Processing algorithm differences?

[kevin_delson]

<p>I generally won't post a question until I've exhausted my usual sources.<br>

Tonight, I am baffled.</p>

<p>The image attached here is a 100% crop.</p>

<p>Image on left was processed by Adobe CS3.<br>

Image on right processed by Capture NX.</p>

<p>Procedure with each editor:</p>

<p>Raw image saved as TIFF (RGB Space).<br>

TIFF Up-Rezzed to 6200 PPI.</p>

<p><strong>No molestation/manipulation whatsoever from either editor.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

(i.e) Zero sharpening, no levels correction, No LCH etc...<br>

Processed <strong>"as is"</strong></p>

<p>So; why the difference?</p>

<p>NX appears to have processed the shadows better from the RAW image.<br>

Even more striking is the processed resolution of the NX file compared to Adobe's conversion.</p><div></div>

[janne_moren]

Different demosaicing algorithms. Also, different default processing parameters. Remember, there is no such thing as "no manipulation"; it's the same as "I trust the software developers taste and use their default manipulation".

 

If you download UFRaw, another RAW converter, you can choose different demosaicing algorithms and see the difference directly. There is no one "best" method; if you want to preserve more detail, for instance, you generally end up with more color fringing and noise.

[kevin_delson]

<p>Thanks Janne,</p>

<p>That is pretty much what I concluded but was unable to find any technical material for the various processors.</p>

[link]

<p>The NX version looks to have some "sharpening" applied.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Do you use the profile for your camera in ACR? The Nikon software probably uses a camera profile, so if you aren't using the camera profile in ACR it isn't really a valid comparison.</p>

[colin_mattson1]

<blockquote>

<p>The NX version looks to have some "sharpening" applied.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does. The Nikon tools always compensate for the softening effect of the antialiasing filter.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you use the profile for your camera in ACR?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ahh, if only the answer were that easy.</p>

<p>No, I don't set up profiles in ACR or NX..Never have unless I am batch processing many similar files.</p>

<p>I believe Janne answer is probably correct.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It does. The Nikon tools always compensate for the softening effect of the antialiasing filter.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Appreciate that Colin. Can you provide some evidence this is true with NX?</p>

<p>Perhaps someone has the same editors I use to duplicate this.</p>

<p>I can only proceed from logic rather than evidence. It seems logical software engineers will design conversion parameters to what "THEY" feel is <strong>close</strong> based on sensor input.<br>

This reminds me so much of the film days when we all knew Fuji ran more "Yellow" than it's Kodak counter part etc..etc...</p>

<p>My question is not of overwhelming paramount importance, yet I did find it interesting and baffling.<br>

I continue to use NX and Adobe when necessary. While a little coaxing from Adobe will bring out the details/dynamic range..., I see no reason to convert with Adobe..why do another step?</p>

<p>This is something I've always suspected, yet remain unable to prove in a more scientific way; but as a photographer, the visual aspect speaks volumes to me, moreso than a chart or graph.</p>

<p>Where's a NIK sofware engineer when you need one? :)</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>This is something I've always suspected, yet remain unable to prove in a more scientific way</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't need to prove anything. Search the web especially third party raw converter forums for your confirmation. If you didn't have a choice in converters but only had NX you'ld never know the difference.</p>

<p>All sensor data off any digital camera once it's passed through the A/D converter is rendered through interpretation by software. No scientific proof required.</p>

[milan_tomasek]

<p>Can you upload original NEF file somewhere and give me a link. I would like to test the export in the nama5 RAW Processor and compare it with your LR and NX results.</p>