Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t255757-canon-raw-image-converter-for-10d.html)

Ted Rogers 04-24-2004 10:53 AM

Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files. I have tried
setting up an action in Photoshop but it takes so long.......

Thanks

Ted



Ronnie McKinley 04-24-2004 11:14 AM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
In rec.photo.digital "Ted Rogers" wrote:

>Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files. I have tried
>setting up an action in Photoshop but it takes so long.......
>
>Thanks
>
>Ted
>



Have a look at .....


http://www.c1dslr.com/

http://www.pictureflow.com/CaptureOn...s/C1-Main.html




--
Ronnie

jriegle 04-24-2004 11:19 AM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
I wonder if Irfanview can do this with the Canon plugin?


"Ted Rogers" <ted@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1082804021.34622.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files. I have

tried
> setting up an action in Photoshop but it takes so long.......
>
> Thanks
>
> Ted
>
>




Bill Hilton 04-24-2004 01:49 PM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
>From: "Ted Rogers" ted@hotmail.com

>Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files.


Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99. You can only batch 20 files at a
time with this version (with more expensive versions you can do more) but the
resulting tiff files have better image quality than the other converters I've
tried (Canon's Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS RAW converter).

Bill

George Preddy 04-24-2004 06:22 PM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<20040424094953.11088.00000287@mb-m12.aol.com>...
> >From: "Ted Rogers" ted@hotmail.com

>
> >Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files.

>
> Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99. You can only batch 20 files at a
> time with this version (with more expensive versions you can do more) but the
> resulting tiff files have better image quality than the other converters I've
> tried (Canon's Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS RAW converter).
>
> Bill


Truly amazing that Canon rips you off like this.

Douglas MacDonald 04-24-2004 07:34 PM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20040424094953.11088.00000287@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >From: "Ted Rogers" ted@hotmail.com

>
> >Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files.

>
> Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99. You can only batch 20 files at

a
> time with this version (with more expensive versions you can do more) but

the
> resulting tiff files have better image quality than the other converters

I've
> tried (Canon's Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS RAW converter).
>
> Bill

-----------------------------
So Bill...
Broad reaching statements like "better image quality" are of no value to
anyone trying to decide on a program. Can you by any chance elaborate on it
please?
What is it better than and how do you quantify quality?
Douglas



Bill Hilton 04-24-2004 08:37 PM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
>> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote
>>
>> Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99 ... the resulting
>> tiff files have better image quality than the other converters
>> I've tried ...


>From: "Douglas MacDonald" nospam@technoaussie.com
>
>So Bill...
>Broad reaching statements like "better image quality" are of no value
>to anyone trying to decide on a program.


So Douglas ... since we gave the URL where one can download a free trial
version for 15 days I just figured people who are interested would try it for
themselves and make a decision based on comparing results on their images ...
http://www.c1dslr.com/ in case you missed it. You can also download the SE
version and use it for another 15 days and then the Pro version and use IT for
30 more days, giving you up to 60 days of unrestricted evaluation time.

>Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than ...


Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are much
better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software or
Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives you a
built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow' has
lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as Astia
and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the 'Film
High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to Velvia. The
default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.

Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1 are
smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to have a
bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem to show
more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's really
noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors from the
defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll have to
pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was already
included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.

These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with other
cameras YMMV. Try it and see.

> ... and how do you quantify quality?


Since it's a *visual* art I just look at them and do a direct comparison :)
Download a copy and see for yourself.

Bill



Lisa Horton 04-24-2004 10:24 PM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 


Bill Hilton wrote:
>


>
>
> >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than ...

>
> Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are much
> better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software or
> Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives you a
> built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow' has
> lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as Astia
> and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the 'Film
> High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to Velvia. The
> default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.
>
> Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1 are
> smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to have a
> bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem to show
> more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's really
> noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors from the
> defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll have to
> pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was already
> included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.
>
> These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with other
> cameras YMMV. Try it and see.


Wow, that sure is a ringing endorsement for C1 Bill. Although I gave it
a superficial trial and didn't care for it, I think I'll take another
look based on your praise.

Lisa

Douglas MacDonald 04-25-2004 02:21 AM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 

"Lisa Horton" <Lisanews0419@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:408AE924.2F84873D@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> Bill Hilton wrote:
> >

>
> >
> >
> > >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than

....
> >
> > Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are

much
> > better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software

or
> > Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives

you a
> > built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow'

has
> > lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as

Astia
> > and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the

'Film
> > High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to

Velvia. The
> > default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.
> >
> > Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1

are
> > smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to

have a
> > bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem

to show
> > more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's

really
> > noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors

from the
> > defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll

have to
> > pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was

already
> > included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.
> >
> > These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with

other
> > cameras YMMV. Try it and see.

>
> Wow, that sure is a ringing endorsement for C1 Bill. Although I gave it
> a superficial trial and didn't care for it, I think I'll take another
> look based on your praise.
>
> Lisa

-------------------
I had no success at all with the demo I downloaded. I thought it was
particularly difficult to understand and just as hard to use. I have used
Irfanview for some time now to open thumbs in directories full of CRW files
and used the "open with external editor" choice to edit selected files in
Photoshop CS.

Before I got PS8 I used to copy a file to the clipboard and open it with PS
6.0 (I never had PS7) and paste it into a new document.

I am happy with this setup, even with PS's new browse function I still use
Irfanview. What I have difficulty with is when there are descriptions of
"better" "best" and "Smoother" without quantifying 'than what'? Quite
frankly here... I can not tell the difference between a photo converted with
Irfanview and one converted with C1.

But then I have a problem telling the difference between photos edited with
Photoshop and those edited with Photopaint too. So I think at the end of the
day, C1 would have to allow me to actually see a difference in a 16"x20"
print (which it doesn't) before I'd be willing to look at it again. I was
curious how Bill quantified his global descriptions... Now he has, I am
still not convinced he is right.

Douglas



George Preddy 04-25-2004 03:02 AM

Re: Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D
 
Lisa Horton <Lisanews0419@lisahorton.net> wrote in message news:<408AE924.2F84873D@lisahorton.net>...
> Bill Hilton wrote:
> >

>
> >
> >
> > >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than ...

> >
> > Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are much
> > better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software or
> > Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives you a
> > built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow' has
> > lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as Astia
> > and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the 'Film
> > High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to Velvia. The
> > default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.
> >
> > Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1 are
> > smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to have a
> > bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem to show
> > more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's really
> > noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors from the
> > defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll have to
> > pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was already
> > included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.
> >
> > These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with other
> > cameras YMMV. Try it and see.

>
> Wow, that sure is a ringing endorsement for C1 Bill. Although I gave it
> a superficial trial and didn't care for it, I think I'll take another
> look based on your praise.


Wow, all that cash just for ok RAW software, and I thought the SD9 was
a barn burning good deal before all that.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.