Has anyone seen this or think this is true

My experience with Canon software is very good. I think DPP 3.4.1 works just fine but as many programs it needs a good processor and memory. I'm running it with a Dual core 2160 cpu and 1Gbyte RAM, and runs beautifully even with Zoombrowser, Photoshop CS-3, Noiseware and Irfanview, all together with Firefox and Thunderbird, on Windows XP. Probably Vista machines can have more problems because of Vista problems.

Miguel

JimH said:

Two things:

First, your point about fit to window is reasonable. You NEVER want
to judge sharpness, jaggies, etc., on a strange multiplier of
magnification because you're at the mercy of the rendering algorithms
of your viewer. At 25, 50, and 100%, then things are usually much
better because even a sleazy interpolation algorithm can work fairly
well.

Click to expand...

You may not want to judge sharpness at anything other than 100% magnification, but the fact of the matter is, DPP is fully capable of showing completely clear images when set to Fit to Window, just NOT when that is set to the default view.

JimH said:

But I do use the "fit to window" mode myself and haven't noticed
problems. Then again, I zoom in to 100% to judge sharpness.

Click to expand...

You do not see problems when you set your view back to Fit to Window, because the fuzzy image problem only occurs when your DEFAULT view is set to Fit to Window. Once you render your image at 100% and then switch back to Fit to Window, it will look completely CLEAR, just like the 100% view.

JimH said:

Also, the program throws up a "quick and dirty" preview while it
decodes the entire RAW file for proper rendering. So regardless of
the magnification at which you view, for a few seconds after you've
first opened a file, the image will be fuzzy and bad.

Click to expand...

This is the first step in rendering the image which lasts for only maybe half a second, and very quickly changes to the 2nd step.

JimH said:

Then, once
your computer has time to fully decode the image, it'll clear up.
You can watch this happen. Depending on how fast your computer is,
this will take some variable amount of time on each shot.

Click to expand...

This is where you are missing a step. The crucial point here is if your default view is set to Fit to Window, it will render the 2nd step which looks very close to the final image but is NOT the final fully clear image that is rendered only after the 3rd step. With Fit to Window set as your default, the image will NEVER clear up on its own, even if you wait forever. It's only if you view at 100% will the third and final step take place after a couple of seconds. This is obviously a bug in the software, just like the inability to have the tool palette docked rather than remain floating in all versions since 3.0.

JimH said:

So you do need to get used to the fact that initially, you'll be
presented with a crummy preview which is silently replaced by the
full-resolution version when your computer completes it.

I figure a lot of people are judging things by that initially
presented preview and NOT by the fully decoded version that follows.
The slower the computer, the longer this takes, and the more likely
someone would be to complain.

Click to expand...

Speed has very little to do with it. If the program were working correctly, it would eventually complete the third and final stage in rendering when set to Fit to Window, even if it takes a few seconds on a slow computer. The fact is, the rendering stops in the second step, leaving the image slightly blurred no matter how long you wait, unless the image view was set to default at 100%.

paparios said:

My experience with Canon software is very good. I think DPP 3.4.1
works just fine but as many programs it needs a good processor and
memory. I'm running it with a Dual core 2160 cpu and 1Gbyte RAM, and
runs beautifully even with Zoombrowser, Photoshop CS-3, Noiseware and
Irfanview, all together with Firefox and Thunderbird, on Windows XP.
Probably Vista machines can have more problems because of Vista
problems.

Miguel

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that DPP isn't good software. It produces excellent output for my RAW images. But like any software, it is not without some bugs that may need to be worked around. In case you're wondering, I am running it on a decent quad-core machine running at 3.2 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. It is running Vista, but I have my doubts as to whether that really changes the behaviour of how DPP renders images.

Hi,

if you open the original in camera jpg you will notice it's sharpness quality is about the same as step 2 of the computer RAW proccessing. Once step 3 comes in the picture is much sharper. Goes to show Raw is the way too go....... )

I DO have mine set to use "Fit to Window" as the default view, and have not noticed what you describe.

The "fit to window" image gets nice and clear on its own.

I'm running Windows 2000 Pro.

Vista may have problems with DPP - or rather DPP may have problems with Vista. This would not be surprising.

Who knows. But the point is that it appears that you're seeing something that many others are not. There must be a reason for that difference.

--
Jim H.

Jim,

I investigated your claim that this could be a Vista issue, and loaded DPP in another machine running Windows XP to see if I could recreate the same problem. Lo and behold, it appears that you are right. On the XP machine, I could see no fuzziness once the initial pixelated image clears up, even with the default view set to Fit to Window. It would appear that this problem is limited primarily to systems running Vista, and probably explains why some people are seeing the issue, while others do not.

JimH said:

I DO have mine set to use "Fit to Window" as the default view, and
have not noticed what you describe.

The "fit to window" image gets nice and clear on its own.

I'm running Windows 2000 Pro.

Vista may have problems with DPP - or rather DPP may have problems
with Vista. This would not be surprising.

Who knows. But the point is that it appears that you're seeing
something that many others are not. There must be a reason for that
difference.

--
Jim H.

Click to expand...

QuantumRealityBytes said:

I noticed that when viewing in the edit window (especially viewing at
100%) it goes through 2 separate stages in clarifying the image. I
have a relatively slow computer so sometimes the second stage can
take up to 20 sec or so. While it's finished the first stage the IQ
does look really bad, but after the second stage it looks crystal
clear. I'm not sure what version of DPP this started happening in
since I didn't notice it when I first started using DPP with version
2. Perhaps this is the problem? I know the image in the edit window
is accurate to the pixel level since I can see the noise pixels in
high ISO images. After all, if it works for 1 image it will work for
all.

Click to expand...

two stage process here too, but rather of order of 1-1.5 sec, than 20 sec.
on XT and 2000serverPro, and it makes no difference whether XTi or 40d;
no other issues described in OP - all crystal clear, also no GUI
problems - all is working,

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/

i neglected to add earlier - my primary PC runs Vista home premium and I don't have a problem. I didn't see the problem with my earlier XP home PC, or my current XP Pro notebook.

jkuo said:

I investigated your claim that this could be a Vista issue, and
loaded DPP in another machine running Windows XP to see if I could
recreate the same problem. Lo and behold, it appears that you are
right. On the XP machine, I could see no fuzziness once the initial
pixelated image clears up, even with the default view set to Fit to
Window. It would appear that this problem is limited primarily to
systems running Vista, and probably explains why some people are
seeing the issue, while others do not.

JimH said:

I DO have mine set to use "Fit to Window" as the default view, and
have not noticed what you describe.

The "fit to window" image gets nice and clear on its own.

I'm running Windows 2000 Pro.

Vista may have problems with DPP - or rather DPP may have problems
with Vista. This would not be surprising.

Who knows. But the point is that it appears that you're seeing
something that many others are not. There must be a reason for that
difference.

--
Jim H.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Best regards,
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

No problems here. I have DPP 3.4.1, but don't use it. Checked to see if any of the problems came up. Works nice and fast.

iMac Intel 24", OS 10.5.3

Using 3.4.1 - Dell PC Core 2 dual, 3gig RAM. Didnt notice the 2 stage thg at all.
Working on RAW images only in DPP. All 350D RAW file
--
Adrian

The following is what I'm seeing in DPP on my Vista machine:

http://picasaweb.google.com/jkuo01/DPPTest/photo#5215686288983858370

Be sure to click the magnify button to the top right of the image to see an unscaled picture.

The picture to the left shows a 100% crop of the image in the edit window when it is first brought up with Fit to Window set as the default. The image to the right shows the same crop of the image after the view has been magnified to 100% and then brought back down to Fit to Window. Notice the differences in clarity and detail in the image, especially the thread pattern in the baseball cap and in the eye. The difference may be subtle and may not be noticed at first (or at all by some people) but it is definitely there.

I updated recently to DPP 4.1 from it's previous version and never experienced these problems on either version. The rendering of an image in DPP happens in the blink of an eye.

I have Vista Home premium with 2GB RAM and an Intel 6420 Core Duo processor. My graphics card is Nvidia Ge-Force 8500 GT.

It's maybe all to do with the computer set up rather than the software. Perhaps even other installed software causing conflict.

I've added my post to this thread but it seems to have gone further up in the list.

I usually work in DPP from a quite slow laptop. I can accept that there is a delay in showing the sharp image (can take up to 20s for a RAW file for me), but at least I would like to have an indicator somewhere on the screen showing that DPP is still working.

Sometimes, I am waiting for the sharp image to appear, and then realise after a while that my picture is blurry...

--
Patrick Jollain

Canon EOS-40D
Lenses:

• Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
• Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
• Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM
• Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
• Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

Flash:

• Canon Speedlite 580EX II

Misc:

• Sony GPS-CS1 tracker

I don't use DPP but had a thought about your problems.

Could it be anything to do with the quality of JPEG saved with the RAW file? ie. DPP is using the thumbnail for the first low quality render and then replaces it with the encoded JPEG for the second stage. The quality is dependant on level of compression in the encoded file, those that store a high qualty JPEG may not notice any difference between this and the third stage RAW decode.

Also if no JPEG is saved with the RAW then the rendering will go straight from the thumbnail to the RAW decode which would appear to take longer.

Please ignore this if it's obvious that I don't know what i'm talking about

David

Hi David,

Nice from you trying to help, but:
-DPP doesn't use embedded jpg image at all... never.

-all Canon raw (CR2) files contain embedded jpg image (even when shooting raw only).

Btw. DPP works excellent for me. Of course, if someone must waiting 20sec for 100%-zoom size image, then new (faster) PC must be considered. On my PC, this happens in about 2 seconds.

Greetings,
Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/

Hi Patrick,

Patrick J. said:

I usually work in DPP from a quite slow laptop. I can accept that
there is a delay in showing the sharp image (can take up to 20s for a
RAW file for me), but at least I would like to have an indicator
somewhere on the screen showing that DPP is still working.

Click to expand...

I can understand your frustration... but, it's just a fact, that raw developing is quite CPU intensive operation -not something one would do on "average" laptop (at least this can't be long term solution). On my "average" PC, it takes max 2sec to get full resolution image (a second longer if noise reduction is applied). And then... at least 19" monitor (22" much better) is needed for serious work, IMO.

Patrick J. said:

Sometimes, I am waiting for the sharp image to appear, and then
realise after a while that my picture is blurry...

Click to expand...

LOL ...sorry, coudn't resist But agree, indiacation "still working..." would be welcome in this case

Greetings,
Bogdan
--
My pictures are my memories
http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/

Hi,

I finally found some images I could use to see the issue as you pointed it out. I have to say, although not noticed before, I have the same issue. but I think I may know what it is.

When you view at 100% you have a 3 level preview alogorythm run against the image. You can see this in my earlier post. When you open to fit to view the system seems to only run the first two levels and not the third definative level bringing out the high end detail.

The picture I used was of a folded tissue table center piece of fairly high contrast. When first opened to fit the folded paper edges had some software jagies that went over the pixel to pixel of my laptop. Going 100% and back to fit got rid of the software jagies and then only the display jagieness remained.

I hadn't noticed this as much as I almost always go imediately to 100% or open that way from the get go. Untill Canon can fix this problem I guess we should open at 100% and once resolved go to fit to window.

EDIT:

I should note that at 50% view the third level preview algorthm is not run against the image but it is at 200%.

Obviously it is possible to write "tests" WITHOUT ANY understanding or real experience using some software . And even to give advice ...

DPP is perhaps not the fastest and most streamlined application there is but price/quality ratio is unbeatable ! When i started using it as a RAW conversion + minimal PP tool i postponed my shopping of some more expensive software (Aperture). It works very well for my needs - and fast/sharp enough (100% view goes almost to the pixel level...) on my iMac.
I recommend the 3.4.1version ( if somebody asks)

--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E

Hi,

Using Vista SP1 I have a cpu monitor on the side so I get to see it working/loaded. My laptop is a 17" XT5000T 1440x900 upgraded with an AMD dual core T-64, 4 gigs 800 Mhz dual channel ram, Raid0 2x160 gig SATA II drives and Draft n.