DPP 1.5 is available

[Jim_Larson]

Ok, dumb question: WHAT IS DPP 1.5?

More to the point:
How does it compare with the Canon Zoombrowser/file viewer utilties?

If I already use C1 to process images, do I want to bother with DPP 1.5?

[Michael_Coons]

The transfer to Photoshop feature in DPP 1.5 is still there, it has been moved to become a funtion of batch processing.

Go to File->Batch Process->Image Transfer Settings

You need to tell it where Photoshop is and check the box next to it that says "open image using software"

You can now transfer multiple images to Photoshop at one time but it is slower to use then it was in 1.1

[Marcelo_Plaza]

Michael,
thanks, I really did not look for this in batch mode. Still doesn't make much sense to me, but if is still there better.

Marcelo

[Noel_Carboni]

[ QUOTE ]
If I already use C1 to process images, do I want to bother with DPP 1.5?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jim,

This is quite possibly a loaded question. I think the short answer is "yes", if only to understand for yourself what you can achieve with it.

Does any ONE Raw converter beat all others in all ways? No, not that I can see. DPP has some merit regarding sharpness, though it also delivers more noise than I'd like. Also, I find the user interface a bit clunky. Photoshop CS has merit, as well as C1, and even Canon EVU, all in different ways.

I've been trying to grok the Raw converter field w/regard to the 20D, and frankly it's too complicated to get one's mind around quickly. So waiting is (as well as experimenting).

DPP is free; and it's not hard to install and it's pretty easy to convert a few images to check out the quality. So try it! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Noel

[Jim_Larson]

Noel;

Thanks for the response.

It was not a loaded question. I actually *don't know* what DPP is intended to do. So the intent is to replace a RAW converter, such as C1? Hmmm.

Yeah, I could just try it. . .but I like to hear some reviews of programs prior to loading them and cluttering the operating system.

[Noel_Carboni]

Yes, DPP is a Raw converter.

I didn't mean to imply you shouldn't ask the question. What I meant was that the answer is anything but simple. There are wayyy too many variables for it to be simple. What I AM saying, based on my own testing, is that it's worth a try.

For example...
[*]The sharpening in DPP is reminiscent of PK Sharpener. No halos, and dotted lines for heavily sharpened details - you can get a pretty sharp conversion out of it.
[*]DPP doesn't seem to know how to map out hot pixels in long exposures, and the occasional "warm" pixel noise is greater. Thus a DPP conversion could be noisier (and in fact is noisier than a Camera Raw conversion in some ways).
[*]Even given the above tendency to produce more random and hot pixel noise, DPP actually seems to produce less banding noise in a 20D than Adobe Camera Raw. Even JPEGs have less banding noise than Camera Raw.
[*]DPP's color is different from EVU's color is different from Camera Raw's color is different from C1's color. Which do you like best?
[*]The user interface of DPP leaves something to be desired, though it does have usable batch conversion capability.

I'm giving Raw shooting "the old college try" with my 20D, and so far I've found good reasons to use each different converter. But jeez, all these variables are enough to make a person swear off of Raw and back to shooting JPEG, where life is simple, the sun is shining, the birds are singing... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-Noel

[Jim_Larson]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm giving Raw shooting "the old college try" with my 20D, and so far I've found good reasons to use each different converter. But jeez, all these variables are enough to make a person swear off of Raw and back to shooting JPEG, where life is simple, the sun is shining, the birds are singing... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

-Noel

[/ QUOTE ]

hahah -> given how much you tweak your JPEGs. . .I am still surprised you don't shoot raw. You can process "as shot" in FVU (or DPP I imagine) for most photos. . .and only tweak the shots that really need it.