DXo advice

[Kalin Wilson]

A demosiced file is not a Raw file IMHO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Conceded. But the resulting DNG is also not an image file (in the sense of tiff or psd), or is it ?
Assuming that you haven't lost information or damaged pixels in the transformation, which might be a large assumption, is there a detriment to continuing your workflow with the DNG vice the original raw file? I believe you have a little more lattitude at this stage with LR and non-destructive edits, than completely rendering the raw to tiff with DxO.

I'm no expert here and I appreciate the opinions expressed. I'm still learning about DxO (and LR).

Kalin

[sojournerphoto]

Conceded. But the resulting DNG is also not an image file (in the sense of tiff or psd), or is it ?
Assuming that you haven't lost information or damaged pixels in the transformation, which might be a large assumption, is there a detriment to continuing your workflow with the DNG vice the original raw file? I believe you have a little more lattitude at this stage with LR and non-destructive edits, than completely rendering the raw to tiff with DxO.

I'm no expert here and I appreciate the opinions expressed. I'm still learning about DxO (and LR).

Kalin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would agree that the demosaiced DNG is not a raw file, as it is not the raw data off the sensor/ADC. It is, if you like, half baked - DXo has demosaiced the raw data and manipulated it to correct optical defects. What remains is the colour/contrast rendering, which is the other half of the process.

The real issue here is whether you think DXo does as good a job at demosaicing as LR, and whether the workflow is convenient given the number of images you are processing. One of the problems I have at present is that the 5D doesn't record focus distance in the exif data so I can't automatically correct for lens aberrations, which means that DXo is only suitable for one off images. I'm still looking forward to v5 thogh - trial version first:)

Mike

[digitaldog]

I would agree that the demosaiced DNG is not a raw file, as it is not the raw data off the sensor/ADC. It is, if you like, half baked - DXo has demosaiced the raw data and manipulated it to correct optical defects. What remains is the colour/contrast rendering, which is the other half of the process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly, there's been some baking which when you think of it, has to happen in this context with DxO until such a time it can hand off its processing instructions to another Raw processor or have the functionality I want to utilize inside of say LR.

Traveling to NY today for PPE show, then swamped there all week. So if I don't post anything more, its not due to ignoring this issue.

Bottom line, half baked (I'd say ¾ baked) isn't what personally want. I want to do all the baking in my Raw converter of choice but would like the lens correction and other interesting capabilities I see in Dx0 along with my baking recipe of choice (LR).

[Kalin Wilson]

The real issue here is whether you think DXo does as good a job at demosaicing as LR, and whether the workflow is convenient given the number of images you are processing. One of the problems I have at present is that the 5D doesn't record focus distance in the exif data so I can't automatically correct for lens aberrations, which means that DXo is only suitable for one off images. I'm still looking forward to v5 thogh - trial version first:)

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The demosaicing is the hangup in my current workflow. I think LR's demosaicing is currently better than DxOs. But the only way to get LR to demosaic the file and DxO to correct the optical effects is to use the plugin which results in a tiff - not optimum. If the V5 demosaicing is better, I may go back to processing images first through DxO to DNG.

I agree with Andrew that I'd prefer all of these capabilities (DxO optical corrections) to be available in LR.

lack of focus info in canon's files is a pain. I have various DxO presets at different hyperfocal distances that I use or infinity, but processing a batch of images is not as automatic as I'd like. My volume is fairly low, so this doesn't bother me too much right now. DxO could use a big speed boost too.

[sojournerphoto]

lack of focus info in canon's files is a pain. I have various DxO presets at different hyperfocal distances that I use or infinity, but processing a batch of images is not as automatic as I'd like. My volume is fairly low, so this doesn't bother me too much right now. DxO could use a big speed boost too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read somewhere that the 40D records distance data, but I've not got one so haven't checked. Hopefully the next 5D or 1Ds3 will be similar.

[Richard Marcellus]

DXO seems to be interested in doing a real plug-in for Lightroom once the SDK is released. Is the due for LR version 2?

This is encouraging for those of use that like some of the Optics Pro features; however, I seem to recall some mention that Adobe's intention (and I have no inside knowledge) was to allow 3rd parties to write full modules (ie Develop, Web etc.) not add-ins to the Adobe modules.

I don't think it would be easy to allow DXO to do noise reduction on the raw file, switch to the ACR engine for demosaicing, tone and colour, then over to DXO's lens corrections. I would love to see this kind of flexibility, but it would seem to be complex to implement. If DXO v5 really has improved demosaicing and noise control then perhaps I wouldn't mind using it in place of the Adobe Develop module, but currently I prefer the ACR engine for raw conversion.

What I would love to see is sort of analogous to VST plug-ins for an audio stream, where lots of different effects can be put in any sequence you want. With images you would effectively have a section with Bayer mosaic data, then post demosaicing, a stream with RGB data. This could end up very complex for the end user as well as the developers, though so I doubt it will happen that way.

Richard