ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Bugs & Suggestions
Post Reply
Matagalpa
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 11:33 am
operating_system: Windows 8
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
processor: i5-750
ram: 8GB
Video Card: AMD HD 7850 2GB
Monitor/Display Make & Model: Dell 2209

ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by Matagalpa »

My impression is that ASP (1.3 in my case) doesn't deliver better image quality than in-camera JPEGs (Sony A77, Minolta 7D), at least when it comes to properly exposed and white-balanced pictures. I regularly get better image quality with other RAW conversion applications (my favorites being RawTherapee and DxO) than the in-camera JPEG, but not with ASP. Do you have a different experience?
dFlyer
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:18 pm
operating_system: Linux
System_Drive: N/A
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
Location: Sevierville, Tennessee

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by dFlyer »

ASP is a raw converter. Try shooting RAW and converting.
Thanks.
Gary Garibaldi
Linux since 96
Sony a700
Sony a100
Matagalpa
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 11:33 am
operating_system: Windows 8
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
processor: i5-750
ram: 8GB
Video Card: AMD HD 7850 2GB
Monitor/Display Make & Model: Dell 2209

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by Matagalpa »

That's what I did of course. What else would I do with it?
peteln
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:42 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit
motherboard: Magic-pro
processor: AM64x2
ram: 3GB
Video Card: Nvidia GTX275
sound_card: on board
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 4TB
Monitor/Display Make & Model: Samsung

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by peteln »

Same here with D3, D600 and D800e files.
Now I mostly shoot JPEG unless I see the need for substantial post-processing when shooting.
FalCT60
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:29 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by FalCT60 »

As far as I know, cameras internal processing is set as to match the tastes of people, not te reality.
I had the same kind of discussion with a friend who owns a D700 too. He said that, when he shot raw + jpeg, he liked the jpegs much more than the raws. That, on the display of the camera.
So I proposed him to compare what could be : results on a wide screen from a scene shot with same camera settings, him jpeg an me raw, on a calibrated screen.
WB to sun, as it was sunny outdoor where whe took the photo, both cmaeras on tripod and remote controlled.
After loading both pictures in ASP, he carefully compared them and, after a few minutes, said to me :
"OK, your photo (the raw) renders much more the truth of the scene, but mine (the jpeg) is much more what I like".
df
Posts: 1214
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:21 pm
operating_system: Windows 10
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
processor: 2.6 Ghz i7-6700HQ
ram: 16gb
Video Card: Nvidia GTX 960M
sound_card: onboard sound
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1 Tb
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by df »

Yes, and heaven forbid anyone get's what they like out of their camera. :roll:
Regards, Dan

"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast."
Matagalpa
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 11:33 am
operating_system: Windows 8
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
processor: i5-750
ram: 8GB
Video Card: AMD HD 7850 2GB
Monitor/Display Make & Model: Dell 2209

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by Matagalpa »

FalCT60 wrote:As far as I know, cameras internal processing is set as to match the tastes of people, not te reality.
So to paraphrase, what you're basically saying is that the reason the output I'm able to get with ASP looks worse than in-camera JPEG, DxO and RawTherapee is that ASP is the only conversion that aims for "real" rather than "pleasing"?
FalCT60
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:29 am
operating_system: Windows XP Pro
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 32 Bit

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by FalCT60 »

I didn't mention any other converter but ASP.
The comparison was exclusively between ASP and internal camera processing, which tends to show ASP as more neutral than Nikon (in our case) soup.
I can't presume of other software behaviour.
Matagalpa
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 11:33 am
operating_system: Windows 8
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
processor: i5-750
ram: 8GB
Video Card: AMD HD 7850 2GB
Monitor/Display Make & Model: Dell 2209

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by Matagalpa »

Ok, but my original post (if not the title) clearly stated that I'm getting better results with these two RAW converters and (to my surprise) also with the in-camera JPEGs. Playing with v2.0 briefly doesn't make me feel that image quality is improved, and Corel's own marketing tends to focus more on performance improvements (an area where ASP was already better than anything else) and not where the improvement is actually needed - in the image quality department.

ASP is probably not useful for me at its current state, but I was curious if others have a different experience, as it could be camera-specific. I guess the answer is no. The in-camera JPEGs from other cameras are also equal or better to what ASP can deliver, at least when it comes to properly exposed and white-balanced pictures. Well, at least I bought my license on a sale...
thomascheng
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:38 am
operating_system: Windows 8.1
System_Drive: C
32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
motherboard: GigaByte
processor: i7 6-Core
ram: 32 GB
Video Card: AMD R9
sound_card: Creative
Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1 Terabyte
Monitor/Display Make & Model: Dell 30"

Re: ASP image quality vs. in-camera JPEG

Post by thomascheng »

I can only speak as an ASP 2 user. Hmm, that question will depend on a lot of factors. Your camera always starts with the raw and converts it to Jpeg internally. ASP, just takes the raw and lets you convert it manually. However, the question you should be specifically asking is how does manual ASP Sharpness, Saturation, and Noise reduction, compared to the automatic in-camera application. If you camera has a log mode that lets you automatically retrain highlight and lift shadows, then you need to compare that too.

From my personal experience, I really enjoy using ASP 2, there are a few annoying bugs and hiccups in the program, but for the most part, it doesn't seem affect my image quality. I use to be a Lightroom user, but switch since their rental only system would lock me into their program. If I stop paying the monthly fee, I would lose access to my adjustments. ASP2 is a great program, that just needs a bit more QA to make it super solid. Deleting images in your catalog is slow process. I've used Raw Therapee, it's too slow and clunky for me.

Also, there are a bunch of free plugins with ASP that are absolute essential, you should download them to make you image even better. I would suggesting getting Bez to deal with highlight tones better. In combination with exposure and highlights sliders, it will make a huge difference in dealing with blow out skies or backgrounds
Post Reply