Kalpanika and my SD15(s)

This is just my initial findings using the Kalpanika conversion software - it is NO test, review or even remotely a qualified evaluation of the software. I might do something wrong, so advice are most welcome.

I previously tried the 0.53 version, but for some mysterious reason the pictures were purple (or green?), and even Roland couldn't find a solution to the problem.

But this 0.54 version actually works with my SD15 files and my computer-setup.

I normally use SPP for converting the .x3f files to .tiff before i post process in Lightroom and/or Photoshop. Therefore i have focused on this comparison.

First i converted the same picture with SPP to .tiff, and then made a .tiff and a .dng with Kalpanika, they are all corrected for color (using the back wall as reference):

.tiff from SPP .tiff from Kalpanika .dng from Kalpanika

The Kalpanika .tiff is way off - but the .dng is really good:

As i interpret the histogram, the dynamic range seems better used with the .dng picture - i have tried to stretch the range of the .tiff in LR, but don't get as good a result as the .dng.

When i compare the SPP .tiff (left) with the dng, the .dng has much more life and depth - try to look at the eyes, they are more white and more blue.

So from my point of view, i cannot use the Kalpanika .tiff files - but who cares when i have the good .dng's!

From the darkest corner of the picture i looked at the noise - and i can't see any difference in noise level between the SPP .tiff and the Kalpanika .dng - the level is as expected from the sensor..... But also here i think that it looks to me like the the depth is better with the .dng.

When i convert from .x3f to .dng using Kalpanika, the color are far from the SPP and the real life:

But a simple 'eye-dropper' correction does the trick - but how come the color is so wrong?

Again compared to SPP, there isn't that much difference after doing some small corrections to color and contrast:

But also in this case, the dynamic range and depth of the .dng picture looks better than the SPP to .tiff conversion.

AND/BUT - by the way - there is NO EXIF information in the neither the .tiff's nor the .dng's!! Did i miss something?

So my personal conclusion is, that i think i will use Kalpanika when i need as good a depth as possible - and SPP for all the other pictures, because the much easier interface with SPP, even though i have done my share of DOS prompt and Linux shell stuff, i like a graphic GUI. BUT great job by from the Kalpanika guys!