ACR - Don, Gabor and Andrea Nivini

Just to set the record straight, my first article on ACR 4.3.1 was not my own initiative or original work. It was a report, on Photoclubalpha in early December, on an article appearing in Italian Tutti Fotografi magazine by Andrea Nivini, which was headlined on the magazine's cover, claiming that ACR 4.x ruined Alpha 700 files. He was working in October 2007, very close after the launch of the camera, to get his article into a magazine which appeared with a December cover date (the cameras only became available in Europe on October 10th).

It is titled GLI ERRORI DI ADOBE CAMERA RAW.

I made some checks and tests of my own using 4.3.1 to see if anything had changed, and before reading Nivini's article, I assumed like most others that the problems lay in Sony A700 NR and raw format etc. My photoclubalpha article went live on December 23rd.

I don't believe that before this date anyone was suggesting that ACR had the kind of bad programming issues now believed, just that it used an algorithm which didn't suit the raw files well.

Andrea Nivini deserves credit, as do Editrice Progresso S.r.l. for publishing such a detailed article over five pages with 27 examples of 100 per cent detail from ACR, IDC 1 and 2, and DCRAW routines.

http://www.fotografia.it/common/sl_articoli_internet/indice.asp?LANG=I

Article not in their archives yet.

David

--

Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com), dPhotoexpert.com and Master Photo Digital - currently writing tests for f2 and the BJP

David Kilpatrick said:

Just to set the record straight, my first article on ACR 4.3.1 was
not my own initiative or original work.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read that the first time, when I read the article at your site.

David Kilpatrick said:

It was a report, on
Photoclubalpha in early December, on an article appearing in Italian
Tutti Fotografi magazine by Andrea Nivini, which was headlined on the
magazine's cover, claiming that ACR 4.x ruined Alpha 700 files. He
was working in October 2007, very close after the launch of the
camera, to get his article into a magazine which appeared with a
December cover date (the cameras only became available in Europe on
October 10th).

Click to expand...

Yeah, Barry and I were already sniffing the problem out in September and made hundreds of posts regarding A700 watercolors. Too bad I was flamed and hundreds of my posts on this issue were deleted.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25005672

David Kilpatrick said:

It is titled GLI ERRORI DI ADOBE CAMERA RAW.

I made some checks and tests of my own using 4.3.1 to see if anything
had changed, and before reading Nivini's article, I assumed like most
others that the problems lay in Sony A700 NR and raw format etc. My
photoclubalpha article went live on December 23rd.

Click to expand...

Assumed??? Barry and I and others made over 400 posts regarding this issue in September. I figured out it was ACR after Aarif showed me some IDC shots. I purchased in October.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25005672
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=24970404
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=24920476
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=24921855

David Kilpatrick said:

I don't believe that before this date anyone was suggesting that ACR
had the kind of bad programming issues now believed, just that it
used an algorithm which didn't suit the raw files well.

Click to expand...

ACR was so bad we thought the A700 was the problem at first!

David Kilpatrick said:

Andrea Nivini deserves credit, as do Editrice Progresso S.r.l. for
publishing such a detailed article over five pages with 27 examples
of 100 per cent detail from ACR, IDC 1 and 2, and DCRAW routines.

Click to expand...

Yes...but no credit to you for trying to stop the ACR fix. You can't claim you see a problem and then you don't see a problem and then you do see a problem. Geesh.

Myself and Barry were the first around here to notice soemthing going wrong with A700 output. I was the first to alert Dave at IR on raw NR as well.

DK, everybody was all over watercolors from the very beginning. Egon was doing some very good work back on Oct 4, 2007 and proved ACR had big problems.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=25081005&q=acr+watercolors&qf=m

Now you have reported ACR watercolors are just fine and dandy. Wowza. Please man, give us a break on that.

Thanks

Taken from the link...this was posted by Egon on Oct 4, 2007 after he ran some tests. (see previous posts)

"Noise/detail: something has to be very wrong with ACR, because I can see more detail in my bilineal demosaiced image than in ACR... I suppose that heavy noise reduction is happening under the hood, or ir's new demosaicing algoirthm is exagerating noise and NR'ing a lot to hide it. But the worst thing that happens here is ACR NR'ing already NR'd images. That's the problem: the forced luminance NR in ACR converts the soft blotches present in raw and renders them as heavy watercolors.

HelloDolly said:

Taken from the link...this was posted by Egon on Oct 4, 2007 after he
ran some tests. (see previous posts)

"Noise/detail: something has to be very wrong with ACR, because I can
see more detail in my bilineal demosaiced image than in ACR... I
suppose that heavy noise reduction is happening under the hood, or
ir's new demosaicing algoirthm is exagerating noise and NR'ing a lot
to hide it. But the worst thing that happens here is ACR NR'ing
already NR'd images. That's the problem: the forced luminance NR in
ACR converts the soft blotches present in raw and renders them as
heavy watercolors.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is actually the right diganosis because I don't think there are 'soft blotches present in raw' - if there are, you might as well give up now. I think that a specific type of colour NR is being used in ACR which executs colour blur very evenly over a radius with a very sharp falloff , rather than applying a more median-type colour blur. I don't think the luminance NR is the culprit.

I was aware of the problems from Oct 9 when I shot a whole set of pix on the A700 and they were unusable because of the effects, but at that time we were told this was due to being given prototype cameras to use - and the same was said about all previous comments - that the cameras were not final production. I actually sat with a Sony exec and went through images on my laptop.

We then obtained three more A700s - one Hong Kong import, one official loan camera (which did prove better, in fairness, than the prototype - and was given to me on the spot after the laptop discussion), and finally one UK import which we bought/kept.

One thing keeps nagging me. The Hong Kong camera had a CMOS sensor fault, consisting of a strip of affected pixels. These pixels show up perfectly sharp in raw conversions via Adobe. How can Adobe keep the faulty pixels totally crisp but do a lot of smudging of other detail on the same level?

David

--

Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com), dPhotoexpert.com and Master Photo Digital - currently writing tests for f2 and the BJP

David Kilpatrick said:

I made some checks and tests of my own using 4.3.1 to see if anything
had changed, and before reading Nivini's article, I assumed like most
others that the problems lay in Sony A700 NR and raw format etc. My
photoclubalpha article went live on December 23rd.

I don't believe that before this date anyone was suggesting that ACR
had the kind of bad programming issues now believed, just that it
used an algorithm which didn't suit the raw files well.

Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on semantics, but I was pointing at ACR as early as the beginning of September. When Barry was just blindly chanting in nearly every thread it was all Sony's fault. I checked out what was going on in the Canon and Adobe groups and it became clear that Adobe would have to be fixed before we would have a clue as to what was going on in the a700. And I got roundly ignored back then. Few even bothered to go off to the other groups to read what they were saying.

I'm still waiting for the raw converter problems to be fixed. Some converters are better than others, but it's obvious all could use some help.

Walt

I haven't followed every post in all the threads over the last few months about ACR problems, but is it safe to say that the Sony IDC raw converter is fine? I ordered an A700 this week and it will be arriving in a few days so this subject is starting to interest me. The IDC that came with my A100 wasn't the best for workflow, but okay. I suppose the new IDC with the A700 is better. What is the main reason people don't just use the free one from Sony? Does it not give good results or is it the workflow or is it lack of functionality or what?

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

David Kilpatrick said:

HelloDolly said:

Taken from the link...this was posted by Egon on Oct 4, 2007 after he
ran some tests. (see previous posts)

"Noise/detail: something has to be very wrong with ACR, because I can
see more detail in my bilineal demosaiced image than in ACR... I
suppose that heavy noise reduction is happening under the hood, or
ir's new demosaicing algoirthm is exagerating noise and NR'ing a lot
to hide it. But the worst thing that happens here is ACR NR'ing
already NR'd images. That's the problem: the forced luminance NR in
ACR converts the soft blotches present in raw and renders them as
heavy watercolors.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is actually the right diganosis because I don't
think there are 'soft blotches present in raw' - if there are, you
might as well give up now. I think that a specific type of colour NR
is being used in ACR which executs colour blur very evenly over a
radius with a very sharp falloff , rather than applying a more
median-type colour blur. I don't think the luminance NR is the
culprit.

I was aware of the problems from Oct 9 when I shot a whole set of pix
on the A700 and they were unusable because of the effects, but at
that time we were told this was due to being given prototype cameras
to use - and the same was said about all previous comments - that the
cameras were not final production. I actually sat with a Sony exec
and went through images on my laptop.

We then obtained three more A700s - one Hong Kong import, one
official loan camera (which did prove better, in fairness, than the
prototype - and was given to me on the spot after the laptop
discussion), and finally one UK import which we bought/kept.

One thing keeps nagging me. The Hong Kong camera had a CMOS sensor
fault, consisting of a strip of affected pixels. These pixels show up
perfectly sharp in raw conversions via Adobe. How can Adobe keep the
faulty pixels totally crisp but do a lot of smudging of other detail
on the same level?

Click to expand...

I had a sensor like that on my first A700..
Simple the bad pixels are different enough that they don't get seen as noise.

Adobe actually treats some subtle detail worse. In the end I wish they would just give me the choice on what is noise and what is detail.

David Kilpatrick said:

David

--
Publishing & Editing Photoworld (photoclubalpha.com),
dPhotoexpert.com and Master Photo Digital - currently writing tests
for f2 and the BJP

Click to expand...

--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Henry Richardson said:

I haven't followed every post in all the threads over the last few
months about ACR problems, but is it safe to say that the Sony IDC
raw converter is fine?

Click to expand...

Yes, it makes fine conversions...other people like ACR because of workflow ease. I love IDC...but sepending on what you do within it, it can be a bit slow at times. ACR works good on many files, including working fine on most lower ISO files.

Member said:

I ordered an A700 this week and it will be
arriving in a few days so this subject is starting to interest me.
The IDC that came with my A100 wasn't the best for workflow, but
okay. I suppose the new IDC with the A700 is better.

Click to expand...

About the same, it's IDC2 though.

Member said:

What is the
main reason people don't just use the free one from Sony?

Click to expand...

People love to use lightroom for library and ease of workflow.

Member said:

Does it
not give good results or is it the workflow or is it lack of
functionality or what?

Click to expand...

Slow workflow.

Enjoy the camera, you will love it!

Member said:

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Click to expand...

Henry Richardson said:

I haven't followed every post in all the threads over the last few
months about ACR problems, but is it safe to say that the Sony IDC
raw converter is fine? I ordered an A700 this week and it will be
arriving in a few days so this subject is starting to interest me.
The IDC that came with my A100 wasn't the best for workflow, but
okay. I suppose the new IDC with the A700 is better. What is the
main reason people don't just use the free one from Sony? Does it
not give good results or is it the workflow or is it lack of
functionality or what?

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Click to expand...

Personal Opinion:

Sony IDC is better than it is given credit for.. but has rough edges like how it saves file for moving them to PS etc.

It is much better than Adobe LR at high ISO.. but I still think right now Bibble and
ACDSee Pro 2 are best, with RAW therapee close behind. (on PC of course)

Bibble because of Noise Ninjas has the best abillity to reduce detail and retrain noise but almost no photo library function. ACDSee Pro 2 has a very nice library function, and can take some PS plug ins.

I would at look at the trials of each. If you don't shoot above ISO 1250 ever. Than any of the tools is great even LR.

------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Yes, indeed, I do remember Walt being one of the first to talk of it not being the camera and instead being the converter used. (ACR)

Most were ignoring the problem and flaming me back then, Walt. ;-)

You certainly did have your eye on the problem very early.

When the A700 images finally hit the forum many of us started screaming, that fact can not be denied.

Congrats.

Ken_5D said:

Personal Opinion:

Sony IDC is better than it is given credit for.. but has rough edges
like how it saves file for moving them to PS etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I just save the file and since it pops up instantly in bridge or ACDSee with the proper file#, it's easy to hover over it, right click it, and open in PS. It's quick enough once all programs are open.

Since I process individual files it's not much slower than a straight export or whatever.

HelloDolly said:

Yes, indeed, I do remember Walt being one of the first to talk of it
not being the camera and instead being the converter used. (ACR)

Most were ignoring the problem and flaming me back then, Walt. ;-)

You certainly did have your eye on the problem very early.

When the A700 images finally hit the forum many of us started
screaming, that fact can not be denied.

Congrats.

Click to expand...

Don, in all fairness .. you like others still thought it was the camera. And sometimes the good info and expertise you do have to offer gets lost if there are too many posts (heck I over post sometimes too... and it I find I am heard less than if I post once and let people have time to discuss it ask questions)

Problem is some of us love a good spirited debate and that doesn't always allow the more conversational particpants to get a word in.

the thing is some of the bad Adobe images print ok, BUT.. it does limit the ability to prep them for larger prints. I think Adobe went the wrong direction and without any competition.. are hard to get them to change.

Thier non presence at PMA speaks a lot about thier assumption that they don't need to market to photographers anymore.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

HelloDolly said:

Ken_5D said:

Personal Opinion:

Sony IDC is better than it is given credit for.. but has rough edges
like how it saves file for moving them to PS etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I just save the file and since it pops up instantly in
bridge or ACDSee with the proper file#, it's easy to hover over it,
right click it, and open in PS. It's quick enough once all programs
are open.

Since I process individual files it's not much slower than a straight
export or whatever.

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea..

I hadn't thougt about how to get it to hand off to a bridge monitored folder. Good tip!!!
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

David Kilpatrick said:

One thing keeps nagging me. The Hong Kong camera had a CMOS sensor
fault, consisting of a strip of affected pixels. These pixels show up
perfectly sharp in raw conversions via Adobe. How can Adobe keep the
faulty pixels totally crisp but do a lot of smudging of other detail
on the same level?

Click to expand...

Why don't you post such a raw file with a rendering, which shows the faulty pixels?

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm

David Kilpatrick said:

HelloDolly said:

Taken from the link...this was posted by Egon on Oct 4, 2007 after he
ran some tests. (see previous posts)

"Noise/detail: something has to be very wrong with ACR, because I can
see more detail in my bilineal demosaiced image than in ACR... I
suppose that heavy noise reduction is happening under the hood, or
ir's new demosaicing algoirthm is exagerating noise and NR'ing a lot
to hide it. But the worst thing that happens here is ACR NR'ing
already NR'd images. That's the problem: the forced luminance NR in
ACR converts the soft blotches present in raw and renders them as
heavy watercolors.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is actually the right diganosis because I don't
think there are 'soft blotches present in raw' - if there are, you
might as well give up now.

Click to expand...

Partially agreed, it has been demonstrated that improper BL recognition can make an appearance that looks like "soft blotches present in raw" when using ACR....At 6400 this is a fact...at other ISO's it may be more so due to bad LR defaults and who knows what else...I'm not certain it's "NR"...but moreso just a bad conversion all around. Maybe it is NR, BL and others...Adobe is the one that should easily be able to fix it.

Some other converters do not show so many "soft blotches"...When I look at ACD output the "soft blotches" look not much different than any other high ISO files from other cameras.

David Kilpatrick said:

I think that a specific type of colour NR
is being used in ACR which executs colour blur very evenly over a
radius with a very sharp falloff , rather than applying a more
median-type colour blur. I don't think the luminance NR is the
culprit.

Click to expand...

I can't say for sure. All I know is bad BL recognition can make an image appear somewhat NR looking when it was actually only BL that has been changed.

David Kilpatrick said:

I was aware of the problems from Oct 9 when I shot a whole set of pix
on the A700 and they were unusable because of the effects, but at
that time we were told this was due to being given prototype cameras
to use - and the same was said about all previous comments - that the
cameras were not final production. I actually sat with a Sony exec
and went through images on my laptop.

Click to expand...

My problem is that you know there is a problem, and now you try to say there is not, after tons of us had already proved ACR makes watercolors which indeed ruin many an image in comparison to other converters. Your 1600 C1V4 article was one of the latest "proofs" that have been submitted.

I don't care who first discovered it, I only care about being vocal enough to get Adobe to fix it.

David Kilpatrick said:

We then obtained three more A700s - one Hong Kong import, one
official loan camera (which did prove better, in fairness, than the
prototype - and was given to me on the spot after the laptop
discussion), and finally one UK import which we bought/kept.

One thing keeps nagging me. The Hong Kong camera had a CMOS sensor
fault, consisting of a strip of affected pixels. These pixels show up
perfectly sharp in raw conversions via Adobe. How can Adobe keep the
faulty pixels totally crisp but do a lot of smudging of other detail
on the same level?

Click to expand...

Maybe it could ID'd the BL level perfectly ;-)...I dunno. All I know is we need the smudging, artifacts, and blotchy ACR stuff to be fixed by Adobe.

HelloDolly said:

Yeah, Barry and I were already sniffing the problem out in September
and made hundreds of posts regarding A700 watercolors. Too bad I was
flamed and hundreds of my posts on this issue were deleted.

Click to expand...

...

HelloDolly said:

Assumed??? Barry and I and others made over 400 posts regarding this
issue in September. I figured out it was ACR after Aarif showed me
some IDC shots. I purchased in October.

Click to expand...

You won't f...ing shut up after a reasonable effort and your point has been made, so people just tune you out as soon as they figure out that it is you, Don, behind the new user name.

For the record, the only reason that I followed this thread is because David started it, not you. I know that I am far from the only one who automatically ignores you, and it is entirely due to your behavior. If you would stop spamming the forum with the same junk over and over, people might just listen to you on those occasions when you have something useful to say.

Have you ever stopped to think, really think, about why you keep getting kicked off and your posts removed? It is not because you are a martyr.

Please feel free to make whatever lame attempt at a self righteous and insulting retort that you can. I won't be reading it.

Ken_5D said:

HelloDolly said:

Yes, indeed, I do remember Walt being one of the first to talk of it
not being the camera and instead being the converter used. (ACR)

Most were ignoring the problem and flaming me back then, Walt. ;-)

You certainly did have your eye on the problem very early.

When the A700 images finally hit the forum many of us started
screaming, that fact can not be denied.

Congrats.

Click to expand...

Don, in all fairness .. you like others still thought it was the
camera.

Click to expand...

In all fairness? I have had hundreds of posts removed...I purchased in October...Erhmmm...what do you think I did, purchase a faulty camera taht I bashed because I knew it would trash my files? Give me a break!

Geesh...like I said Walt was one of the first to ID ACR.

I am the first to make Adobe aware, supposedly. Who cares, we all know it was not David! The point being David is now trying to say ACR ain't broke!

Ken_5D said:

And sometimes the good info and expertise you do have to
offer gets lost if there are too many posts (heck I over post
sometimes too... and it I find I am heard less than if I post once
and let people have time to discuss it ask questions)

Problem is some of us love a good spirited debate and that doesn't
always allow the more conversational particpants to get a word in.

Click to expand...

I'll let this pass...

Ken_5D said:

the thing is some of the bad Adobe images print ok, BUT.. it does
limit the ability to prep them for larger prints. I think Adobe went
the wrong direction and without any competition.. are hard to get
them to change.

Click to expand...

They just goofed it up, simple as that.

Ken_5D said:

Thier non presence at PMA speaks a lot about thier assumption that

Click to expand...

I dunno, but I believe you have over-posted here. ;-)

Some just refuse to listen and learn. ;-)

Ken_5D said:

HelloDolly said:

Ken_5D said:

Personal Opinion:

Sony IDC is better than it is given credit for.. but has rough edges
like how it saves file for moving them to PS etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I just save the file and since it pops up instantly in
bridge or ACDSee with the proper file#, it's easy to hover over it,
right click it, and open in PS. It's quick enough once all programs
are open.

Since I process individual files it's not much slower than a straight
export or whatever.

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea..
I hadn't thougt about how to get it to hand off to a bridge monitored
folder. Good tip!!!
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Click to expand...

Robert Lynch said:

HelloDolly said:

Yeah, Barry and I were already sniffing the problem out in September
and made hundreds of posts regarding A700 watercolors. Too bad I was
flamed and hundreds of my posts on this issue were deleted.

Click to expand...

...

Robert Lynch said:

Assumed??? Barry and I and others made over 400 posts regarding this
issue in September. I figured out it was ACR after Aarif showed me
some IDC shots. I purchased in October.

Click to expand...

You won't f...ing shut up after a reasonable effort and your point
has been made, so people just tune you out as soon as they figure out
that it is you, Don, behind the new user name.

For the record, the only reason that I followed this thread is
because David started it, not you.

Click to expand...

Too bad he named me in the title of the thread.

Robert Lynch said:

I know that I am far from the
only one who automatically ignores you, and it is entirely due to
your behavior.

Click to expand...

You forgot to ignore me! What gives?

Robert Lynch said:

If you would stop spamming the forum with the same
junk over and over, people might just listen to you on those
occasions when you have something useful to say.

Click to expand...

It's the truth, deal with it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=26897089

Robert Lynch said:

Have you ever stopped to think, really think, about why you keep
getting kicked off and your posts removed? It is not because you are
a martyr.

Click to expand...

I ain't kicked off and my posts are not being removed.

Robert Lynch said:

Please feel free to make whatever lame attempt at a self righteous
and insulting retort that you can. I won't be reading it.

Click to expand...

You are the one tossing insults, not me.