Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: Sigi on October 25, 2012, 03:26:07 am
-
Hello,
DXO 8 has just been announced, http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/whats_new
Sigi
-
Thanks, sounds like it will become available on Mon Oct 29th.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've just uninstalled it less than 5 minutes after installing it on a trial basis.
Why?
To work as a trial, it wants to send email and it wants to send that email internally.
Unfortunately, my security policy for my computer does not allow applications used for editing photo to send email, only those that are used for reading and writing email.
FAIL.
-
Strangly all my .nefs are previewed and shown in customize view as black rectangles at the moment with DxO 8. The tiff are correctly rendered, so it looks like a display issue on my mac pro.
Granted, it s a very nice deep black, but I was under the impression I had captured a bit more highlights...
Now checking with DxO support.
Update: I see no issues on my nvidia GPU equiped Mac Book Pro, so it may be a bug with ATI cards on OX 10.6, still waiting for DxO feedback to my query.
This being said, on the one image I tried, DxO 8 does an excellent job with zero tuning compared to my current C1 Pro 7 D800 pre-set. DxO seems to be able to extract similar amount of details (maybe a bit more) and holds highlight detail better automatically than a manual 30 highlight application. Impressive I would say.
The colors are also pretty good to my eye, not 100% as pleasing as C1 Pro, but in the same ballpart and I would say clearly more pleasing than dxo 7 by a certain margin. NEed to do more comparisons though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've just uninstalled it less than 5 minutes after installing it on a trial basis.
Why?
To work as a trial, it wants to send email and it wants to send that email internally.
Unfortunately, my security policy for my computer does not allow applications used for editing photo to send email, only those that are used for reading and writing email.
FAIL.
Actually, when DXO was in its early version, the activation and/serial validation was such a PITA (lots of e-mails with support to no avail) that I dismissed the product. So, I'm not surprised about the way to activate the trial.
-
Actually, when DXO was in its early version, the activation and/serial validation was such a PITA (lots of e-mails with support to no avail) that I dismissed the product. So, I'm not surprised about the way to activate the trial.
It is always ironic to see that the customers willing to pay their license get affected most by such issues. ;)
Regards,
Bernard
-
It is always ironic to see that the customers willing to pay their license get affected most by such issues. ;)
…
Yes, as some say in french "Le client dérange" !
-
Current answer from DxO support is that the graphic card might be too old... they don't seem to find strange that they have a setting to disable GPU acceleration that doesn't fix the issue...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
I was wondering what graphics card you have. I ask, because I have a Mac Pro which is a couple of years old, and I am at least considering DXO 8 (I have tried earlier versions). Might be useful to know if I would be in the same situation as you regarding graphics cards.
Thanks,
Robert Damon
-
Current answer from DxO support is that the graphic card might be too old... they don't seem to find strange that they have a setting to disable GPU acceleration that doesn't fix the issue...
Cheers,
Bernard
On DXO website, no mention of graphic card…
>Macintosh:
>Mac (Intel processor)
>Mac OS X 10.5, 10.6, 10.7
-
Hi Bernard,
I was wondering what graphics card you have. I ask, because I have a Mac Pro which is a couple of years old, and I am at least considering DXO 8 (I have tried earlier versions). Might be useful to know if I would be in the same situation as you regarding graphics cards.
Thanks,
Robert Damon
Robert,
A trial version is available so you can check whether your Mac is compatible with this software. As mentioned in my previous post just above, there's no mention of graphic card limitation or requirement.
-
Hi Bernard,
I was wondering what graphics card you have. I ask, because I have a Mac Pro which is a couple of years old, and I am at least considering DXO 8 (I have tried earlier versions). Might be useful to know if I would be in the same situation as you regarding graphics cards.
Hi Robert,
The Mac Pro is equipped with an ATI X1900.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Has the speed of DxO improved? I've got v6 and my biggest issue with it was how slow it is. I'm not a huge fan of the batch process concept for images but I can live with that. When it comes to running the batch; however, the speed is brutal. Multiple minutes to process a single file. Granted that was on my previous, slower computer (haven't tried it on my new one yet) but still, multiple minutes to process a single file is absurd. I've seen other people who agree with this say they let the batch run overnight, which makes the software not great where quicker turnaround is needed.
Thoughts?
-
Has the speed of DxO improved? I've got v6 and my biggest issue with it was how slow it is. I'm not a huge fan of the batch process concept for images but I can live with that. When it comes to running the batch; however, the speed is brutal. Multiple minutes to process a single file. Granted that was on my previous, slower computer (haven't tried it on my new one yet) but still, multiple minutes to process a single file is absurd. I've seen other people who agree with this say they let the batch run overnight, which makes the software not great where quicker turnaround is needed.
Batch processing has been significantly faster since v7.
I'll try when v8 gets fully functional in my environment.
cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard.
-
Hi Robert,
The Mac Pro is equipped with an ATI X1900.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks, Bernard. There is a comment on the DxO forums from someone who reports a similar problem: "Downloaded 8 to see what it was like and it won't show my Canon RAW files. The thumbnails are there dim at first then they go black. Been onto support and they say 128MB vram is not enough." Not sure how much vram an ATI X1900 has, but I thought it was more than 128 MB.
Anyway, best wishes.
-
I believe that card has 512MB of memory.
-
I believe that card has 512MB of memory.
Indeed. But that should not be relevant if DxO 8 were able to desactivate GPU acceleration. There is a setting meant to enable this, but it obviously is not fully operational if at all.
This would not be a problem had Apple been able to come up with a decent upgrade of the Mac Pro in time, but we know were they are on that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No argument, Bernard. I was just responding to the previous comment.
-
No argument, Bernard. I was just responding to the previous comment.
Sure, sorry if I seemed argumentative, that was not the intend.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, no. Not at all. Was just trying to clarify.
-
As today no additional feedback on this issue...
Starting to be disapointed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am glad to report that DxO 8.01 fixed the issue.
A big thank you to DxO for their quick action.
As expected, there is a need to disable GPU acceleration but the images are correctly displayed once it is done.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've been playing with the DxO v8 trial version for a few days. I find its somewhat easier to use than version 6, which I bought and then abandoned. I have an nVidia Geforce 460 with 1Gb video ram on a first generation i7 machine running Win7 64bits, and there seems to be no problem video-wise with using DxO.
I currently use LR4.3 and CS6, which I like very much. I'm impressed with several features of DxO v8, particularly the noise reduction, lens and geometric distortion corrections, and the smart lighting and exposure compensation. I miss the selective adjustments of LR4/CS6 (adjustment brush, graduated n.d. filter, for example) but as usual, there are some raw files shot with my 5DIII that I like better with DxO. I may buy it, since the upgrade price is reasonable, but I'm not yet persuaded.
I ran into a problem, and I hope somebody here has an easy way out of it. I point the DxO folder browser at a folder of CR2's, some of which have been adjusted in LR and some, not. If I process an unadjusted file in DxO and process it as a tiff and also a dng, back to the original folder, there is no problem after I import it. However, if the file already has LR adjustments, it still shows up in DxO as an unadjusted raw file but after working on and processing it in DxO, it imports back into LR and looks like hell. I think it is adding the prior LR adjustments on top of the adjustments from DxO.
I would like to be able to work on a file in LR and compare it with the DxO-processed file side by side but this does not seem possible. What, if anything, am I failing to understand?
-
Hi,
In DXO 8 go to Edit -> Preferences, "General" tab, in the Processing section uncheck the option "Preserve metadata in XMP sidecars for RAW images"
(Just in case, this option was in the "Process" tab of the preferences in DXO 7)
Regards,
Francisco
-
Hi,
In DXO 8 go to Edit -> Preferences, "General" tab, in the Processing section uncheck the option "Preserve metadata in XMP sidecars for RAW images"
(Just in case, this option was in the "Process" tab of the preferences in DXO 7)
Regards,
Francisco
Thank you, Francisco. It worked.
-
Good Morning,
I've bought DXO 8 Pro and have some problems when working with LR4.3 !
As Highlight recovery is far better with LR and mostly because all my photos are referenced in LR, my workflow is like that: opening in LR4.3, some adjustments (WB, Exp, Contrast, Noise Reduction, some sharpening) than export to DXO (TIFF 16 bits) some adjustments (Optical corrections mostly) than return to LR to fine tune and export to JPG.
But ... after working with DXO, the photos seems to have No Corrections from DXO when returning to LR. More the DXO pdf (French version: Travailler_avec_Lightroom_et_DxOOpticsPro6.pdf) says it automaticaly export to Lightroom in TIFF format, but it asks me to choose an export format ???.
After some trials I have succeeded to go back to LR, but I'm not sure that DXO corrections have been applied !
More, with RX100 and other compacts, doesn't LR4.3 automaticaly apply some optical corrections as Barrel distorsion, vignetting, ... that are not possible to defeat ??
So, what's the best workflow that works for me ?!
Have a Nice W-E.
Thierry
-
Hi,
A couple of comments:
After some trials I have succeeded to go back to LR, but I'm not sure that DXO corrections have been applied !
Have you imported in LR the TIFF file you exported from DxO? It usually does not perform the edits in the original file, so maybe you are just looking at the Tiff generated by LR. If this is not the case then try with some exagerated edits which would be impossible not to notice.
The difference in the behavior from your french manual is that it was for the version 6. Interaction between DxO and LR has changed a lot. In version 6 you could even browse the LR catalog, not anymore :(
Don't know about the RX100 or other compacts. With most cameras, all settings are editable and can be "defeated". You have the option to create your own presets.
My suggestions to use both DxO and LR:
Option 1 (the one I use):
- Start with the Raw file in DxO and perform the desired corrections plus white balance there (this is important only if you will need recovery of clipped areas in LR)
- Export to LR in DNG format.
- Import the DNG file in LR and perform the rest of the edits (remember to reassign the camera profile to your desired one)
Option 2:
- Start with your current workflow with the LR edits, but instead of exporting a Tiff, just create a sidecar (.xmp) file (if you don't have one by default)
- Go to DxO and open the original Raw file (now the tricky part of this workflow, is that you will not see the LR edits in DxO)
- Apply the desired edits in DxO (just don't make redundant edits with those you made in LR)
- Make sure that the option "Preserve Metadata in XMP sidecars for RAW images" is checked in the preferences (Edit -> Preferences, tab: "General")
- Export as a DNG
- Import the DNG file into LR, now both the previous LR edits and the DxO edits will be applied.
Why don't use Tiffs?
-Unles you work with RAWs/DNGs, DxO is limited to AdobeRGB (so make sure the Tiff you export from LR is in that color space)
-The DNG from DxO is a "Linear DNG", meaning that it has been demosaiced but no color space conversion or gamma encoding has been applied yet, so you conserve almost the full potential of the RAW file to work in LR
The issue with WB and clipped channels: I found this by experimentation. The DNG export form DxO is a true 16 bits per channel file, but clipped values from typical 12 - 14 bit RAW images are not translated to clipped values in 16 bits. If you apply then highlight recovery, LR does not see clipped values, just very bright values. When you adjust WB later in LR, those highlights will have a color cast.
I'll use this workflow only if I need the optical corrections, which in my experience and tests, are superior in DxO, (at least for my current cameras / lenses). YMMV.
Regards,
Francisco
-
Hi,
My suggestions to use both DxO and LR:
Option 1 (the one I use):
- Start with the Raw file in DxO and perform the desired corrections plus white balance there (this is important only if you will need recovery of clipped areas in LR)
- Export to LR in DNG format.
- Import the DNG file in LR and perform the rest of the edits (remember to reassign the camera profile to your desired one)
Option 2:
- Start with your current workflow with the LR edits, but instead of exporting a Tiff, just create a sidecar (.xmp) file (if you don't have one by default)
- Go to DxO and open the original Raw file (now the tricky part of this workflow, is that you will not see the LR edits in DxO)
- Apply the desired edits in DxO (just don't make redundant edits with those you made in LR)
- Make sure that the option "Preserve Metadata in XMP sidecars for RAW images" is checked in the preferences (Edit -> Preferences, tab: "General")
- Export as a DNG
- Import the DNG file into LR, now both the previous LR edits and the DxO edits will be applied.
Why don't use Tiffs?
-Unles you work with RAWs/DNGs, DxO is limited to AdobeRGB (so make sure the Tiff you export from LR is in that color space)
-The DNG from DxO is a "Linear DNG", meaning that it has been demosaiced but no color space conversion or gamma encoding has been applied yet, so you conserve almost the full potential of the RAW file to work in LR
The issue with WB and clipped channels: I found this by experimentation. The DNG export form DxO is a true 16 bits per channel file, but clipped values from typical 12 - 14 bit RAW images are not translated to clipped values in 16 bits. If you apply then highlight recovery, LR does not see clipped values, just very bright values. When you adjust WB later in LR, those highlights will have a color cast.
I'll use this workflow only if I need the optical corrections, which in my experience and tests, are superior in DxO, (at least for my current cameras / lenses). YMMV.
Regards,
Francisco
Hi Francisco,
You've just pointed the main problem with DXO, often clipped highlights have strong color cast (not the case with Lightroom) !
That's why I want to open the raw file in LR. As soon as I open the raw in DXO, most of my "HDR" files have these colorcast !
May you confirm that with your "Option 1" the highlights will be "preserved" from colorcast problems. ?!
LR is better than DXO for a lot of things, but DXO removes CA better !
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
May you confirm that with your "Option 1" the highlights will be "preserved" from colorcast problems. ?!
Yes, I have attached a test image to prove it.
First, I shot an image containing a reference (color checker) with no clipped values and a large area where all channels were clipped.
In the first attached image (DXO DNG Clipped Raw.jpg) you could see a raw rendering from RawDigger, showing a large blown area and its corresponding Raw histogram
Then I processed three images according to the following:
1.- 100% in LR 4.3, White balanced to the 4 gray patch in the Color checker
2.- RAW in DxO 8, optical corrections and WB to the 4 gray patch in the Color checker, exported to DNG
3.- Raw DxO 8, optical corrections and an arbitrary WB, exported to DNG
The second attached file (DXO DNG b.jpg) shows how the images look at this stage (after importing the resulting DNG in 2 and 3in LR).
Left: LR, Center DxO DNG with correct white balance, Right DxO DNG with wrong White Balance
Then, to show what happens with the highlights I performed the following steps in LR:
1.- Image 3 (wrong WB) applied WB to the 4 gray patch in the Color checker
2.- Exposure compensation of -2.5 EV
3.- Whites slider: -48
The result is shown in the third attached image (DXO DNG clipped.jpg). Left: Image totally processed in LR, Center: Image processed in DxO with correct WB then imported in LR, Right: Image processed in DxO, imported in LR and WB in LR
Note the strong color cast in the area that was originally blown out in the image that had the White balance performed in LR (that's not the sky color, it is a strong cyan color cast).
There is also a difference in how the blown area is handled between the image processed only in LR and the image processed first in DxO with the correct white balance. The issue is that the clipped values in the original RAW do not translate to clipped values in the DNG file, so LR don't interpret them as clipped values. At least if you WB in DxO, those areas will have a neutral value.
-
OK, thanks for explanations and examples !
That will work with several images, especially those with cyan sky.
But I also have some rising sun photos with red-orange-yellow gradient, all are smooth with LR, histogram with one white peak.
With DXO, I have a lot of banding, because 1, 2, or 3 channels clipped, histogram with several color peaks !
So, how to do with those, as the "neutral WB" seems to be not possible ?!
If you want, I can place some raw examples available in Skydrive.
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Those scenarios could be tricky. It may be the case that the best overall result is obtained by processing the image in LR only.
With images that I really care, I test different options for Raw conversion an editing (not a valid approach for high volume or where time is an issue).
I'll be happy to check some of your RAWs if you make them available.
Regards,
Francisco
-
Many Thanks Francisco,
I post the most problematic Picture only because my Internet Connexion is sooo slow today ??? ::)
Here is the link to DSC00798 !
http://sdrv.ms/VtZPO8 (http://sdrv.ms/VtZPO8)
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
Here is the link to DSC00798 !
Hi,
The image you linked is one of those cases that is very problematic to process in the suggested workflow (DxO -> DNG -> LR)
The main issue (common with images that include the sun or areas near it) is that the RGB channels start clipping in different regions, so the areas where only one or two channels are clipped are very difficult to handle
The first attached image shows the raw file (Rawdigger). You could see in the top left area different patterns, showing where individual channels are clipped and then a solid red region where all channels are clipped. The right part shows the raw histogram, with the evidence of clipping in all channels
The second attached image shows three different approaches, not much beyond default settings, just to illustrate the points. The left image is the DNG generated in DxO then processed in LR. Notice the "bands" of different colors around the blown area. The middle is the same image but processed only in LR from the begginning. The tones are better, but the area that is blown out in all channels is neutral, which could be what you want or not.
Another approach (not available in LR or DxO) are raw converters with algorithms for color propagation in clipped areas, as it is shown in the right part. This was processed in Photo Ninja (I'm impressed btw).
Again, these are very quick processings, I'm sure there are plenty of people that could do a better job, but the idea was to show the issues with large clipped areas.
I still believe that my proposed workflow of DxO -> DNG -> LR works when you are dealing with specular reflections or small areas where all channels clip togheter and you want to avoid color cast in those areas.
Regards,
Francisco
-
Many Thanks for your interresting comparison Francisco !
I prefer the "LR only" appproach more neutral even if the colors are less vibrant.
Noticed that I've also made comparison between G15 and RX100, the former clips better, but I don't know why !
Have a Nice Day !
Thierry