More Usable Image Detail - Adobe Camera Raw Beats Canon DPP

Question

Let me start with a question:
When you do your raw conversions, do you convert to an image that's got the same number of pixels as your camera's imager has photosites?
If so, why?  I ask because I'm convinced that - with modern software - to get the most usable detail out of a raw image one should convert directly to an upsampled size.  You might think that in trying to get "more megapixels from the same camera" I'm just fooling myself, but again and again when I look at the problem of maximizing the output from existing equipment (which, face it, is everyone's goal, no matter how good the equipment) I keep seeing that there is an advantage to selecting from the upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw.  Of course, the computer must be up to handling the additional data.
In actual terms, my Canon 40D has 3888 x 2592 photosites (plus some guard pixels around the edges) making 10 megapixels, yet I find converting to 6144 x 4096 (25 megapixels) to be advantageous - ESPECIALLY when I use my sharpest lenses.
I happened to be doing a head to head comparison between Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses, and the difference between the two appeared pretty subtle - UNTIL I converted to the aforementioned upsampled resolution, and then the more expensive f/1.4 lens clearly stepped ahead.  There was simply extra detail I hadn't been seeing clearly at the native pixel size of the camera's imager, but which stood out clearly at the larger size.
This reaffirmed my previous observations that conversion directly to upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw brings out additional detail.
This screen grab shows part of the converted image, as produced by DPP and Camera Raw, both at 6144 x 4096 pixels as produced by the converters and displayed at 100% zoom.  Note that the detail (e.g., in the terrain) is finer and more real looking in the Camera Raw conversion, while the DPP image seems to have more sharpening artifacts.
If you're interested in experimenting to see how much detail you can lift out of this same image, the raw file is here:
http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/temp/IMG_5400.zip
I don't have a copy of any other converters, for example Capture 1, to see how they'd do.
-Noel

Answer 1

Noel Carboni wrote:
Hudechrome wrote:
I hope that Noel will offer results that compare the Canon RAW in ACR with both resolutions as well.
Not sure I follow you completely...  Just to be clear, can you lay out what "both resolutions" means?  I'll be more than happy to go through different processes and present comparison images - I just want to be sure I understand just what you're asking for.
Oh, and you're right - some subjectivity necessarily will appear here.  I might just like the "look" of one process while you prefer the "look" of another.
Lastly, one of my workflows involves sharpening images with my own fractal sharpening actions, and I am testing to see which converter process output produces the best result from that as well.
-Noel
I had to read that twice to make sure I knew what it meant!
What I am trying to say is to show the results of both converters in the native resolution and the 25M upsampled.resolution.
On another note, I have been playing around with the details of noise and sharpening in DXO and ACR, looking at 300%. It's both good and bad. If you are willing to mess with the ACR settings at 300%, then ACR has the edge, even comparing to manual tweaks in DXO. They do correctly optimize, however, except that point isn't as good as ACR. The depressing point is all the tweaking to do on an individual basis. Can you imagine tweaking 100 or more images that way? Then you get to move over to other corrections.
We are splitting tiny hairs here, and the bottom line is if you are going to make 30x40 prints from a given file, you may want to use ACR all the way and bite the bullet. If the Auto corrections for the lens employed in ACR is well done, as it seems for my Nikon 18 to 105, the workload is relaxed.
Finally, the ACR corrected image will need final sharpening at higher values than the DXO, and at that point, they come together a bit more...sharpening anomalys and all that.
The final fuss levels takes me back to my 8x10 days, where these kinds of determinations (max quality level) takes place under the focusing cloth, and deliberate selection of POV is carefully considered. Today, it's in front of the monitor. But instead of a few sheets of film to process, we have 100's to do.
I thoroughly enjoy working with the files on the computer, but not so much having to deal with less than optimum technical details right out of the camera. Barrel distortion? Hasselblad was not satisfied with the "normal" corrections in it's general optics, which were damn good, so came out with the 100mm Planar that was awesome! All they gave up was max aperture, and picked the FL at a value that provided for the best corrections. So I recall anyway.
Why should we be required to do these kinds of post corrections? Digital editing involves throwing away information, and ther appears to be enough so that correcting these deficiencies still gives a wonderful image. Just imagine what it would be like if all you need to do is to open the file and adjust values to taste, with all that information density available exclusively for that part. You don't even need to use a focusing magnifier!
Gotta run!
Lawrence