Bibble vs Capture one

[koji]

I have never used Bibble to develop raw files, so I got Bibble demo and
familiarized myself so far in order to do a basic operation three days.
So used softwares are Bibble 5 (demo) version 3 (still beta version) and
Capture One version 4 (not Pro version), and the both had no-USM no-
sharpening, but used auto-level in their standard way. I used them and
cameras are always in Adobe RGB mode in and out. No colour noize
reduction was applied whatsoever.

I was mainly interested in "resolution" from the softwares on the same
raw files, though some differences make effect to those resolution tests.
One thing I noticed is that Bibble is very fast comparing C1.

Here comes the results on order of Bibble first, C1 second and 100% crops
follow the originals in B and C order again. All are in 1024 pixcel size.

House and sky (5D+Distagon 35/1.4) - Bibble has nicer sky colour and more


100% crop



Lady in formal kimono (5D+Distagon 35/1.4)


100% crop (foreground is already out of focus) - hard to tell difference



Trinity college in Toronto (D700+Distagon 21/2.8ZF)


100% crop - Bibble has more CA



Oh Cananda (D700+Distagon 21/2.8ZF close focus)


100% crop - Bibble has sharper result (may be due to brighter output?)



CN tower and its friends (D700+Distagon 25/2.8ZF) no 100% crop since they are almost identical in resolution - this time C1 has nicer sky colour to me



Dog walk (D700+Planar 50/1.4ZF)


100% crop - C1 is slightly sharper



My wife in Kimono (D700+Planar 85/1.4ZF)


100% crop - due to more contrast from C1, it looks sharper but the resolutions look same



My conclusion is C1 is a little sharper in the results but the differences will be gone when you apply after some sharpening. Bibble's processing speed is a quite nice, and cheaper too.
I am wondering whether I should upgrade my C1V4 to C1V5PRO ($350?) or not, so I did this comparison personally. I like Bibble's speed so that I do not have to upgrade CPUs for
a long time. But not sure yet, I like C1's UI even though many people hate it. (C1's simplicity I love, maybe because I was programming myself for a long time as my profession.)

Hope you enjoyed.

[Nesster]

I'm agreeing with your evaluation of the results - C1 has more sharpening and a cooler color balance at default setting than Bibble.

The photo of your wife in kimono is super by the way - the C1 version is 3d but for me verging on super-real. I'd want to tone the C1 down a bit, and brighten the curve + add .2 100%+ USM to the B version, and see what happens.

[koji]

Addenda: For the first example C1 goofed it WB, the most of colour differences
can be corrected or made similar by tweaking WB. The last example Bible goofed
its exposure/WB and I could not recover it well, yes C1 did a bit over-enhanced
saturation or light tone.

The speed of processing by Bibble is normally 0.4 - 1.0 seconds, lower for 5D's
raw files. Whereas C1 took ~3.3 seconds for 5D's raw files and close to 4 seconds
for D700's raw files. Bibble's speed is astounding.

Generally speaking Bibble's colour or exposure is much more my liking, however
it is not always so unfortunately.

[F16SUNSHINE]

Oh I should not have opened this thread

I thought I was happy with LR2 and Aperture2.
Now I feel compelled to try some others and make comparisons.

Koji
Nesster has it right. The pic of your wife is lovely.

[koji]

Thanks for your visiting this thread.

I found out today, Bibble does not seem to handle .DNG files. UGH
Your M8/9 raw files are out of luck!

[F16SUNSHINE]

Strange.
Actually I have been converting everything to DNG when I import it into LR.
Wonder if the trial version of Bibble is disabled in some way.

[koji]

Bibble can handle .rw2 from Pana's DMC-GF1, but not for .DNG file which
I converted from .rw2 for C1. (C1V5 right now cannot recognize .rw2 files,
I used demo version of C1V5.)

I have no idea why Bibble cannot handle .DNG files, creators hate Adobe?!

[Cobalt60]

Quote:
"We have already said that DNG is likely to be added, although not in the initial release."

[Cobalt60]

And: "... that native in camera generated DNG are perfectly supported by Bibble as every other raw data out of cam ..."

[koji]

[patrickh]

koji

Thanks for the exercise and yes your wife's portrait is a treasure. I have been a bibble user for a couple of years now - after getting totally disillusioned with Adobe's totally non-intuitive UI and its rather pathetic Raw converter. C1 was a contender for me, but economics won. Also I might point out that Bibble provides for (and has) plugins, working at the RAW level. In Bibble4 with a bunch of plugins I could attempt almost everything available in PS that was of a purely corrective nature (no arty stuff!) and work only at the RAW level, converting to TIFF or jpeg at the end. I very rarely had to go to Gimp (my other preferred option). I think from viewing your samples that I would be hard pressed to choose between the two on the basis of detail alone.


patrickh

[Orio]

I always got great images out of Bibble 4. But now I can't use it anymore, because my current cameras are not supported and there's no evidence that they will ever be in this version.

[koji]

Patrick

Yes it is hard pressed to pick one between these two. I never liked PS's
raw converter (same engine as LR's), briefly used DPP (canon's free soft)
for 5D's raw files, but is heavily concentrated to sharpness and no gradation
to me.

So I ended up C1, which came bundled with M8, actually C1LE version.
But they upgraded it to C1V4 without any restriction, so I have been
using this C1. Now they upgraded it to version 5, which asks us more
money to get it.

Newer version of C1 is more capable like Bibble, its nicest feature is
to stamp out "garbage spots on digital censor" easily. This "stamp"
is my 95% use of PS, so I may be able to eliminate the use of PS from
Adobe.

But Bibble's processing speed is fantastic, but no DNG support is rough.