DPP vs Capture One version 3, 4 and 5?

[Cabana Boy]

Being a Canon 10D shooter, using Capture One Version 3, and now reluctantly version 4 (occasionally), I see I need to upgrade to Capture One version 5 to get support for the Canon 7D. Concurrently, I checked out the DPP tutorial and noted that the work flow seems very similar to Capture One version 3. The workflow for Capture One versions 4 and 5 are WAY different than version 3, which I really like.

I have not yet plopped down the money for the 7D but plan to do so soon. In the mean time, I'm wondering if anyone can speak to DPP vs. Capture One in terms of quality and workflow...?

It just kills me to have to upgrade my processing software, when all I should really need is a profile update specific to a newly purchased camera.

http://www.douglaswalch.com

 

[VincentJ]

DPP is all right for the price, i.e., free. If you take the quality of raw conversion, there is absolutely no comparison. C1 literally destroys DPP with the amount of fine detail it's able to get out of a raw, the accurate color balance which needs no tweaks, and the contrast curves that are just right.

I've been trying out C1-v5 for a few days now. The portrait retouching and color correction tools are superb. Subtle but effective. The sharpness / focus masks are very useful.

I am really not sure what they do in C1, I can't attribute it to any particular control or tool, but the final output from C1 far exceeds the quality of anything coming out of DPP. It just looks correct.

I can say the same thing when comparing C1 and adobe lightroom or bibble. Lightroom tries to be everything in one package, but the raw conversions lack that pop which I find in C1.

 

[imbsysop]

DPP is all right for the price, i.e., free. If you take the quality of raw conversion, there is absolutely no comparison. C1 literally destroys DPP with the amount of fine detail it's able to get out of a raw, the accurate color balance which needs no tweaks, and the contrast curves that are just right.

Plse elaborate on that "getting more detail" statement? For AFAIK a demosaic raw converter should not do anything more than calculate/rebuild the real color and construct an individual pixel from a single color filter mediated luminance measuring point. I fail to see the "more detail" as it is not adding nor substracting pixels .?? Unless the operation is doing more processing than just that ??

--
if needed, email me at : [email protected]
Horum Omnium Fortissimi Sunt Belgae !
(CanFT-QL)Can40DCan400DS17-70S105S18-200OSSonH5CanA520-M3358-DH1758

 

[VincentJ]

Just calling it like I see it, I don't have the skills or the time to get into the technical analysis of these programs. The C1 conversions come out crisp, appear to have more detail. The DPP and LR outputs lack that crispness and appear softer. It takes a heck of a lot of post processing to bring them up to the level of C1's sharpness, and in most cases the detail just isn't there.

I'm talking of stuff like fine facial hair on small babies, the details which can be clearly seen on the C1 output is just soft on DPP/LR. Strands of hair on the eyebrows come out distinct and clear in C1, but DPP/LR output doesn't give me that clear separation between the hairs. Something with fine texture like a cloth cushion cover... with C1 you can clearly see the fiber strands, but they are just a little smudged with DPP/LR. I could go on... but you get the gist.

DPP is all right for the price, i.e., free. If you take the quality of raw conversion, there is absolutely no comparison. C1 literally destroys DPP with the amount of fine detail it's able to get out of a raw, the accurate color balance which needs no tweaks, and the contrast curves that are just right.

Plse elaborate on that "getting more detail" statement? For AFAIK a demosaic raw converter should not do anything more than calculate/rebuild the real color and construct an individual pixel from a single color filter mediated luminance measuring point. I fail to see the "more detail" as it is not adding nor substracting pixels .?? Unless the operation is doing more processing than just that ??

 

[bill hansen]

Judging only from comparative results I've seen on these forums, I have to agree that C1 does a better job than other converters. It's expensive though - probably not an issue for a high volume pro, but surely a consideration for an amateur like me.

Question - compared to ACR and DPP, how is the speed of C1? And what sort of computer setup are you using? My computer is ony three years old, but it's already outdated enough so that DxO Pro and Topaz work extremely slowly.

Bill

 

[VincentJ]

Sorry Bill, but I haven't done any substantial speed tests pitting C1 against the others. Been a very long time since I used LR or DPP for anything serious. However, even with my older PC which is a Pentium-4 3.2GHz dual-core with 3GB RAM, the interface doesn't stutter, and the conversions are rather quick. I sort of remember that DPP conversions were a bit faster but could be mistaken.

Judging only from comparative results I've seen on these forums, I have to agree that C1 does a better job than other converters. It's expensive though - probably not an issue for a high volume pro, but surely a consideration for an amateur like me.

Question - compared to ACR and DPP, how is the speed of C1? And what sort of computer setup are you using? My computer is ony three years old, but it's already outdated enough so that DxO Pro and Topaz work extremely slowly.

Bill

 

[VincentJ]

Check them out here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/832284

In particular, look at the 100% crops.

 

[Ronnie Potgieter]

Noise reduction and sharpness disabled in both conversions. Everything else at default settings.

ISO200 24-105L. 24mm @ F5.6

I would say the Cap one conversion looks sharper, but from what I can recall of this shot, the Cap one colours look a little over saturated.

Unless ther is something else I need to check for in the Cap one settings.

Original



DPP crop



Cap one 5 crop



I am also waiting for further user reports before paying for the upgrade to v5

Ronnie.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ronniedp
http://ronniedp.smugmug.com/

 

[Ronnie Potgieter]

Meant to add. Shot with 7D

Ronnie.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ronniedp
http://ronniedp.smugmug.com/

 

[TwincitiesJim]

Doug,

I was a C1 version 3 user and I ended up upgrading to version 4 about 20 months ago. At first I really did not like the new workflow, but now I am very happy with the workflow. It is many times better than DPP.

C1 worked very well for conversions with my 350D. Last year I got the 50D and I haven't been as happy with my conversions from C1 for color balance and for some different types of shooting (indoor shooting with flash and sunsets). I also sometimes had some weird color "bunching" effects on certain colors that DPP would render correctly. I use both DPP and C1 now and pick the better conversion. Unfortunately for me the "better" conversion is often DPP even though I do not like the way DPP sharpens. Now that I have the 7D I am in the same boat as you. Do I update the software so that I can convert my 7D files or do I just use DPP? I, like you, hate that I cannot just get a new profile for the new camera to use in version 4, and since I am not as happy as I have been in the past, it is hard to justify the cost.

That said, I did download the version 5 trial and used it for some conversions with my 7D. Overall, I am very pleased. I still think color balance is a little off. Greens are too yellow, etc. However, a lot of the other issues I had with my 50 conversions seems to be improved significantly with the 7D conversions. It is a little early to tell, but so far on about 20 pictures where I compared the two, I like the version I did with C1 better in all cases. The noise reduction seems to work very effectively (much better than on my 50D) and I am not sure if that is just because of the camera or if they changed something from version 4 to 5. Other than being able to process the 7D files the version I have of C1 doesn't seem to have any other upgrades in version 5. The pro version has a lot of upgrades, but I am not really sure what is improved (if anything) in the basic version.

I am going to continue to use the trial version until it expires and decide then if I really want to spring for the upgrade. I need to use it on a larger variety of pictures and under more different and varied lighting conditions to see if I still prefer it.

I will try to update when I decide, but if the results continue to be as good as they have been the last few days, I will most likely be plunking down my cash. I have also then to decide if I go for the pro version to get all the enhancements or not. It is a 200 dollar price difference for the upgrade.

I hope this helps!

Jim

Being a Canon 10D shooter, using Capture One Version 3, and now reluctantly version 4 (occasionally), I see I need to upgrade to Capture One version 5 to get support for the Canon 7D. Concurrently, I checked out the DPP tutorial and noted that the work flow seems very similar to Capture One version 3. The workflow for Capture One versions 4 and 5 are WAY different than version 3, which I really like.

I have not yet plopped down the money for the 7D but plan to do so soon. In the mean time, I'm wondering if anyone can speak to DPP vs. Capture One in terms of quality and workflow...?

It just kills me to have to upgrade my processing software, when all I should really need is a profile update specific to a newly purchased camera.

http://www.douglaswalch.com