Steve1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I installed it last night and my first thought was how very slow it was (even by SPP standards).
The default look is *much* better, IMHO and the detail slider is just what we need - I rather like the smooth setting as well.
Also, much improved is retention of highlight detail, especially where I had sun shining off flowers and leaves etc that were previously burnt out, colour and detail is now much better - at a first glance compares well with Kalpanika.
Same here. Very slow to start with then it sped up a bit.
The crunchy selector is a good addition especially for people shots but another variable to consume our time.
Luminance, sharpness, infill light and now crunchiness all seem to have similar effects in terms of, umm, crunchiness. and I guess that cocktail has infinite variations.
An improvement in highlight recovery is welcome but the Quattro clips highlights for a pass time and I just try and avoid those situations even if it means bracketing down to -1.0
Now I've used the dp0 a bit, I'm much more careful is processing the photos from my DP Merrills. Looking back at some of my earlier Merrill pics I can see way too much noise and umm, crunchiness. With 6.4.0 I now doubt I would be able to tell a finished Quattro pic from a Merrill. Both are excellent but slow to produce.
I'm sure if SPP could be made faster, Sigma would have done so by now. It is the constant complaint.
Checking back against x3f tools, this latest release (SPP6.4) does not achieve the same degree of pixel level clarity. I will add that no prior version of SPP has achieved this goal either.
Pay attention to the grill work on the chimney as it is aliased out in the SPP version but not in the X3F tools version.
I do notice that highlights are rendered differently, I do not have any results to post on this.
Finally, even at lowest noise reduction settings I see SPP6.4 chooses to desaturate shadow color details to suppress color blotching and color noise versus a x3f tools processed dng with noise reduction turned off.
^^^^ that is a bit worrying ^^^^
I've never tried it but I wonder if you can back down to the previous version if you don't like 6.4.0.
I also have to observe that Sigma has a pretty crap record of releasing good-functioning software.
It is a hard life being a Sigma fan-boy!
My initial trials with 6.4 show it to be a substantial improvement. Gone is that over-crunchy look that could only be avoided in Portrait mode. Better still we have the choice and I really think the Smooth detail setting suits many images; at last they look sharp and clear without looking over-processed.
I also found that 6.4 seemed much slower than 6.3.3 and my heart sank but then discovered that it wasn't on all images. I think I tracked down the culprit but that in itself brings benefits. I had set my Quattros to 'Overexposure Correction' ON. I don't know why, perhaps I thought it did something. With this set to OFF 6.4 is much faster. With it set to ON 6.3.3 is faster than 6.4. However, I wonder if in 6.3 it was doing anything much, so I did some comparisons. The ones on the right are with it ON. The final shot compares 6.4 with Kalpanika
6.3.3 Overexpose correction on versus off
6.4 Overexpose correction on versus off
6.4 Overexpose correction on versus Kalpanika
The clear winner for me, for this photo, is SPP 6.4 with overexposure correction ON. However, used generally it does have the effect of lowering overall contrast and, as I have discovered, vastly increases the processing time. So I am now going to default to OFF and only use it where it is warranted. 6.4 is also better with sunlight on autumn leaves etc too.
I wonder what more there is to discover? Also, I wonder if there are firmware upgrades imminent to add the Detail parameter in-camera.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Thanks Lee, I was hoping for better highlight recovery. The color shift with Kalpanika is still not good on some shots. I have not upgraded SPP yet but will probably give it a try. Love your DP0 shots, I still want that camera but not sure I want to throw more money at Sigma. I will probably just stick with the DP2q and DP3m.
Orange County, CA
Thanks for your kind words. The Detail 'slider' and, IMHO, overall improvement in rendering (for Quattro) makes 6.4 a must-have. Like yourself, I have Sigma gear and Fuji X. I *much* prefer the handling, look and general feel of the Fuji cameras. Prior to SPP 6.4 I found it really difficult to get the Quattro images to look 'right'; X-Pro 1 delivers great IQ, some say 'with soul' and Quattro can be more 'clinical' but when all the runes fall into place they can be great. I wanted to decide on 'one' system but would prefer Fuji and Sigma on alternate days and it would drive me mad trying to decide which I wanted to really 'major' on. The Fuji 14mm is fantastic too but what I haven't yet done is take that and the DP0Q out and do direct comparisons. I don't want to do so much pixel-peeping but the Quattros delight in teasing you in with that. I have just discovered that my DP2Q seems to have some sensor dirt (probably from new but just now showing up at f/8 and smaller with rare UK blue sky) and Sigma UK send it to Japan for fixing with a 6-8 week wait. In that time the SD Q will be out and tempting me ... but do I want to get into another 'system'? Should I just forget that idea and look at the X-Pro 2 or (even better) do nothing? Does all that Sigma 'pixel acuity' really matter once downsized for web or printed? I am not really sure ... sorry to blab on at so many tangents ...
1 Member(s) liked this post
The SD Q hold little interest to me as I am not going to invest in another system. The reality is that I could dump everything but the Fuji and be completely happy but the Sigmas do present an interesting challenge and do slow me down and make me work for it, so I guess good for some purposes. But not enough to warrant the SD Q and lenses.
Orange County, CA
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aps-photo/1 Member(s) liked this post