C1 is Sharper?

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, I'm at the cutting edge of my ignorance again, but an often repeated wisdom of this forum is that C1 [and for the sake of this thread C1-LE only please] produces sharper RAW processed images than, say, Adobe Camera Raw [ACR].

 

I am ignorant about the innards of RAW processing engines, but I have always suspected that maybe the C1 sharper images might be due to having an in-built sharpening, even when the operator believes the sharpening is 'off'. I have experienced in-built sharpening before with scanning software which presented a scanner in a particularly favourable light.

 

I admit that I don't like C1-LE, and would not upgrade to the full version, but is the reputation of inherently sharper images from C1 processing fairly earned - does it make sense that one RAW processor can process images sharper than another without in-built sharpening? I don't know; do you?

 

.............. Chris

 

If this has been covered before I apologise, my search did not produce relevant results.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest tummydoc]

I have always suspected that maybe the C1 sharper images might be due to having an in-built sharpening, even when the operator believes the sharpening is 'off'.

 

I've seen that discussed several times on various forums, even before C1-LE was associated with Leica, and your suspicion is confirmed.

[Artichoke]

as I do for all my conversions

I think C1 does the best job converting M8 files

the program shipped with the M8 & I am certain the folks in Solms worked tightly with Phase One in optimizing DNG conversions for the M8

I get my happiest results using C1 LE and find C1 4 beta even better still

[Paul_S]

Last month I was testing Capture One 4 (beta1) and made one comparison with C1 3.7.7 and Adobe Camera Raw 4.2 (and Lightroom 1.2, but result was the same as ACR 4.2 as expected). This is the image (S'lux 75, almost wide open, tripod, ISO 640). Focus on the car.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

You can find the original files with different conversions in my iDisk Public Folder. Go to M8, Summilux75.

C1 3.7.x is great, but v4 is even better. Besides sharpness also compare the light reflexion of the car (left door for example) in the original file. ACR4.2 does not come close.

[Paul_S]

You can find the original files with different conversions in my iDisk Public Folder. Go to M8, Summilux75.

 

I forgot to add the URL to the iDisk:

http://homepage.mac.com/paul.steunebrink/FileSharing1.html

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've tested the degree of sharpening supplied by C1 by measuring the width orfslanted edges (an old MTF-finding trick). I found that the zero setting still has some mild sharpening effect, but no halo. Further sharpening puts you on the line trading off acutance for artifacts, which must be done appropriately for the output you have in mind. If you want no sharpening (pure raw image) in C1 3.7.7, just go to the properties dialog and click the "no sharpening" box. I haven't found that control in b4, but it should be there.

 

scott

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

......C1 3.7.x is great, but v4 is even better...... ACR4.2 does not come close.

 

Paul - Thank you. I downloaded the v4 and the ACR files and compared them at 100% in Photoshop. OK, my eyes are a bit tired, and I'll check again tomorrow - but I'm not seeing what you are.

 

The colour processing being quite different does make comparison difficult in some areas, but the difference I'm mostly seeing is what I think is undisclosed sharpening in the v4 file [slight halation along edges]. I can't see from these files that the C1v4 process is inherently sharper than ACR other than it does seem to have included sharpening. Maybe my freshened eyes will tell me otherwise, but I suspect that if ACR had the same included sharpening as v4 appears to have I'd call it a draw.

 

Thank you for sharing the images, I appreciate it.

 

................ Chris

[orjanf]

I made quite a few comparisons with the canon D60 and 1DMk2 and lately,a few with the Leica. (C1pro 3.7 and C1 4. )

It seems to me that the c1 sharpening (which indeed there seems to be no way to avoid although they have reduced the minimum in later versions) produces a very fine detailed but too-hard sharpening which leads to a texture reminiscent of film grain and makes the image look 'sharper'. It works well with most artificial content does not work very well with fractal content like foliage and other items in nature and applying even slight to moderate sharpening on top of this gives the image (to my eyes) a somewhat flatter and harder appearance than when using LR.

I like the colour rendering of C1 better.

I hope LR will some day incorporate profiles, softproofing would be a another big advantage.

[ChrisC]

I'm sorry if quoting myself on a dying thread is bad form, but I did raise a question in my original post which I hoped would draw a response from someone with knowledge of how RAW processing software works:

 

....... does it make sense that one RAW processor can process images sharper than another without in-built sharpening? I don't know; do you?

 

I know my question did not catch the forum's imagination first time round, but I am curious for an answer.

 

............... Chris

[garyvot]

C1 sharpens images slightly even when you set sharpening strength to 0... You can pixel peep at 300% to see the effect.

 

I spoke to a Phase rep and was told it was not sharpening per se, but a byproduct of their particular demosaicing algorithm...

[orjanf]

Since the values of the 2 colors that are not present in any given pixel have to be estimated from the values of other pixels in the neighbourhood taking into account the prescence of what the algorithm perceives as edges and texture the resulting image can indeed be more or less sharp with different converters using different algorithms.

A compromise between sharp and jagged or soft and smooth is necessary.

The sharpening can be a separate pass or just the result of the interpretation process

[chris_livsey]

C1 sharpens images slightly even when you set sharpening strength to 0... You can pixel peep at 300% to see the effect.

 

I have been playing at lens testing today and hence sharpening has been an issue. I note that several posters in this thread have mentioned that setting sharpening at zero by the sliders in C1 still leaves sharpening on to some extent. The drop down box above the sliders includes a disable option which appears to remove more residual sharpening than setting to zero and standard.

[ChrisC]

..... resulting image can indeed be more or less sharp with different converters using different algorithms. A compromise between sharp and jagged or soft and smooth is necessary......

 

Orjan - Thanks for answering the question I asked. I am very grateful.

 

................. Chris