ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 3.7 AND 4.0
Hi there,
I'm a capture one pro user from 1.3 and after testing the beta's, I just to day downloaded the 4.0 release. I reported highlights differences between 3.7 and 4.0 some time ago. I have not looked into this yet. But I found in processing with the 2 converters 2 other differences:
1. color
2. sharpness
Look at the image below and tell me which one you prefer and which in converted with 3.7.8 and 4.0
Why are there any differences anyway. Could someone of C1 explain this to me. (BTW all setting where exactly the same).
http://www.xs4all.nl/~cadply/c1/compare.jpg
I'm a capture one pro user from 1.3 and after testing the beta's, I just to day downloaded the 4.0 release. I reported highlights differences between 3.7 and 4.0 some time ago. I have not looked into this yet. But I found in processing with the 2 converters 2 other differences:
1. color
2. sharpness
Look at the image below and tell me which one you prefer and which in converted with 3.7.8 and 4.0
Why are there any differences anyway. Could someone of C1 explain this to me. (BTW all setting where exactly the same).
http://www.xs4all.nl/~cadply/c1/compare.jpg
0
-
I like the left one better. I never used any version prio to 4, so I don't know the difference. But same settings in different versions do not necessary mean same outcome. 0 -
I prefer the one on the right. Flesh tone looks more natural to me, and sharpness more pleasant (left is over-sharped). 0 -
In this particular case, I also prefer the one on the right. Flesh tones much more natural and horrible over-sharpening on the left one.
Nevertheless, I do think the OP has a point. I hadn't used v3 for quite a while now, but I tried several things this morning. Sure enough, I just cannot get the same level of detail from v4 as I do from v3.
In v3, my sharpening defaults are 200% (in the centre) and threshold 1, in v4 they are 300%, radius 1 and threshold 0.8. Even with v4 set to 500%, the detail and quality gets nowhere near that of v3. Very soft in comparison.
Very interesting. Something I hadn't noticed before.0 -
Prefer the one on the left I find the one on the right to have a bit too much magenta on my calibrated monitor.
But at the end of day it is down to preference.0 -
I think that it does not matter that you get different results with the two packages. I get different results between every raw converter I own (ACR/Lightroom, DxO, C1, DPP, etc.). The important thing is to know how to use the one that you are using to get finished results. PO has the obligation to improve their algorithms. Differences are to be expected with each major new release. PO does not claim that settings under 3.7.x are transferable to 4.
If being able to go back and reprocess your images with the same exact settings and results is important, you should keep the last 3.7.x version installed on your machine to work with images that were originally processed under 3.7.x.0 -
[quote="UCSB" wrote:
I think that it does not matter that you get different results with the two packages. The important thing is to know how to use the one that you are using to get finished results.
In general you are right of course, but in this case I think the OP has a point. See my post further up the thread. The level of detail obtained in the v3 sharpening just cannot be achieved in v4. Even at 500%, v4 is soft in comparison to v3's 200%!0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
[quote="UCSB" wrote:
I think that it does not matter that you get different results with the two packages. The important thing is to know how to use the one that you are using to get finished results.
In general you are right of course, but in this case I think the OP has a point. See my post further up the thread. The level of detail obtained in the v3 sharpening just cannot be achieved in v4. Even at 500%, v4 is soft in comparison to v3's 200%!
are you saying that you are using v4 @ 500% and it's still not sharp enough for you? what radius?
v3 normal at 200% looks awful IMHO, v3 soft look @ 200 may be OKAY but normal has a large radius.
I'm more concerned about the differences in the way v4 handles noise vs. v3. I like v3 better in that regard, especially color noise.
Paul0 -
I realy cannot think of a reason WHY P1 made changes to their well praised algorithym.
They totally rebuild the program, but I thought the algorithyms remained the same. Now I have to do a lot more to get the same result as with 3. Cost me a lot of time too. Especially if you are developing a wedding with around 1000 images. The are a lot of improvement too, but WHY not keep what was good and alter the not so best features in 3. The sharpening with radius is a good addition, but I do mostly my sharpening in PS anyway.0 -
[quote="pauljohn" wrote:
are you saying that you are using v4 @ 500% and it's still not sharp enough for you? what radius?
Paul
No, that's not what I'm saying.
See my post 5 or 6 above for the radius/threshold settings.0 -
If I may chime in on this conversation, I like the image on the right better. the one on the left is definitely over-sharpened. Her hair is crunchy and her skin and lips look abrasive (I hope the model isn't reading this! 😄 ) The image on the right i believe shows just the right balance of sharpening to look natural.
So that's my opinion.
But here is what I can say regarding detail and sharpening. There is no question that sharpening is handled differently in CO4 and utilizes a different scale altogether. I will also note that default settings are not identical settings, and identical settings will produce different results as this is a new sharpening method. However, to say that CO4 produces a less detailed image is not accurate. Sharpening does not equal detail, although it is often used to make an image appear more detailed (and often overdone).
CO4 is actually capable of rendering more detail in difficult processing situations and I can demonstrate this below. The image is a raw file from a P30+ and the crop shown is 100% magnification of the garment. Sharpening was set to just a little over the default and I wanted to show the difference based on the way the software would be used on an image rather than using the "same" settings. as we know the algorithms are different so there is no real identical settings. Instead I brought them to a visual match based on the model's eyes. Color noise settings we made to as close a visual match as well taking into consideration that each software has limitations to noise that will affect image quality. this section of the image was chosen because it is actually displays a situation that is most difficult for a processing algorithm. Here the fine threads of the material line up closely with the pixel size of the CCD, this means that when combining pixes of different color filtration the software has to "guess" what the exact pattern actually is.
I have highlighted an area in the image where the difference in artifacting is most easily seen. It is pretty clear that CO4 does a better job of accurately interpolating data between the photo sites of the CCD.
http://www.jongilbertphoto.com/4.jpghttp://www.jongilbertphoto.com/3.7.8.jpg0 -
what about if you use the v3.7 sharpening pre-set in V4.
How does that look compared to the "real" v3 output?
How were both converters set to the same sharpening if v4 has an extra control?
Was this estimated or do you know how the alogarithm works in v3 and so could simulate it in v4?
I also prefer the one on the right by the way.
Dave.0 -
Hi Dave,
I trust my eyes more than any preset as images will appear different with different sharpening based on pixel contrasts unique in each image, but I do have an understanding of the elements that go into sharpening and how they affect the outcome. The V3 preset in CO4 is an approximation and should be treated as such, I have not done an extensive test as to how they compare, but I do want to stress that I worked on each image in the same manner that I would if I were processing on a photoshoot. The idea was to illustrate the best results capable from each version of the software.
I also want to stress that this image represents something more on the extreme side of processing, and many other images will not show such significant differences in detail. I chose this because it makes for a straightforward demonstration.0 -
Jon, thanks for your input.
I agree that the results of v4 in difficult images are better than v3 as it (v3) did produce some unwanted sharpening artifacts. There is more detail in that circumstance in v4 compared to v3. However, with a 'normal' image, v3 produces much 'better' sharpening and detail than v4. Although I almost always use PS for PP, when using v3 I hardly ever had to resort to additional sharpening, but with v4 I find I have to tweak quite a lot.
As you said, the only way to compare any 2 RCs is to look at the best final image from each - defaults don't matter.
Iain0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
Jon, thanks for your input.
I agree that the results of v4 in difficult images are better than v3 as it (v3) did produce some unwanted sharpening artifacts. There is more detail in that circumstance in v4 compared to v3. However, with a 'normal' image, v3 produces much 'better' sharpening and detail than v4. Although I almost always use PS for PP, when using v3 I hardly ever had to resort to additional sharpening, but with v4 I find I have to tweak quite a lot.
As you said, the only way to compare any 2 RCs is to look at the best final image from each - defaults don't matter.
Iain
Jon.
sorry, my last post was directed at the OP not you.
Dave.0 -
Actually Jon, with a bit more experimentation and comparison, I take it all back.
It takes a bit more time, but I would say that the sharpening in v4 can produce better all-round results than v3 and definitely doesn't have the, sometimes horrible, artifacts of v3.0 -
Glad to hear it! Any software with different controls can take some getting used to. 0 -
Hi Imacken - could you share your v4 sharpening settings that you've settled on that are on the sharper side of the scale? I prefer extra sharpening vis a vis v3.7, so I would be interested in your sharpening settings in v4. Thanks for sharing.
-MJ0 -
It's very difficult to say as obviously it depends on each image, but as an example, look at the image below. (With thanks to a previous poster who put this on the board.)
http://www.eyemack.co.uk/CO_Comp.jpg
Look at the areas highlighted. BTW, you must look at it at 100%.
The chair, the wall, and the dark-squared object have much more detail in the v4 version. If you look at the reference sheet in the ringed area particularly, again, there is much more detail in v4.
Iain0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
18 comments