50D and sRAW

M

magirus

Messages
568
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been reading a fair bit online about the supposed merits of shooting in sRAW1 with a 5OD. It seems that when going above ISO 800 (therefore light levels are low) then the lower 7.1MP setting will give a cleaner image with less noise. Without wishing to start a technical debate I'm just wondering if any 50D users here use this setting and if it is in fact beneficial.:shrug:
 
magirus said:
I've been reading a fair bit online about the supposed merits of shooting in sRAW1 with a 5OD. It seems that when going above ISO 800 (therefore light levels are low) then the lower 7.1MP setting will give a cleaner image with less noise. Without wishing to start a technical debate I'm just wondering if any 50D users here use this setting and if it is in fact beneficial.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Have you got a link to the article?
 
Splog said:
Have you got a link to the article?
Click to expand...


It wasn't just one article.I googled something like "using 50D with sRAW" on my iPhone earlier (on PC now) and followed various links around various websites. Some of it got pretty technical. I'll try and find the relevant links later if I can.
 
sRaw = complete waste of time!

The 50d has very good noise levels up to 3200 ISO.

The trick is to covert high ISO raws to jpeg using Canon's DPP and NOT photoshop / lightroom as DPP gives a far, far cleaner conversion, even without using nr. Then import to Photoshop (or whatever you normally use) for the rest of the post processing.

Try converting a high iso image in DPP then something else and see the difference.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
sRaw = complete waste of time!

The 50d has very good noise levels up to 3200 ISO.

The trick is to covert high ISO raws to jpeg using Canon's DPP and NOT photoshop / lightroom as DPP gives a far, far cleaner conversion, even without using nr. Then import to Photoshop (or whatever you normally use) for the rest of the post processing.

Try converting a high iso image in DPP then something else and see the difference.
Click to expand...

I'm going to give that a try with my 7D, I usually just import the RAWs directly to Lightroom in order to get a bit more control compared to jpg.
Would there be any benefit in using DPP to convert RAW > uncompressed TIFF, then importing to Lightroom? (as opposed to RAW > jpg)
 
Cyprino said:
I'm going to give that a try with my 7D, I usually just import the RAWs directly to Lightroom in order to get a bit more control compared to jpg.
Would there be any benefit in using DPP to convert RAW > uncompressed TIFF, then importing to Lightroom? (as opposed to RAW > jpg)
Click to expand...

Yes there is still a benefit converting to TIFF, though I've not tried it that way.
 
odd jim said:
sRaw = complete waste of time!

The 50d has very good noise levels up to 3200 ISO.

The trick is to covert high ISO raws to jpeg using Canon's DPP and NOT photoshop / lightroom as DPP gives a far, far cleaner conversion, even without using nr. Then import to Photoshop (or whatever you normally use) for the rest of the post processing.

Try converting a high iso image in DPP then something else and see the difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info, I'll give it a try. Is there a technical reason why DPP does this better?
 
i dunno LR2 isnt bad at processing noise, LR3 is supposed to be much better. thats from a 1D3 up to 3200 and on rare occasion 6400. if its still poor before going to print then a quick blast in CS3 with noise ninja does the trick.

saying that not tried going through DPP first, it would be incredibly time consuming for me though (circa 2000+ shots per event) :D
 
magirus said:
Thanks for that info, I'll give it a try. Is there a technical reason why DPP does this better?
Click to expand...

I dont know the technical facts, but of course Canon's DPP is designed and produced to work with Canon's CR2 files.
 
neil_g said:
i dunno LR2 isnt bad at processing noise, LR3 is supposed to be much better. thats from a 1D3 up to 3200 and on rare occasion 6400. if its still poor before going to print then a quick blast in CS3 with noise ninja does the trick.

saying that not tried going through DPP first, it would be incredibly time consuming for me though (circa 2000+ shots per event) :D
Click to expand...

You can still batch process with DPP?
 
Probably just that canon has engineered the RAW processor to get the absolute optimum out of their own files.

I find LR3 very good at dealing with noise, not far off DPP. The jpg's converted have more noise when done with no noise reduction, but I find that LR3 produces a smoother less blotchy noise pattern than DPP (I think the chroma NR is more effective), even though there is more of it. And LR has better luma noise reduction.
The optimum combo is probably convert to TIFF in DPP with no NR then process the TIFF's in LR or PS.
 
squishy said:
Probably just that canon has engineered the RAW processor to get the absolute optimum out of their own files.

I find LR3 very good at dealing with noise, not far off DPP. The jpg's converted have more noise when done with no noise reduction, but I find that LR3 produces a smoother less blotchy noise pattern than DPP (I think the chroma NR is more effective), even though there is more of it. And LR has better luma noise reduction.
The optimum combo is probably convert to TIFF in DPP with no NR then process the TIFF's in LR or PS.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats probably a good way to do it!
 
magirus said:
It wasn't just one article.I googled something like "using 50D with sRAW" on my iPhone earlier (on PC now) and followed various links around various websites. Some of it got pretty technical. I'll try and find the relevant links later if I can.
Click to expand...

The talk seems to be that perhaps canon are using pixel binning with sraw. If so then less noise is a real possibility and something that astro photographers have been doing for years. Binning is combining or averaging four and sometimes more to output a single pixel signal, hence more signal and less noise, higher signal to noise ratio.
 
Agreed, it does sound interesting.
That said could I really sacrifice a 50% drop in pixels (although I know pixels aren't the be all and end all).

I've never used DPP on any of my photos. All mine go straight into photoshop with any noise being removed by topaz denoise 5 which seems to do a good job.
I might do a side by side comparison just out of interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top