Faster Canon CRW conversion?

jimf

I'm using Canon's bundled software for converting the .CRW images to TIFF and JPEG, but damn is it slow and awkward to use. I know there's a converter with Photoshop CS, but I'm loathe to spend $600 on that software when so far Elements has been just fine other than this issue.

I'm hoping someone, somewhere, has a .CRW converter that is fast and accurate. It has to run on MacOS X.

Anyone?

soup

check an app called capture 1 ( one ) dslr

they actually have a few versions, some designed for specific cameras, and different price ranges, - $49 for the dRebel only version

i think like $149 for the full boat version that supports multiple cameras.

the web site

EDIT: not sure about MAC though

jimf

soup wrote:

check an app called capture 1 ( one ) dslr

they actually have a few versions, some designed for specific cameras, and different price ranges, - $49 for the dRebel only version

I was kind of hoping for something really cheap, although $49 I could probably pop for. I found GraphicConverter (which may even already be on my Mac). Most people seem to like it, but I dunno about performance. Being shareware I'm going to give it a shot.

cmr164

jimf wrote:

I was kind of hoping for something really cheap, although $49 I could probably pop for. I found GraphicConverter (which may even already be on my Mac). Most people seem to like it, but I dunno about performance. Being shareware I'm going to give it a shot.

It was bundled with Jaguar. Did you look at dcraw? Considering the url I was thinking you might have been involved in the Mac version.
http://www.frostyplace.com/dcraw/

jimf

cmr164 wrote:

It was bundled with Jaguar. Did you look at dcraw? Considering the url I was thinking you might have been involved in the Mac version.
http://www.frostyplace.com/dcraw/

Ha ha, now that's funny. But no, I didn't do it. I do sometimes wonder how much of my work on file format readers and writers made it into some of these conversion tools, though.

Do you know whether or not the camera has already done bayer mask interpolation before saving to RAW or whether the software has to do it? If the software does it there could be a significant difference in image quality depending on whose stuff you use. I could see Canon going either way, but mostly it'd be hard to see how their file browser could be so slow if all it were doing was pulling pixels.

cmr164

jimf wrote:

Ha ha, now that's funny. But no, I didn't do it. I do sometimes wonder how much of my work on file format readers and writers made it into some of these conversion tools, though.

Do you know whether or not the camera has already done bayer mask interpolation before saving to RAW or whether the software has to do it? If the software does it there could be a significant difference in image quality depending on whose stuff you use. I could see Canon going either way, but mostly it'd be hard to see how their file browser could be so slow if all it were doing was pulling pixels.

Don't *know* but I would be shocked if it were done. Why increase the content of the raw image in the camera? 6M x 12bit pre-bayer is way easier to store than 6m x RGB post bayer mask. Course they do have to do the processing to produce jpegs, even the ones in the thm files ....

jimf

Well, that's that; GraphicConverter does a really crappy job of converting the CRW files; you get tons of what looks like noise that is not present with the Canon software. I suppose that indicates that the software really does have to do bayer mask interpolation. It's about twice as fast, but at huge quality cost. And it's a very slow browser, too. Its simple image enhancement stuff is pretty nice, at least.

I'll have to try out the other one sometime.

pathfinder

jimf wrote:

Well, that's that; GraphicConverter does a really crappy job of converting the CRW files; you get tons of what looks like noise that is not present with the Canon software. I suppose that indicates that the software really does have to do bayer mask interpolation. It's about twice as fast, but at huge quality cost. And it's a very slow browser, too. Its simple image enhancement stuff is pretty nice, at least.

I'll have to try out the other one sometime.

I know you don't want to buy PS CS - but the RAW converter there integrates with the editing features very nicely - so that almost all the editing can be performed on a 16 bit file before saving in 8 bit for printing. It even allows increasing the image size loaded into PS CS as a 16 bit image directly from the RAW file. Much more convenient than the way it was done in PS#7.... And then you may not need to upsample for a larger image after the file is in PS - just a thought...

wxwax

I posting in blind ignorance, what follows may have nothing to do with your needs... but the latest version of ACDSee now handles Canon RAW files.

DoctorIt

jimf wrote:

I was kind of hoping for something really cheap, although $49 I could probably pop for. I found GraphicConverter (which may even already be on my Mac). Most people seem to like it, but I dunno about performance. Being shareware I'm going to give it a shot.

Capture 1, the dRebel version, is an excellent, EXCELLENT package, especially for $49. I used it and loved it... that is until PS CS... OOOhhhh aaaahhh!!

scrooks

Capture One
I have extensively used both the Photoshop CS and Capture One converters. I settled on Capture One. Not only does it produce better conversions, particularly in the darker areas of a picture, but it also has a fantastic workflow and better control over the conversion.

pathfinder

scrooks wrote:

I have extensively used both the Photoshop CS and Capture One converters. I settled on Capture One. Not only does it produce better conversions, particularly in the darker areas of a picture, but it also has a fantastic workflow and better control over the conversion.

How about posting a crop of a file converted in Capture ONE and Adobe Raw convertor at 100% image size so that we can see and compare for ourselves?

scrooks

pathfinder wrote:

How about posting a crop of a file converted in Capture ONE and Adobe Raw convertor at 100% image size so that we can see and compare for ourselves?

There are lots of comparisons out there that can be found using Google. I'm not going to take a bunch of time to do a comparison myself to add to the crowd. I used Photoshop RAW conversions for a long time and was perfectly happy. Then I needed a better workflow and C1 fit the bill in a big way. At the same time I perceived that my output was better, particularly it was less noisy in the darker areas. I know there are people out there who prefer Photoshop RAW conversions, so to each his own. Investigate, read, compare on your own if you can -- ultimately they probably both work just fine.

rutt

scrooks wrote:

There are lots of comparisons out there that can be found using Google. I'm not going to take a bunch of time to do a comparison myself to add to the crowd. I used Photoshop RAW conversions for a long time and was perfectly happy. Then I needed a better workflow and C1 fit the bill in a big way. At the same time I perceived that my output was better, particularly it was less noisy in the darker areas. I know there are people out there who prefer Photoshop RAW conversions, so to each his own. Investigate, read, compare on your own if you can -- ultimately they probably both work just fine.

Something that might appeal to people with some technical computer background is
dcraw. It is supposidly very fast and gets best in class results and is command line scriptable for automated workflow. I tried it a year ago, but I wasn't really ready for it. I think I'll try again. I'm sure it is good enough to make jpegs quickly from RAW with no intervention, which is required for my workflow. After that, the RAW images would still be available if an image deserved serious treatment.

Stan

scrooks wrote:

I have extensively used both the Photoshop CS and Capture One converters. I settled on Capture One. Not only does it produce better conversions, particularly in the darker areas of a picture, but it also has a fantastic workflow and better control over the conversion.

Sorry to hijack the thread
I posted a similar thread on Digital darkroom about the difference between the pro version and the LS, CE versions of C1 . As far as I can see it is only the number of files you can process simultaneously that makes the difference in a huge price difference. The process is much simpler, quicker and the result is better than PS CS. but don't take my word for it, try the 30 day trial of the pro version, awesome Here

DavidTO

C1
I use C1 SE ona a Mac. The $49 Rebel version is not available for the Mac, and it's being discontinued anyway.

If you're going to shoot RAW, you're either going to be frustrated, or spend some money.

C1 is excellent. It's also $250. Worth it to me. I love it, and have personally had little luck with Adobe Photoshop Camera RAW. It just doesn't work as well for me. But there are many who prefer it.

Those are your two choices, really that I know of now for quality, not frustrating RAW conversion.

Here are some resources for you:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB29

http://www.pictureflow.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?daysprune=&forumid=32&x=8&y=6

rutt

I gave c1pro a try. It is slow compared to both photoshop and dcraw, but it does achieve fine results with lass hassle than either. I think that both dcraw and photoshop are capable of equally good results, but each requires some tinkering. For photoshop, it's like color correcting before color correcting. RAW conversion is always like this I guess, but C1 seems to get it right more often. For dcraw, you can achieve great results, but you have to be aware that RAW conversion is only the first step.

Dcraw has the advantage of being totally free. In combination with a $15 Fred Miranda action, you can get to a very high quality starting point for photoshop color enhancement. I found that it works well in combination with PS/CS's shadow adjustment. But you have to be comforatie with command line (no GUI at all) programs and beyond that you have to comfortable compiling it yourself. This means it runs on Linux as well as the usual other OSs.

I didn't do careful tests, but I found these.