Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: OldRedFox on September 16, 2006, 07:10:13 pm
-
After using CS2 for the last year or so I've been looking around at converters for a while and stumbled across DxO. The beta for V4.0 is out and I have to say I'm pretty impressed by the quality of the images I'm seeing, though the interface is either lousy or so different that I have yet to figure it out. I looked back 4 months and could not find a single thread about them so I figured I'd just ask. Any experience with DxO? Opinions?
Thanks,
Todd Warnke
-
Hello,
Look at this review:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ptics-pro.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/optics-pro.shtml)
-
The last time I tried DxO I was quite happy with the conversions but absolutely hated the interface to the point that I wouldn't use it. Haven't tried 4 to see if it is any better.
-
It's slow and not particularly friendly (or at least the version before this latest update was), but for certain lenses in certain circumstances it's absolutely superb.
For example the Canon 24-105 4.0L IS is a superb lens, but it distorts and vignettes badly at the wide end, DxO fixes this more comprehensively and more quickly than Photoshop.
In fact if you regularly use zooms, particularly wide angle zooms, then DxO is well worth considering, maybe not for day-to-day batch processing, but sometimes it's simply the best way of getting the most out of a special shot.
The other thing I'd say about DxO is that I don't like the way it handles noise reduction, it tends to be a bit heavy handed and wipes out fine detail, producing a "plasticky" over-processed look to the shot, so go careful with this control.
-
The other thing I'd say about DxO is that I don't like the way it handles noise reduction, it tends to be a bit heavy handed and wipes out fine detail, producing a "plasticky" over-processed look to the shot, so go careful with this control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is an option is the contextual menu on the thumbnails that says something like "preserve small details". I don't know what it does, but the resulting images are a lot sharper.
Overall, I find that DxO can be a life saver when images have to be processed with little or no human intervention. The automatic corrections that it does locally usually being images in the right ballpark with zero intervention.
The batch convertion is slow, but the time you spend on the images can be reduced dramatically.
I agree with the comments on the interface of version 3. I have downloaded the beta of version 4 and will start testing it.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I agree with the comments on the interface of version 3. I have downloaded the beta of version 4 and will start testing it.
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Version 4 is a big improvement. The interface is completely new and it comes with a Photoshop Plugin that has the main features of the full program. The PC version Beta is available now and the final version will be released later this month. The Mac version will be available in October. With the new Macs now able to run Windows which release comes first isn't as much of a concern anymore.
-
Hello,
Look at this review:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ptics-pro.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/optics-pro.shtml)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the link. I had already read that, and since was waaayyyy back in 2004 I'm looking for more current info.
Thanks,
Todd Warnke
-
The last time I tried DxO I was quite happy with the conversions but absolutely hated the interface to the point that I wouldn't use it. Haven't tried 4 to see if it is any better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I have to say that 4 offers up a superb conversion but the interface is just plain odd.
Thanks,
Todd Warnke
-
It's slow and not particularly friendly (or at least the version before this latest update was), but for certain lenses in certain circumstances it's absolutely superb.
...
In fact if you regularly use zooms, particularly wide angle zooms, then DxO is well worth considering, maybe not for day-to-day batch processing, but sometimes it's simply the best way of getting the most out of a special shot.
The other thing I'd say about DxO is that I don't like the way it handles noise reduction, it tends to be a bit heavy handed and wipes out fine detail, producing a "plasticky" over-processed look to the shot, so go careful with this control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Gary! That's exactly the type of info I was hoping to find out. I use zooms a lot and find that the PTLens plug-in does better with certain lenses than others. I ran a series of shots through both CS2 with PTLens and DxO and quite agree, with certain lenses they shine.
Thanks for the heads up on the NR. I'll look out for it.
Lastly, I think I may end up doing as you do and avoiding it except for the proper lens/capture combo.
Thanks,
Todd Warnke
-
There is an option is the contextual menu on the thumbnails that says something like "preserve small details". I don't know what it does, but the resulting images are a lot sharper.
...
The batch convertion is slow, but the time you spend on the images can be reduced dramatically.
I agree with the comments on the interface of version 3. I have downloaded the beta of version 4 and will start testing it.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Bernard, I'll try the preserve details option. I have run a couple images through it that needed the NR and I'll re-run them to check this out.
I seldom have more than a 10-20 images to process at a time so the batch stuff isn't a real selling point but it is good to know about, thanks.
I look forward to your comments about the new interface as I'm still fighting with this thing a bit.
Again, thanks!
Todd Warnke
-
Version 4 is a big improvement. The interface is completely new and it comes with a Photoshop Plugin that has the main features of the full program. The PC version Beta is available now and the final version will be released later this month. The Mac version will be available in October. With the new Macs now able to run Windows which release comes first isn't as much of a concern anymore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank Alain for the heads up on the PS plug-in. I just set it up and it works very nicely, with controls that are finely starting to make sense to me. I think I'll give this program a few more trials as I really am pleased with the results - and the plug-in lets me drop the results right into CS2 as I'm used to doing with ACR.
Again, thanks!
Todd Warnke
-
The PhotoShop plug-in vesion version of DXO 4.0 is scheduled for release sometime soon. I'm hoping that fits into my workflow better than the standalone, and has a better interface too. I bought the 3.5 version last week, and though the interface is a little strange, I figured it out pretty quickly, and no longer mind it so much.
I've always used the PTlens plug-in for for lens correction, and it does a fantastic job for the money. DXO is a hair better (possibly because it computes its correction with the distance variable), but drastically more expensive. I use the Neat Image plug-in for noise control, and so far, I haven't gotten results from DXO that are anywhere near as good as Neat Image. Not even in the same league. PTlens and Neat Image also work with a far greater range of cameras and lenses than the limited selection in DXO. In both cases, you can tune those two plug-ins to pretty much whatever equipment you own, including scanned film images, which DXO will never support.
But some of the new capabilities promissed for DXO 4.0 could be really terrific, esp. the advanced geometry and perspective corrections. That's what really intrigued me enough to make the purchase. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
-
The PhotoShop plug-in vesion version of DXO 4.0 is scheduled for release sometime soon. I'm hoping that fits into my workflow better than the standalone, and has a better interface too. I bought the 3.5 version last week, and though the interface is a little strange, I figured it out pretty quickly, and no longer mind it so much.
I've always used the PTlens plug-in for for lens correction, and it does a fantastic job for the money. DXO is a hair better (possibly because it computes its correction with the distance variable), but drastically more expensive. I use the Neat Image plug-in for noise control, and so far, I haven't gotten results from DXO that are anywhere near as good as Neat Image. Not even in the same league. PTlens and Neat Image also work with a far greater range of cameras and lenses than the limited selection in DXO. In both cases, you can tune those two plug-ins to pretty much whatever equipment you own, including scanned film images, which DXO will never support.
But some of the new capabilities promissed for DXO 4.0 could be really terrific, esp. the advanced geometry and perspective corrections. That's what really intrigued me enough to make the purchase. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use the older stand alone version. I do seascapes, and some of the Canon wide zooms produced such badly curved horizons, that they were unuseable. DXo corrects these, and now some of my best images have been made using these same lenses. I also use it as my RAW Canon converter at the same time.
Dave
-
I've been using DXO optics for a year now and have nothing but praise for the output quality, the interface took a bit to get used to but the results are superb
Marc
-
As a response to this thread I downloaded the V4 Beta demo. I have mixed emotions about the experience. On one hand the results are so staggeringly good (esp with the wides) that I'm excited about reprocessing all my favourite images, and then I think about the time required to do all that. Arrrgh, why didn't I try this programme when I first bought a DSLR!?
I have recently been toying with the idea of getting a Zeiss wide and adapter for the 5D because of the occasional disappointment with the Canon 16-35. The increase in output quality with DxO makes me rethink that prospect. Has anyone had the opportunity to test a known WA performer and compared the results with the 16-35 that has been corrected with DxO? I'd be very interested in your conclusions.
(Later edit) I have been searching for tutorials or user forums for DxO, but am having trouble locating any. There is a Yahoo Group, but it has only had one posting, and that was in March. It is such a complex program, that it would be great to talk to people who have mastered it.
-
I'm no master but I have been using it for about a year and process all my images with it. You get used to the user interface. V4 is a bit easier. In a month it will feal better to you. I now only buy lenses supported by DXO. I process my RAWs with it but do little image correction. I output a 16 bit tiff. I then use PSCS2 for croping, adjustments etc. It alows you to output to any colorspace and the images are better than those processed by ACR. I wish there was a forum for it too.
Marc
-
I only use the lens correction feature of DxO and none of the other features. For lens correction it is superb. I output in DNG and then use ACR/Lightroom for the rest of the RAW conversion. Unfurtunately, it is an extra step outside of my workflow. The plug-in doesn't seem to offer any advantage is this respect. The program is severly crippled, for my use, by the inability to read the DNG format.
-
It was interesting to read that DxO technology has been included in the in-camera processing for a Carl Zeiss Digiscope (http://www.dxo.com/intl/business/digital_cameras/image_science_zeiss_dxo). This was first talked about several years ago as a way to improve output quality of inexpensive cameras or increasing zoom capabilities, but this is the first time I've read about it actually being incorporated into a camera.
I wonder if this will allow the development of super zoom digicams that are generous in the wide-angle end of the focal range (where DxO appears to be particularly effective). A 12x zoom digicam going from 24-288 rather than the more common 36-432 (ish) focal range would suit my shooting style very well.
-
I only use the lens correction feature of DxO and none of the other features. For lens correction it is superb. I output in DNG and then use ACR/Lightroom for the rest of the RAW conversion.
This is precisely what I do, too, and have been quite pleased with the results.
DxO is largely the reason I haven't yet felt the need to upgrade from the Canon 28-135 to their newer 24-105 or the 24-70. $400 in software vs $1,200 in lens upgrade - not a bad deal. I did my testing with a Canon 5D looking at 12x18 inch prints. DxO processed images shot at 28mm f/3.5 looked as good in the corners as the same shot at f/8 processed strictly through ACR, maybe a bit better. The center was too close to call between the two. Granted, that particular lens needs a lot of lens correction for softness, but DxO lens correction is that good.
I bought the upgrade to v4, but it won't run on Win2k unless you're in the "Administrators" group. I'm waiting on a solution from DxO. I changed the permissions on the files, and a multitude of registry entries it added (by searching for "DxO"), but apprently there's something I missed and it still won't work.
Be warned: a DxO generated DNG file from a Canon 5D is typically about 40 MB, while a DNG straight from Adobe's DNG converter is about 10 MB. Great results, though, using DxO for lens correction to DNG, then ACR.
-
What do you find better in ACR than doing the processing in DXO then adjustments in PSCS2? Is ACR doing a better job in some aspects? Are you just more comfortable with ACR?
Thanks Marc
-
I am more familiar with ACR than DxO, so I may have been a little biased when I did my evaluation of DxO. But ACR also isn't my preferred raw converter, so I don't think it could've been a very strong bias. I'm really partial to Raw Shooter Premium, both for it's workflow and the results I get from it. So while it could easily be a case of "sticking with the familiar", I think "bias" is probably too strong a word to describe it.
It's been a few months since I last tried DxO for full raw conversion, but I recall finding that DxO produces too much contrast for my taste. Just saying "too much contrast for my taste" doesn't really adequately describe it. There is also sharpening going on, but also some smoothing for noise reduction. I just didn't like the look of the images as well as what I was accustomed to, and found it easier to get a look I like by letting DxO do what they're good at and then finishing up with ACR. It may be possible to tweak DxO's settings to get what I wanted, but this method works for me and I didn't pursue it further. If Raw Shooter Premium would read a DNG produced by DxO I'd be even happier, but it won't.
So my investment in DxO is strictly for their lens correction algorithms, and just for that it's worth it to me. To me it's an extra step at the beginning of the process for situations where I feel lens correction is needed, but then leave the rest of my workflow intact.
I don't feel it's a time issue, as I don't mind the extra time DxO takes to process images. I also tend to do as much optimization as possible in the raw converter, preferring that to leaving extra work for Photoshop. It's really just a nebulous "I didn't like the look as well as what I'm used to." Sorry I can't seem to describe it more precisely.
-
As with others here, the DxO distortion correction is top notch. I find the noise correction and capture sharpening to be quite good too. DxO's lack of support for using DNG as an input format (even to view DNG output files!) is a major drawback.
Q: What are the possible problems with using DxO for demosaicing, just for the distortion, noise, and softness modules, and then use Lightroom for all other adjustments?
It would require saving the DxO output as a DNG, which could then be opened in LR. I've heard that errors can occur when using two raw processors.
-
Like others, I was put off by DxO's interface and had some trouble getting my head around how to make the damn thing work. But, when it did work, I was intrigued by the results. After downloading the demo three separate times I finally made the plunge and have not looked back. The first thing I did was print the user manual and read it from cover to cover. I've been going back and processing problem images and for me it's like having a new camera, but one that I can use to "retake" the exact same photo. I love the mid-tone contrast and dynamic range it provides. I use it for Canon lenses for the 1Ds. I also really like the corrected look of very wide angle lens shots and find that I tend to crop the re-do's less - as if they now appear closer to what I was after in the full frame.
-
I tried v 3.x but did not have long to test it before it expired, and I've forgotten what the interface looks like. I also concentrated on conversions of some old 1ds/24-70 images.
I've downloaded V4 beta to try and will have a go in a week or so, but I now have very few Canon lenses as all my WA's are OM, CZ or Leica.
Is there any way to manaully adjust for perceived or real issues with these lenses? For example CA is a concern on almost any lens, can this be manually corrected or only with a lens module?
Similarly, can I make manual barrel distortion or vignetting corrections like I can with CS2 Lens Distortion?
Thanks
Mike
-
In the expert mode Without a lens module you CAN:
Chromatic aberration
Purple fringing
Keystoning
you CANNOT:
Lens distortion
Vignetting
Volume Anamorphosis
It is still the best RAW converter that I have used when coupled to a lens that a module is available for.
Marc
-
I have been testing V4 for a week now and while it is somewhat slow, I am very pleased with the results. There are more tools than either ACR or DPP and the conversions carry more detail. In the Expert mode there is a lot of control. I am becoming used to the interface and will use this until somehting better comes out.