Topic: DxO 5.3 (Read 10837 times)

BernardLanguillier · « **on:** October 22, 2008, 07:11:11 pm »

Dear all,

DxO 5.3 has been available for download since yesterday.

I have to say that I am impressed.

- the image artifacts that were present at high contrast edges involving reds are now solved,
- the many small interface issues have been fixed (no screen refresh at switch between modules,...)
- one of the best features, the correction of verticals, is now very fast and totally usable
- I need to test more, but the speed of export seem to be faster also.

Had DxO V5 been at this quality level at its initial release, it would have made a significant splash. One quick sample shot with the 14-24 f2.8 on the D3 and converted to B&W with filmpack.

I intend to use it more from now on when I need to reach quickly a good conversion result.

Cheers,
Bernard

httivals · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2008, 12:42:08 pm »

One more big thing in DXO 5.3 (which I haven't tried yet, though I'm a very happy user of 5.2, with my Canon 5D) -- it now provides RAW support for the Canon G9. This is the first compact ever for which DXO has provided raw vs. jpeg support. DXO has excellent noise reduction as well in my experience. Given Michael Reichman's praise of the G10 in his comment today -- comparing it to medium format in sizes up to 13" x 19" -- if we can now convince DXO to support the Canon G10, it looks like I may have finally found the compact/software combination I've been looking for.

kers · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2008, 01:57:55 pm »

I guess we are talking about the Windows version- i don't think the mac version is ready ( it is not in the update anyway)

I am only using DXO for the distortion of my images ((Nikon D3) colours are to strong-( especially the tungsten ones)
The interface is not reliable ( wich makes the whole package not reliable/consistent)
Moire comes in stronger than with other raw developers ( that one I like)

and changing perspective I choose to do in Photoshop ( left-right especially)

so for me they have to change a lot for I really start using it.

kers

Farkled · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2008, 04:04:32 pm »

Much has been said about the new DxO's noise removal. I suppose testing will reveal any hype. FWIW, my initial impressions: DxO is now quite sprightly on a 6 gb Quadcore. Lately, I have found that if I use DxO to process and output DNG files which I then feed to ACR for fine tuning, I get excellent results rather quickly. YMMV

Misirlou · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2008, 04:18:55 pm »

My only major frustration with earlier 5.X versions was their inability to read focus distance from the EXIF data of newer Canon DSLRs. As far as I can tell, that is fixed now, atleast for the 40D. Now I can do a lot more with automated processing, without worrying about whether or not the shots would have been better with manual focus distance selection.

marcmccalmont · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2008, 04:41:14 pm »

Bernard
Thanks for the info, Just downloaded it
Marc

Misirlou · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2008, 06:05:23 pm »

A thought just ocurred to me. DxO does a great job of removing lens distortions, vignetting, etc. Why couldn't it be used to go the other way? Like figure out the distortion and vignetting we got on 120 film from a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 Xenotar, and then apply that to a corrected DSLR image to give it a vintage character? I also really love the look from my Leica IIIf/50 f2 Summicron combo. Shouldn't be technically difficult with the DxO technology. I suppose you could even add the filmpack effects at the same time.

Obviously, DxO couldn't modify depth of field to truly equalize images from different film formats. But I bet distortion, vignetting, contrast, and even lens color balance could all be simulated to some extent.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2008, 06:16:50 pm »

Quote from: kers

I guess we are talking about the Windows version- i don't think the mac version is ready ( it is not in the update anyway)

No, I am on Mac.

Quote from: kers

I am only using DXO for the distortion of my images ((Nikon D3) colours are to strong-( especially the tungsten ones)
The interface is not reliable ( wich makes the whole package not reliable/consistent)
Moire comes in stronger than with other raw developers ( that one I like)

and changing perspective I choose to do in Photoshop ( left-right especially)

I have not compared the colors of 5.3 vs 5.2. I agree that some of the things I saw in 5.2 for D3 files in artificial lights were not that natural.

As far as the interface goes, I used to hate it, but have had no problems so far in 5.3. No crash and none of the annoying small issues I was seeing before.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mike Louw · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2008, 06:25:23 pm »

Quote from: kers

I guess we are talking about the Windows version- i don't think the mac version is ready ( it is not in the update anyway)

The Mac version is on the DxO website (doesn't come up via update from within the program).

Dare I say it; it seems to work much more smoothly, although I still don't like the file browser.

It finally has support for the Canon G9. Coinciding nicely with the release of the G10......

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2008, 07:12:36 pm »

Quote from: Farkled

Much has been said about the new DxO's noise removal. I suppose testing will reveal any hype. FWIW, my initial impressions: DxO is now quite sprightly on a 6 gb Quadcore. Lately, I have found that if I use DxO to process and output DNG files which I then feed to ACR for fine tuning, I get excellent results rather quickly. YMMV

I haven't done any rigorous comparison, but the tests I did on a few high ISO images were pretty encouraging.

Cheers,
Bernard

Steve Gordon · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2008, 08:34:18 pm »

And oh yes, it now officially runs on 64 bit (if you're on Windows)!

jjj · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:37:48 pm »

Does it still have the dubious protection scheme that had people up in arms a short while back?

NikosR · « **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2008, 09:49:53 am »

People might be interested in the below, which I have posted also in this http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=28285 thread in this forum:

I posed a question related to what DxO Pro outputs as a DNG file. The answer from tech support might be of interest to anybody contemplating using DxO Pro as the first program in the processing chain to perform demosaicing and basic corrections before outputting a DNG file to be imported in LR (or other DNG aware apps).

Here's what DxO's tech support had to say about this:

'Well, you raised a good questions as indeed it is not clear... and I was wrong in my initial answer.

As a matter of fact, just like for any other other output format, the entire processing chain is applied to the image before it is exported to DNG. One reason is correction such as vignetting have to be performed after delinearisation. Also, the user interface would need to be radically different for DNG if the output did not take certain functions into account. Furthermore some people wanted to take advantage of DxO lighting or other features in DOP in their DNG exports so it was decided that everything would be supported.

During export, the "as shot" color chain is reversed on the image which is then relinearised to DNG format. Now, if another color space was used, the color space reversal will be incorrect and the difference will carry over into the DNG.

In conclusion, when using DNG, it is best not activate panel such as color rendering, tone curve, HSL, white balance... that would conflict with the processing performed in the second DNG to RGB conversion. To be safe, use DOP to correct for the optics and for the noise only before exporting to DNG.'

Sigi · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2008, 10:39:45 am »

Quote from: jjj

Does it still have the dubious protection scheme that had people up in arms a short while back?

No, that was stopped several versions ago

Sigi

martin.storz · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2008, 12:54:35 pm »

I made a test DxO 5.3 vs. ACR 3.7 with a 12.800 ISO Canon 5D photo.

The results are shown at http://thepubliceyeblog.blogspot.com

My impression is, that DxO implemented two modules of noise reduction: first step before converting is the readout of ISO from exif and the apply of a certain amount of NR (acoording to the camera modul), no possibility to switch of.

Second step is the modul "Noise" which could be switched of.

The result are pictures surprisingly clean at 12.800 ISO with an artificial airbrush look, combined with a significant loss of details.

ACR shows a lot of noise, but looks more natural (it's really high iso grain) and sharper.

As DxO is my every day workhorse I have to say, that under "normal" conditions (no ISO-pushing) the results of DxO are slightly better than with ACR.

Reasons are for sure the moduls lighting, lens softness and lens correction and not to forgot the new raw-engine.

DxO 5.3 now works stable but slow under OS X 10.4.11 on a G4 PB, no bugs found until today.

httivals · « **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2008, 01:51:21 am »

Martin: I don't think you know what you're talking about -- DXO 5.3 does not apply any noise reduction if you turn it off. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about that. And it's very clear to me that, if you do not apply any NR in 5.3 (i.e., by turning it off, which is very easy to do), then it has a lot more detail than ACR. The demosaicing is sharper/better, and the lens specific sharpening is better.

martin.storz · « **Reply #16 on:** November 02, 2008, 03:40:26 am »

Quote from: httivals

Martin: I don't think you know what you're talking about -- DXO 5.3 does not apply any noise reduction if you turn it off. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about that. And it's very clear to me that, if you do not apply any NR in 5.3 (i.e., by turning it off, which is very easy to do), then it has a lot more detail than ACR. The demosaicing is sharper/better, and the lens specific sharpening is better.

Look at the second picture (ohne Rauschminderung).
The modul "noise" was definitly switched of.

You can see slightly more detail, than in the third picuture (with NR on: Luminance 25, Chroma 50, the same adjustment I applied on ACR!).
My opinion is, that ACR did - in this case - a better job.

Maybe that 1600 ISO, three stops underexposed on a 5D, was a too extreme experiment.

And I agree with you that in the every day work DxO 5.3 got better results.a

Here a qote from the new dpreview editorial blog.
A comparison between ACR and DPP: "… that DPP applies at least some chroma noise reduction (and sharpening) even when NR is set to zero which renders the software pretty much less useless for our purposes."

I'm sure, it's the same with DxO.

macote · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2008, 10:35:55 pm »

A simple question,

I'm using a Nikkor 14-24 mm G lense on my 5D canon. I know that Dxo uses camera/lense profile.
Do you think that I can hope for some corrections by setting things manually?

thanks
marc-andre

httivals · « **Reply #18 on:** November 07, 2008, 12:35:51 am »

No. If you're not using a lens that has been calibrated to the camera (i.e. a Nikon body with the 14-24mm lens; or a Canon lens like the17-40mm with the Canon 5D), then DXO is not worthwhile, IMHO. OTOH, when you have a lens and body that has been profiled, the results are fantastic!

Quote from: macote

A simple question,

I'm using a Nikkor 14-24 mm G lense on my 5D canon. I know that Dxo uses camera/lense profile.
Do you think that I can hope for some corrections by setting things manually?

thanks
marc-andre

NikosR · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2008, 07:07:05 am »

Quote from: martin.storz

Here a qote from the new dpreview editorial blog.
A comparison between ACR and DPP: "… that DPP applies at least some chroma noise reduction (and sharpening) even when NR is set to zero which renders the software pretty much less useless for our purposes."

I'm sure, it's the same with DxO.

First of all, I don't trust ANYTHING dpr says. I'm not saying they are wrong in this case I just don't trust anything they say because they have been proved very wrong in cases.

Now, who says that ACR does not apply any NR even when the NR sliders are set to zero? Could you state your source? Reading some of Mr. Schewe's comments in this forum gives me the impression that it does (during demosaicing). I might be misinterpreting his comments but if I were you I would double check before making the comments you did.

Author Topic: DxO 5.3 (Read 10837 times)