D300 noise and Capture NX

Started Nov 29, 2007 | Discussions thread
LSR Regular Member • Posts: 204
Re: D300 noise and Capture NX

The previous post contains a lot of nonsense. In most images, you
will get MUCH better results convering Nikon RAW files to JPGs using
the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw. You don't have to believe me
or the previous poster. The proof is simple, just try it yourself.

You obviously didn't get the point of the message.

A RAW image is just a file of numbers, and Nikon has NO intrinsic
advantage in interpreting numbers over Adobe, DxO or anyone else. A
Canon RAW file looks just like a Nikon or Sony RAW file, with minor
formatting differences. A number is just a number. How can Nikon NX
"know" that a series of numbers came from a D300? What if I edit the
EXIF header of a Canon RAW file to say it is a Nikon file? How would
Capture NX know?

Try it and see for yourself, then maybe you'll understand. The raw file format isn't as simple as you imply. There's a lot more involved than simply reading an EXIF header. For starters, the raw file format includes proprietary encrypted data, and each camera model requires specific treatment (demosacing, profiles, etc.).

You obviously don't understand that the new Nikon cameras rely on advanced processing to get their best results. The in-camera JPEGs, among other things, are corrected for CA and noise. ACR converted JPEGs are nowhere in the same league. At least not yet. Same with raw files. NX processed raw files are superior to ACR in every way. You may be happy with ACR but if you want to get the most out of the new cameras you're not going to get it with ACR. This is not just my opinion, it's the general consensus from thousands of people who have worked with the new cameras.

Adobe, however, has been taking taking collections of numbers and
turning them into pleasing images for many more years than Nikon or
Canon. Adobe has a professional programming staff that is many times
larger and more experienced than those of Nikon and Canon combined.

The size of their programming staff doesn't mean anything, given that ACR is only a tiny blip in Adobe's software lineup. You don't know how many developers are working on ACR, therefore your point is pointless.

I have made extensive tests of Adobe CS3 Camera Raw, Nikon's latest
Capture NX, and numerous 3rd party software packages. Camera Raw is
by the far the best 95% of the time. Capture NX is sometimes better
for deeply under-exposed images, due to lower mid-tone gamma
defaults, but this can be adjusted easily. Overall, Adobe wins hands
down, but it is quite expensive.

Nikon conversion software has traditionally been one of the better raw converters for NEF files. Not in terms of interface, speed, etc., but in terms of total image quality. Other's have preferred ACR or other third party software. That was then.

All that has changed with the introduction of the new cameras. NX is it if you want to get the quaility the new cameras are capable of. ACR may catch up at some point. It would depend, I guess, on Nikon and how much technology they're willing to share with third party developers.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow