cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DPP3 far outperforms DPP4 (an ISO invariance experiment)

Stemanz
Apprentice

Everyone seems pretty much happy with DPP4.

 

I'm not.

 

A simple ISO-invariance experiment, performed with an EOS 1200D, shows tremendous detail loss when the same .CR2 images are processed with DPP4 compared with DPP3.

 

My procedure is simple: shooting a picture (tripod, indoor) with varying exposure times and ISOs (aptly chosen), then boosting the EV in post-processing to match the picture taken on camera. Also, the very same noise reduction profile has been applied to all same-ISO-equivalent images (that is, the exact noise reduction profile that DPP* would apply to an in-camera ISO 3200 picture is applied in post-production to a +1EV ISO 1600 picture, and so on).

 

+1 EV

 

DPP4 processing is lagging behind at +1EV already. Things are just going to be getting worse:

 

+2EV

 

Clearly, DPP4 is doing a horrible job in processing the boosted CR2 (top right) while DPP3 renders almost in par with the natively taken ISO 6400 image the +2EV boosted ISO 1600 CR2 file (top left).

 

What is your experience? Is anyone having these issues? How is DPP4 doing with better cameras than mine?

 

If anyone asks, I will be more than happy to provide full size CR2 files to experiment with (the full image has darker and brighter areas, I just wanted to keep it simple in here).

 

And NO, I'm not going to use Lightroom/RAWtherapee, etc. I want DPP4 to do a decent job out of the box.

10 REPLIES 10

Waddizzle
Legend
@stemanz. I suggest using s much wider aperture lens for the shots of the sky. Having a “dark sky” helps, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."
Announcements