The structure of a CR2 file

[marcel]

Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

I print big all the time, you are doing something wrong for there to be that kind of difference between the two.

In my experience DPP can be very slightly better than ACR on some files, but the difference is so small I practically never bother using it. For there to be such a noticeable difference, not just in the noise but in the contrast and detail as well, means there is something wrong.

I think the problem is that certain things happen to certain parameters of certain cameras. The criterion can not be applied to everything in ACR. It is logical because Canon do not want to release the official specification of the format, must be understood until about Adobe and others have gotten interpret or guess what is a CR2 without the collaboration of Canon.
The contrast and detail feeling in the tests is given by the grain noise generated by ACR.
I also have Raw Photo Processor 64 and Raw Therapee ( more complete than ACR ), but DPP is always better!

 

[privatebydesign]

Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

I print big all the time, you are doing something wrong for there to be that kind of difference between the two.

In my experience DPP can be very slightly better than ACR on some files, but the difference is so small I practically never bother using it. For there to be such a noticeable difference, not just in the noise but in the contrast and detail as well, means there is something wrong.

I think the problem is that certain things happen to certain parameters of certain cameras. The criterion can not be applied to everything in ACR. It is logical because Canon do not want to release the official specification of the format, must be understood until about Adobe and others have gotten interpret or guess what is a CR2 without the collaboration of Canon.
The contrast and detail feeling in the tests is given by the grain noise generated by ACR.
I also have Raw Photo Processor 64 and Raw Therapee ( more complete than ACR ), but DPP is always better!

I disagree. I have never seen that much difference between two files without substantial differences in the various settings, sure you can make anything look as bad as that (in any program), but not without trying unless you have an issue.

I agree that DPP can be better, but not by such a large amount, there is some other issue or setting that is making the differences so dramatic.

 

[marcel]

I disagree. I have never seen that much difference between two files without substantial differences in the various settings, sure you can make anything look as bad as that (in any program), but not without trying unless you have an issue.



There is always a first time.

 

[privatebydesign]

I disagree. I have never seen that much difference between two files without substantial differences in the various settings, sure you can make anything look as bad as that (in any program), but not without trying unless you have an issue.



There is always a first time.

Only if your 5D is different from all the other 5D's. Share a RAW file you are having issues with and I will prove you wrong.

 

[DominoDude]

Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

Interesting. You have managed to get quite a long way away from my original idea of this topic. Seems like it's more about getting the best proper workflow in different software to render the same or similar output.
For example: If I import a set of data from a .csv file to Excel, and then does the same in OpenOffice Calc, I can't be certain that the defaults of those programs import and treat the raw data in the same way. If I after that decide to crank the formatting a bit here and there in those programs, then I can be even less sure that the outcome looks and behaves the same. At this point there have been many changes and some of those are interpretations by software, and yet again others are subjective changes made by user.

I believe you when you say you get different results in different software, but I have difficulties seeing that a change of content structure in the .CR2 file would minimize or even eliminate that.

 

[Marsu42]

Only if your 5D is different from all the other 5D's. Share a RAW file you are having issues with and I will prove you wrong.

+1, I'm interested in this, too. Like written above (and pdb agrees), there has to be something amiss in your acr settings to get such a big difference.

 

[LDS]

OK, that's pretty cool/neat. A great reference! It also might explain a little bit why every new model has a different RAW file that we have to wait for aftermarket software developers like Adobe to decode/reverse engineer.
...
Anyone else have a different take it this? Am I missing something?

I do not believe Adobe has to reverse engineer new formats anymore, I guess Canon is giving it access to RAW files format, probably under an NDA. When some tools become so widespread among professionals, it would be a bit silly not to cooperate with their makers. DPP is a good tool for its price but it cannot compete with LR or PS or other tools for professional use.

Just Adobe prefers to process the raw data with its own algorithms and calibration data, thereby it could take a little before support is available. Calibration data can be established on production cameras only, even if they hae access to pre-production ones something may change.

There's a Canon SDK available (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/sdk_homepage), I don't know how much access to RAW data it gives, though.

 

[Marsu42]

There's a Canon SDK available (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/sdk_homepage), I don't know how much access to RAW data it gives, though.

One CR regular (I don't remember who it was) wrote that Canon's sdk is a problem because they keep changing their cr2 structure and whatnot. Thus, it seems to be hard to code universal apps working with all cameras - probably one big point in favor of Adobe's dng.