ACDSee Pro 3

Back to Topic OverviewPost New Reply

Color Difference with 3.0 vs. 2.5?

(11 posts)

  • LV_Bill
    Member

    I just stumbled upon this completely by accident.  With Pro 3.0 viewing the exact same RAW image (CR2) as Pro 2.5, I see a significant color difference.  I checked several other images - same thing.  In 3.0, the images are darker and more color saturated.

    I searched this Forum and found a previous thread that dealt with color differences in View vs. Process, but that's not the issue here.  Next, I fired up my Photo Manager 2009 and its color rendering looked exactly like Pro 2.5?

    There are no color management or any other settings issues going on that I am aware of.    Has anyone else seen this?  Anyone have any ideas?

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 10:46 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    Bill

    Doesn't appear to be the case with me I'm afraid.  Attached shows CR2 (5D) with 2.5 on the left

    Attached Image:

    I don't use raw (use dng) but keep them as originals outside the dbase so, in this case, I am certain no processing has taken place.  Are you also sure that you are using none-processed files?

    Attached Files

    1. 2009-10-06_084328.jpg
    Posted On October 6, 2009 - 07:48 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • LV_Bill
    Member

    Hi Sam -    Guaranteed non-processed.  I keep thinking it's a setting somewhere, but I have scoured the settings and can't anything.  Very strange.

    Posted On October 6, 2009 - 03:16 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    Well, I would guess one program is showing you the camera-embedded preview and the other is showing you ACDSee's own conversion, but depending on how your options are set, it could be either way.  With 2.5, it showed the camera-generated preview firs,t then after a seconds substituted its own conversion - unless you turned off the "high quality pass" option, in which case it kept showing you the camera-generated preview "forever" (or at least, until you applied processing).  With 3.0, it shows the camera-generated preview "forever" (again, at least until you apply processing), unless you turn off the "Speed" option in the General options.

    Of course, it's also possible that both versions are showing you their own conversions, but the defaults it uses for the camera have changed from 2.5 to 3.0.

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 06:07 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • LV_Bill
    Member

    I would guess one program is showing you the camera-embedded preview and the other is showing you ACDSee's own conversion

    Hi Marc -    Nope, I'm looking at the high-quality decoded version in both View and Process, same with Pro 2.5.  If you still have an old version installed, you should do a side-by-side test yourself.  This is not a trivial difference.  Versions up until 2.5 are consistent, then 3.0 makes a serious change.

    BTW, I'm still looking for a definitive answer to my question about the camera settings with Raw.  Specifically, are the camera settings applied to the visible decoded Raw image?  Or, is it absolutely 100% Raw?  I wonder if this may have something to do with the above difference?

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 06:44 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    I just tried it with one of my raw images, and couldn't see any color difference between 2.5 and 3.0.  Slight different in tonal curve, definite difference in noise reduction - to be expected since they totally re-did the NR algorithms.  Aside from the NR difference, the results are closer than between any two RAW converters I've compared, which is as you'd hope.  Maybe you could post JPEG conversions to illustrate the difference you are seeing?  And/or post the raw file itself so others can try it?

    As for your other question - I don't remember seeing it.  I'm not sure I quite understand what you are asking here, but I gather it has to do with the extent to which camera settings are used by ACDsee when doing a RAW conversion.  I find that it pays attention to "some" camera settings.  White balance, obviously - that's pretty much a requirement in order for any RAW converter to useful.  If I turn up the saturation or sharpness in camera, then ACDSee's starts off with its sliders turned up higher than the defaults.  Contrast doesn't seem to get picked up.  it's possible something changed between 2.5 and 3.0 with respect to your camera.  Should be easy enough to check - just take the images into RAW Processing / Develop mode and see where the sliders start out.

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 07:57 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • LV_Bill
    Member

    Marc -   Thanks, and I'll try your suggestions.  FYI, Erin from Development had me FTP him one of my "looks different" CR2 files.  Seems to me it's most pronounced in blue.  We'll see.

    Bill

    p.s.  You no doubt have access to the FTP folders.  Look for Lto_09-06_009.cr2 if you want a "live" sample.

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 08:22 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Erin
    Developer, ACD Systems

    Bill,

    In Pro 3.0 we are applying default sharpening, contrast, and vibrance, based on the information in the EXIF Maker Notes.
    The image you provided me with has the saturation and contrast set to high - this is why it looks different in Pro 3.0.

    The default settings can be turned off by setting them to 0 in the develop processor.

    Hope this helps!

    Erin

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 10:08 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • LV_Bill
    Member

    Erin -   It sounds like you're saying 3.0 applies the camera settings when it displays Raw. and 2.5 does not?  Have I understood you correctly?  That would make perfect sense.  Please confirm this.

    Thanks, Bill

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 10:37 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Erin
    Developer, ACD Systems

    Yes, that is correct.

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 11:48 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • LV_Bill
    Member

    Erin -   Thanks a million.  I did a bunch of testing, and this one little fact turns out to answer a whole list of questions on why things look and behave as they do in Process/Develop vs. Pro 2.5. 

    Thanks again, Bill

    Posted On October 8, 2009 - 02:53 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

Reply

You must log in to post.