
daniele borghi
http://www.casaborghi.it

 

[Mishkin]

Is it after some "impressionistic filter" in PS or something? You just made an image even more plastic!

--
Mishkin

 

[Don Lashier]

Now I'm beginning to understand. Those who complain of 'plastic just don't like the very thing I love about C1 - its even tonality that gives filmlike depth to an image - preferring instead the P&S look provided by overall contast boost like RIC and CR give at default settings. But I did admit to overdoing this particular example to illustrate the importance of contrast to detail perception and I admit that the over enhanced contrast gives a somewhat artificial look.

I'm still having a hard time getting a grip on what defines 'plastic'. The original post showed a C1 shot with low local contrast resulting in a soft flat look and complaining of lack of detail. Several of us provided tweaked C1 versions that showed detail at least equal to the BB version but then the complaint is it's even more 'plastic'. When folks point out 'plastic' what I see is nice tonal representation, something I consider a plus and miss from shooting chrome.

I'm afraid we'll never agree on this. It's a matter of taste I suppose. To each his own. I think this particular image really shines in C1, with a few appropriate tweaks (less severe than what I did for illustrative purposes). But like I said, that's a matter of taste.

• DL

--
Mishkin

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[Don Lashier]

This was an example given by iirc John Davis to illustrate C1's
sharpness. Well, by applying a simple USM 100/1/0 in PS to FVU
image, I got the same sharpness and detail as C1's image. Which
proved that C1 DOES NOT HAVE ANY EDGE IN SHARPNESS.

My gawd Mishkin, do you really believe this? Get a grip ;-)

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[Don Lashier]

I have said many times that most of the time detail does not vary significantly from converter to converter. This assumes that tonality differences are equalized.

• DL

This was an example given by iirc John Davis to illustrate C1's
sharpness. Well, by applying a simple USM 100/1/0 in PS to FVU
image, I got the same sharpness and detail as C1's image. Which
proved that C1 DOES NOT HAVE ANY EDGE IN SHARPNESS.

My gawd Mishkin, do you really believe this? Get a grip ;-)

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[Michael Jonsson]

I second you Don, but this sample provided by David Bosstok IS
rather strange. I tried to convert it with the Full C1 and see the same
thing as in the samples provided by David. I have used C1 since
December last year with my 1D and never seen something like this.

I noticed that this is a 5 second exposure and wondered if that may
have something to with the obvious lack of fine details.
I have noticed that C1 do a similar thing on the 1D on longer
exposure times but with a lot more success. In any case, I think this
is an issue Capture One needs to address.

Forget about Mishkin, he just hates capture one … but apparently
he has bought the software, since his trial must be long overdue now (!)

This was an example given by iirc John Davis to illustrate C1's
sharpness. Well, by applying a simple USM 100/1/0 in PS to FVU
image, I got the same sharpness and detail as C1's image. Which
proved that C1 DOES NOT HAVE ANY EDGE IN SHARPNESS.

My gawd Mishkin, do you really believe this? Get a grip ;-)

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[Don Lashier]

I think that this particular example is mostly a case of the foliage detail falling in an unfortunate part of the tonal curve (easily corrected, or over-corrected like I did), but I agree that there may be a little tweaking needed with the green curve for the 10D profile based on at least one other sample (as well as possibly this one).

• DL

I noticed that this is a 5 second exposure and wondered if that may
have something to with the obvious lack of fine details.
I have noticed that C1 do a similar thing on the 1D on longer
exposure times but with a lot more success. In any case, I think this
is an issue Capture One needs to address.

Forget about Mishkin, he just hates capture one … but apparently
he has bought the software, since his trial must be long overdue
now (!)

This was an example given by iirc John Davis to illustrate C1's
sharpness. Well, by applying a simple USM 100/1/0 in PS to FVU
image, I got the same sharpness and detail as C1's image. Which
proved that C1 DOES NOT HAVE ANY EDGE IN SHARPNESS.

My gawd Mishkin, do you really believe this? Get a grip ;-)

• DL

--
http://www.lashier.com

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[bdnc]

it does look like it had a art filter applied. Did you do anything else in PS? Look at the leaves in the center tree - or the rocks in the far left...

I'm still having a hard time getting a grip on what defines
'plastic'. The original post showed a C1 shot with low local
contrast resulting in a soft flat look and complaining of lack of
detail. Several of us provided tweaked C1 versions that showed
detail at least equal to the BB version but then the complaint is
it's even more 'plastic'. When folks point out 'plastic' what I see
is nice tonal representation, something I consider a plus and miss
from shooting chrome.

I'm afraid we'll never agree on this. It's a matter of taste I
suppose. To each his own. I think this particular image really
shines in C1, with a few appropriate tweaks (less severe than what
I did for illustrative purposes). But like I said, that's a matter
of taste.

• DL

--
Mishkin

--
http://www.lashier.com

 

[MichaelT]

David,

I have been following this post and did not want to respond until we had something based in research and fact. Sorry for the delay...

The Noise Reduction in C1 is based on many parameters including camera, ISO, exposure time, etc. There was a flaw in some of the 10D parameters that caused excessive NR to be applied on this 5 second exposure.

These parameters are now in the process of being optimized for the final relase version of 1.2.

I have seen some preliminary test results which lead me to believe that when the 10D parameters are finalized in the Release version of V1.2 (both Pro and LE) that you will be extremely pleased.

Sorry for this problem in the RC version and we thank you for brining this to our attention.

Of course the Final Release version 1.2 of both LE and Pro are free upgrades to current or future users of the RC versions.

Thanks again for the feedback..

--
Regards,

Michael Tapes
(Capture One - YarcPlus - Archive Creator)
http://www.PictureFlow.com
http://www.michaeltapes.com