Artifacts -- demosaicing?

[thufor]

I see some rather disturbing artifacts (horizontal lines in patterns) in the attached pictures -- I'm not sure but if I was to guess this might be the result of demosaicing algorithm. As a rather dumb comparison, out of camera JPG, slightly sharpened, doesn't exhibit this issue.

BTW: Those are 200% views.

[thufor]

Settings used for RAW image with S-Curve

[afx]

What happens if you do not use USM but the built in sharpen instead?

chers
afx

[thazooo]

I've seen those. They've been popping up since 2006 with Bibble. It doesn't happen with every image and I haven't found a work around for my camera brand. When they occur I process the image with my Camera brand RAW converter. Check out this post and sub posts

http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/vi ... 86&t=16252

Since using ASP I haven't noticed the issue but then again I may not have shot an image that confuses the software. Best I can tell it happens in less than 1% of my shots.

Good Luck.

[DocBrown]

I've seen these. I've been able to get rid of these and similar artifacts. Experiment with the RAW Noise and Threshold sliders.

[KeithR]

Experiment with the RAW Noise and Threshold sliders.

Which kills detail by the time it kills the artifact, of course.

[thufor]

What happens if you do not use USM but the built in sharpen instead?

Attached as requested. Rather terrible (should I say: shocking?) color artifacts, in addition to the patterns. I forgot to mention that I also added some Local Contrast with Wavelet Sharpen USM 20/120/0 in Clarity Mode. USM sharpening I describe on the images was done with USM plugin, and not with Wavelet Sharpen USM, nor Noise Ninja USM.

I will post image without Local Contrast enhancement (i.e. Wavelet Sharpen completely off).

[thufor]

Local Contrast Enhancement off...

[thufor]

And the same image in Bibble 5 -- artifacts as well.

[afx]

Upload the file with a description of the prblem (and a pointer to this thread) at http://aftershotpro.com/AfterShotUploader/

cheers
afx

[KeithR]

It's a rotten demosaicing algorithm for Canon files - I've been saying that for long enough...

[SteveCase]

It's a rotten demosaicing algorithm for Canon files - I've been saying that for long enough...

Yes you have.

[thazooo]

It's a rotten demosaicing algorithm for Canon files - I've been saying that for long enough...

It's interesting to see a Canon user making the same statement as was made in the Pentax thread I posted above. It's conclusion was that the K10D was doing some extra processing that Bibble wasn't able to match (in short). Being a user of this brand of camera, I just wrote it off as a possibility.
I've also seen similar coming out of scans of 120 negs. I was able to track this down in the software I was using. It would occur in either Epson Scan or Vuescan whenever I used Noise Reduction or Scratch Removal. This lead me to believe that the problem was coming from a Noise Reduction routine in the Bibble software.
This is just food for thought if any one from ASP decides to read this thread.

[KeithR]

Not only is it a rotten demosiacing algorithm but, this fact has been well accepted among the more well-informed, less easy-to-please users of Bibble and now ASP, for a while - here's a post from over two years ago about some of the workarounds that Bibble users have been forced to consider to get past the mess made by the demosaicing algorithm:
http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/vi ... 65#p100965

Steve, I'm going to keep banging on about it until it's finally fixed once and for all, and I hope to hell that project managers in Corel make it very clear to the ASP coders that fundamental IQ issues like awful demosaicing and dismal highlight recovery are a damn' sight more important to work on than pratting around "improving" the plugin SDK and the like.

[SteveCase]

Steve, I'm going to keep banging on about it until it's finally fixed once and for all, and I hope to hell that project managers in Corel make it very clear to the ASP coders that fundamental IQ issues like awful demosaicing and dismal highlight recovery are a damn' sight more important to work on than pratting around "improving" the plugin SDK and the like.

Bang away. I actually hope you can get their attention. But.... I think you are fighting a percentage thing. Where a larger number of people are not, or don't realize they are, seeing any problem. Your needs are rather specialized compared to the average photo shooter. Doesn't mean that the product shouldn't be improved. Just that they might think other things are more important. Glitzy looks might be much cheaper to build in. For the most part looks always outweigh what's under the hood from a marketing dept standpoint.

I don't have you on ignore btw.