DIGIC8 Metering (and a rant about the evolution of DIGIC software and post processing on the M)

A little comment of the night; I've been going through and editing and uploading photos for gear of interest for folks as I know I myself find Flickr a useful tool for seeing how gear performs and thought I'd give back to the community.

.
However, in doing so, I've found some interesting trends while doing post processing on all these models and lenses, which although quite logical, are worth noting...

.
The newer the camera, be it EOS M5 over the EOS M3 or EOS M50 over EOS M5, the less editing is "needed". I put that in quotes as post processing for me is largely a polish ordeal, not so much creative liberty. The EOS M50, still could use some light touch up, the RAWs that is, for best results as I've found, but, is arguably 90% better, than former M models which all could use some slight post-processing for best results.

.
What's interesting is the R itself which I abandoned the M for as at this time, and before, I'm not into 2 systems. That said I may revisit that in the future. My G1X III serves me well, but there's times I get an itch for that Samyang 50mm f/1.2 Manual focus despite having the glorious RF 28-70 f/2L which just cleans up shop. Anyhow, back on topic, the R itself, it's RAWs, I have a hard time squeezing more out of em. They are VERY polished. I'm getting diminishing returns here. What I post from the R is practically SOOC as far as the edits are concerned. Maybe a slight tweak to ALO strength, maybe a bit of shadows, mostly it's picture style, and at default values at that. Very straightforward.
.
Why do mention this?
.
Well the R is newer than the M50. Both share the DIGIC8 processor which governs metering. But, the M50 never got any firmware updates. The R being launched after it, will just be smarter. Canon will roll all their new metering logic upgrades into it.
.
Any new M's that come out, be it DIGIC8 or DIGIC9, are (probably) going to share the R's tenacity for metering, and it shows. I mean you are HARD PRESSED to outsmart that bad-boy in post. Very impressive.
.
Anyhow, all to say I really look forward to either newer M's, Powershots, or R's, getting Canon's latest metering (and AWB for that matter) software / logic in DIGIC8 and newer offerings.
.
PS, some things I've noted in order of operations depending which M you own, need touch-up... I use DPP4 btw so picture styles don't apply to LR...
.
EOS M5's and older (M, M2, M3, M5, M6, M100) usually could use WB presets or white balance click or even color temperature slider values for best results plus some exposure comp and shadow/highlight manipulation. Picture styles as desired.
.
EOS M3 in particular you need to watch your WB and picture style as well as levels and exposure. It's perhaps the most Sony-like of the bunch needing the most post processing to get the best results. It's not that DIGIC6 is "Dumber" than DIGIC5, but I gather Canon started revamped WB and metering right around the time it came out as the M10 after it, seems to need less in my observation, for example.
.
EOS M50, I'd say around +0.17 exposure (half 1/3 stop) bump to most shots and occasional WB tweaks, usually it's White Priority over Ambiance priority, sometimes (rarely) WB preset or temperature. Some shadow manipulation, but much less. Picture styles as appropriate.

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

RedFox88 wrote:

Digic is the name of canon’s CPU. Digic 8 is faster than 7, that's all.

It's more than that...

Just like a computer, the CPU makes it faster, but, the operating system it runs, gets updated too. Canon's been updating their logic behind AWB and Metering with both each revision of DIGIC, and, even within the same revision you see minor tweaks with newer released cameras, like the M100, even though it's the same CPU as the M5, it's running a newer OS... Think about that for a minute.

Part of those software updates I gather are dependent upon having a CPU fast enough to exploit. Metering is a good example. They can use far more sophisticated logic for metering on the faster DIGIC8, because it can digest so much more data and thus evaluate the scene with more granularity. I can tell because things like shadow manipulation just doesn't help on my R... It's not needed. Same for White Balance, my R, like the M50, is so much smarter than the cameras before it. And, my R, is smarter than my former M50, even though it's the same CPU, it was released after the M50 thus has a newer updated software (OS) running on that DIGIC8 which has more sophisticated, more up-to-date algorithms.

Trust me, after post processing hundreds of shots now, you can tell when your best effort on an R (newer DIGIC8) photos makes less than 2% difference from the original shot, and your best effort on an M50 (older DIGIC8) makes maybe a 15% difference, but, on an M5 (DIGIC7), it's closer to 25-30% improvement...

Make sense?

RedFox88 wrote:

RLight wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Digic is the name of canon’s CPU. Digic 8 is faster than 7, that's all.

It's more than that...

Then you are whining about the camera programming, not the CPU

I don't consider it whining to observe differences and improvements.

nnowak wrote:

I know in the past you were not happy with the color from your M cameras and we're experimenting with various picture profiles. I think you had settled on a "Nikon" profile. Is that still the case, or are you using default Canon profiles now?

When I switched to the G1X III, I went with Marco's suggestion of Fine Detail +1 Saturation. However, I found particularly with video, it looked unnatural and after about 7 months-ish I abandoned the regime in favor for Standard for all SOOC JPEG and video output with defaults but kept processing the RAWs with the same modified fine detail regime. After doing some large prints of older material, ironically from the Rokinon 50mm, I figured out this too wasn't a good thing and then went standard (with defaults) for my RAW processing workflow as well.

.
After my stent with the M50 and now R though, I figured out each picture is different and based off what I want, that is contrast with highlight retention (fine detail), emphasis on blue/greens with some warmth and stronger sharpness (landscape), actual portraits (Snapshot Portrait, it's a downloadable picture profile from Canon), or something in between landscape and standard (autumn hues, also downloadable from Canon) or just plain ol standard.

.
These days I shoot all standard, and reprocess RAWs for either printing, or sharing with others to taste (IE selecting the best Canon-produced picture style for the scene, and then if needed, slight tweaks to it, usually 1 stop or less if in DPP4) either in camera, or in DPP4. If it's from the R, it's in-camera. If it's from an M, it's obviously in DPP4.

.
I still do (sometimes) miss the more punchy look of my ol 5DIII / EOS M / M2, but, I prefer the accuracy and true to life of the R for most things

.

Canon has succeeded in giving me what I want, before I know it. Rare these days for a company to do that (Apple used to). It was an internal search process; it's not something I just woke up one day and said, "lets do standard!" rather it was a graduation in thought. Video and large print (A3+) really drive this point home if in doubt.

.

I'll say this, less is more. Color science is tricky, and even 1 stop of contrast or saturation, tone, etc, can make or break it. Even a fraction of one for that matter. Custom picture profiles usually exceed this and hence I've abandoned third party picture styles in favor of Canon's own which are subtle, but sprinkle flavor, character, as needed.

.

Oh, I've even gone as far as use faithful, on a couple shots recently. Sometimes you want a more subdued look. Go figure.

RedFox88 wrote:

RLight wrote:

RedFox88 wrote:

Digic is the name of canon’s CPU. Digic 8 is faster than 7, that's all.

It's more than that...

Then you are whining about the camera programming, not the CPU

They're joined. Canon doesn't ever (that I know of) update the metering/AWB via a firmware update. So it has the appearance to be hardware to your point, but the point I'm driving is it's both as the microcode is seeing revision as newer cameras with same hardware emerge. And furthermore, based off the progression of where Canon is, the R is so accurate (I'm praising Canon here on their progress, not knocking where they've been) that it's very promising for future M offerings to fall in line. The M5 II etc should in theory be just, in fact probably more, accurate. It's nice not having to tweak stuff in post.

I think what's driving this is "keeping up with the jones", the jones being smartphones. Smartphones are getting very good at automatic lighting (metering) and AWB. Canon has to keep up if they want to remain competitive. They're being competitive and kudos to them.

In fact, while I'm on the subject of being competitive on a software front, Canon does a good job with making it as easy as possible to share content from your camera to your smartphone. And that's a good thing too.

Speaking of Apple, I hope now that NFC standard has been opened up for third party use in iOS, that Canon exploits it. Be nice to just tap the two together and off they go with auto-transfer which is a really nice feature.

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I know in the past you were not happy with the color from your M cameras and we're experimenting with various picture profiles. I think you had settled on a "Nikon" profile. Is that still the case, or are you using default Canon profiles now?

When I switched to the G1X III, I went with Marco's suggestion of Fine Detail +1 Saturation. However, I found particularly with video, it looked unnatural and after about 7 months-ish I abandoned the regime in favor for Standard for all SOOC JPEG and video output with defaults but kept processing the RAWs with the same modified fine detail regime. After doing some large prints of older material, ironically from the Rokinon 50mm, I figured out this too wasn't a good thing and then went standard (with defaults) for my RAW processing workflow as well.

.
After my stent with the M50 and now R though, I figured out each picture is different and based off what I want, that is contrast with highlight retention (fine detail), emphasis on blue/greens with some warmth and stronger sharpness (landscape), actual portraits (Snapshot Portrait, it's a downloadable picture profile from Canon), or something in between landscape and standard (autumn hues, also downloadable from Canon) or just plain ol standard.

.
These days I shoot all standard, and reprocess RAWs for either printing, or sharing with others to taste (IE selecting the best Canon-produced picture style for the scene, and then if needed, slight tweaks to it, usually 1 stop or less if in DPP4) either in camera, or in DPP4. If it's from the R, it's in-camera. If it's from an M, it's obviously in DPP4.

.
I still do (sometimes) miss the more punchy look of my ol 5DIII / EOS M / M2, but, I prefer the accuracy and true to life of the R for most things

.

Canon has succeeded in giving me what I want, before I know it. Rare these days for a company to do that (Apple used to). It was an internal search process; it's not something I just woke up one day and said, "lets do standard!" rather it was a graduation in thought. Video and large print (A3+) really drive this point home if in doubt.

.

I'll say this, less is more. Color science is tricky, and even 1 stop of contrast or saturation, tone, etc, can make or break it. Even a fraction of one for that matter. Custom picture profiles usually exceed this and hence I've abandoned third party picture styles in favor of Canon's own which are subtle, but sprinkle flavor, character, as needed.

.

Oh, I've even gone as far as use faithful, on a couple shots recently. Sometimes you want a more subdued look. Go figure.

Have you tried either Canon's Video X profile or the Technicolor Cinestyle profile for shooting video? I have always hated the standard profile for video as it tends to completely overcook the image and spits out something that looks like it only has 5 stops of dynamic range.

I've tried both and they definitely are an improvement as far as DR is concerned.

But, they're also dull in terms of color rendition for my tastes.

I haven't touched video editing in some time, but, if I were, those would be vastly superior. For SOOC though? Fine detail is notable as you pickup about a stop, without much loss of kick. Win-Win.

In fact, I'll go and edit my C3P on my EOS R and change the picture profile to Fine Detail... Should've done that sooner...

When you press record on an EOS R, it uses C3P's settings irregardless of what stills mode you're in... You can override this by going into video mode. I don't. I just take whatever C3P is set to, which I have at 1080/60P high compression with defaults, no digital IS as the lens IS is REALLY good on the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM.

Edit:

I just realized, I've only tried Video X once, I think I'll give it another whirl...

Technicolor, I genuinely beat up and don't care for. But, while I'm at it, I'll give it another go with modified defaults, say more saturation and contrast? Why not?