Silkypix vs. ACR for Panasonic G1

[akira]

<p>Silkypix, accompanying software to G1, doesn't seem to please many users mainly because its user interface is not intuitive and the processed raw images don't look sharp. Most peple seem to prefer ACR to process G1's raw files because of it offers much crisper and sharper images.</p>

<p>Admitting the differences above, I've noticed that sometimes ACR loses color infomation in fine dtails. Take a look at the comparison in the reveiw posted on photozone.de, picture of the part of facade covered with vine:</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/dslr_reviews/424_panasonic_g1?start=2</p>

<p>The image displayed is the one processed with ACR. When you roll the cursor over the image, you can see the image processed with Siklypix. The ACR image is noticeably crisper and sharper but...</p>

<p>Notice the lines of vine running in front of the glass. In the ACR image, the vine is rendered in grey, suggesting that ACR failed to retrieve color infomation, whereas Silkypix image renders the same vine in yellowish brown which seems to be correct color, comparing to the top left part of the image (part of denser vine).</p>

<p>Have any of you noticed this problem of ACR? Is it a tread-off of sharper image? Any comments would be appreciated, of course, but any suggestion to workaround would be highly appreciated.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I use ACR and have not found (or noticed) any problems. I convert to TIFF not JPEG in ACR so this may be a factor.</p>

[yoshio]

<p>Akira-san</p>

<p>I have no problems with the interface of Silkypix, in some ways I have come to like it. However I could never get the same results from it or ACR. This has made comparison fraught. I see in their review that some subtle differences in colour could also be found. I wonder if there was some ACR sharpening not known to them?</p>

<p>However when I bought my G1 ACR did not support it, so I began using dcraw and quickly discovered (2 days into ownership) that an upgrade to photomatix gave RAW support too. I find that discreet use of the tone mapping component of photomatix gives me film like conversions of my RAW files which are substantial improvement over the camera JPG.</p>

<p>So my "workflow" has now changed to that</p>

<p>my thanks for bringing attention to that article :-)</p>

[akira]

<p>Thank you for your responses so far.</p>

<p>Philip, even though the sample images posted on phtozone.de are JPEGs, the fact is that the difference of rendering does exist. So, I don't think it is the matter of compression of the image file.</p>

<p>Yoshio, if I'm satisfied with the final image, I will be willng to try to get accustomed to the UI and maybe will come to like it. I had been accustomed to the UI of Capture NX when I used Nikon! Personally I feel like using the most common software in general, because of the easiness of finding tips and the ways to shoot troubles.</p>

[hermanvdc]

<p>By this occasion I downloaded the dng converter and made my first LX3 raw s in acr and I like it. I prefer to do this way then using silkypix. Pictures are also better then straight out of the camera jpg anyway.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>I use Lightroom 2 exclusively. Same RAW conversion algorithms as Camera Raw. No problems whatsoever. The issue you refer to depends upon how the software is used. </p>

 

[vivek iyer]

<p>After having used NX (that I had to pay for, btw), Silkypix (free) is easy to use and I like it a lot better.</p>

<p>Two thimbs up!</p>

[akira]

<p>Herman, Godfrey and Vivek, thank you for further comments.</p>

<p>Even though I'm sure of the problem I've found, maybe I'd better stop nit-picking...</p>

<p>I have both Nikon and Panasonic raw files now and I'm reluctant to install and use both Capture NX and Silkypix according to the type of the files, and continue to upgrade both. I would rather like to concentrate on one software and avoid multiple upgrading and clumsiness.</p>

[yoshio]

<p>Akira</p>

<p>one thing I dislike about Silkypix is that it runs slowly on my computer (P4 1.5Ghz) while others run quite quickly (Photoshop CS, Photomatix, dcraw). I quite like the look of Silkypix but I also find it has limitations when using color managed work flow. The choices of colour space for importing are quite limited too. I found in particular this contributed to noise with a photograph of a bright red dress.</p>

<p>This made me think of how the RAW data and what color intensity was present and how that may generate noise if expanded into a larger space. So I like dcraw as my converter now and work from the 16bit tiff files it generates (unless I wish to tone map and then I open and convert raw in photomatix).</p>

<p>I would love a one option suites all ... but then my tool kits in other realms do not reflect this either.</p>