DxO Optics 9

[stormyboy]

I just saw that version 9 of DxO Optics pro has been released.
Tom

[jjj]

I noticed this oxymoronic gem whilst looking at their site.

"Presets - Give a unique look to your photos"

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I noticed this oxymoronic gem whilst looking at their site.

"Presets - Give a unique look to your photos"

Love it!

[Ligament]

I wonder if DxO Optics 9 continues to use Adobe RGB as the internal working colorspace as the previous versions have done. I find that pretty inexcusable in a RAW editing system.

[jjj]

Love it!

They also say this....

"You can also express your creativity by using the “Atmospheres” presets to give your photos a special look and feel."

I like to express my creativity by choosing the interior designer who will make my house look beautiful. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Has anyone checked the high iso image quality resulting from the new noise reduction algos? It may be worth looking into.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dburton48]

I did a quick test this evening on a 12800 ISO image shot with a 7D. There is an observable difference between DxO's standard NR and the "PRIME" process, and PRIME is better on the whole - and the processed image can be re-sharpened to taste. This was not a rigorous test and is hard to describe without posted samples, but I believe it's worth the effort to download the trial and test on a couple of high-ISO images.

Note that if you do test it, the PRIME effect does not show up in the standard preview (there is a loupe tool that allows this but I did not use it). The preferred method is to process the same image with each method to TIFs and examine them side-by-side. Processing the PRIME-filtered image takes considerably longer (a couple of minutes on my machine).

I was pleasantly surprised, but I'll be doing more testing before deciding if this is worth the upgrade.

DJB

[Sigi]

I have tested the new noise reduction method - DXO calls it PRIME - on about 40 high ISO pictures from a Canon 40D. I compared their standard method with PRIME and for me the results are amazing. There is a clear and visible difference. Processing time takes about 2-4 minutes on my machine. I can only recommend to download a trial version and see for yourself

[Vaards]

Some quick questions (DXO users might know yes/no):

1. Does it allows to use external programs for editing and then importing back? Like lightroom - one can export image to Photoshop, do manipulations and then get image back into lightroom.
2. May be DXO offers possibility to use some plugins - for HDR, effects, etc?

[dburton48]

Some quick questions (DXO users might know yes/no):

1. Does it allows to use external programs for editing and then importing back? Like lightroom - one can export image to Photoshop, do manipulations and then get image back into lightroom.
2. May be DXO offers possibility to use some plugins - for HDR, effects, etc?
[/quote]

1. You can send a file to Photoshop or presumably any other photo-related executable as a DNG, TIF or JPG, but if Photoshop is saving the edited version as a PSD - it appears DxO OP9 will not read a PSD file. Returning a TIF from Photoshop will allow further manipulation in OP9. Haven't tried a round trip with anything else.
2. To my knowledge DxO won't work directly with plug-ins. It will export to a standalone program such as Perfect Photo Suite, but a returned TIF from that program (not a PSD, remember - that's not recognized) on my machine only showed up in the browser in DxO but could not be further processed. Crashed Topaz's Photo fx Lab. My early conclusion - even with plug-ins' standalone cousins - no. Perhaps others have had better experiences. I'm not a DxO expert, so can't claim my anecdotes are authoritative in any way.

I think that DxO's strength is its cameras/lens combination database, and now its PRIME NR engine. I can't say it plays well (or at least conveniently) with others. I use version 8 occasionally for distortion correction, but most of the time there's not enough appreciable advantage over LR (which I use for most of my personal and all my commercial work) to crank it up. Jury's still out for me on PRIME. That may be worth the upgrade price. More real-world testing required in my case

DJB

[AlanG]

Besides some of the corrections that others have mentioned, I think DXO really shines in its ability to adjust exposure and open up the shadows. There are numerous settings such as shadow radius, local and global contrast of just the fill light, and much more that I find very powerful and incredibly useful for architectural interiors especially. I have not seen that level of tone control in anything else.

[BernardLanguillier]

A first attempt to use DxO 9, so far so good! Of interest is the fact that the Prime noise reduction algo seems highly parallelized in that it used 100% of my 8 cores during the full time of the export.



Cheers,
Bernard

[peterlee]

I downloaded the trial version ( already have version to see if there were any changes.
Pretty much the same old same old but with more presets - the rest is marketing hype.However there is a bug in the presets that results in flickering of the presets that eventually crashes DxO (tried it on both my desktop and my laptop -same result).
Agree with other users comments about RGB.
To be honest I feel DxO has gone backwards since version 7 which I found excellent - luckily you can still access this version

[BernardLanguillier]

To be honest I feel DxO has gone backwards since version 7 which I found excellent - luckily you can still access this version

Interesting how 2 people can look at the same thing in 2 totally opposite ways. 

To my eyes the image quality delivered by DxO has improved to a point where I don't feel the need anymore to use C1 Pro. This is especially true at higher ISOs where there is simply no competition.

Filmpack has also tremendously reduced my usage of Nik silverFx and the time I am spending in CS6 is decreasing a lot these days as a result.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jjj]

A first attempt to use DxO 9, so far so good! Of interest is the fact that the Prime noise reduction algo seems highly parallelized in that it used 100% of my 8 cores during the full time of the export.

Good how? As without reference to the before image, it's hard to know what the benefits are.
Also if all 8 cores are being used and it's 5 mins an image, it's going to be tricky to do anything else in meantime. Results need to be something really special to warrant that.
I shall download and trial the software as soon as I have some free time to do a proper job.

[Shutterbug2006]

I've owned DXO 5, 6,7, and 8. I was happy until version 8. I don't think I will upgrade again. At least not until I replace my desktop computer.

[BernardLanguillier]

The key values I see in DxO are:
- what appears to be best in class correction of color aberrations resulting in images with outstanding purity, kind of turns very good lenses like the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 in outstanding APO ones, makes me wonder whether I should cancel my Zeiss 55mm f1.4 APO order knowing that it may not be supported by DxO...
- best in class geometric distortion turns good lenses in perfectly linear architecture focused gems... whatever the focusing distance and aperture combination,
- best in class high ISO noise removal/detail preservation,
- integration with filmpack makes B&W images generation very easy,
- geometric corrections work very well,
- very stable so far (zero crash/freeze till now).

I used not to like the colors it produced in versions 6-7 on my D800, but it looks like the D800 may have been the camera they have targeted for version 8/9 because the color profiles seem real good to me.

What I don't like about it is:
- export time, but I am using a 6 years old mac pro with just 32gb of ram, it should be better with a modern machine correctly specified. The fact that it can tap into multi-cores very well makes it a future platform software platform,
- the lack of U-Point like technology to do basic local adjustements. Nothing has gotten remotely close to Nik's U-Point so I am not expecting the same capability, but something close would help,
- a small bug causing files to be saved in the wrong folder.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[BernardLanguillier]

I have posted a few more images converted with DxO 9 after this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/

In B&W:







And in colors:







Those images were shot last Sunday around Agra, India. Only had a day which did limit the shooting opportunities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bryan Conner]

The noise reduction does a really good job on the iso 6400 files from my Canon 7d.  Very impressive. 

[Some Guy]

Anyone else having trouble getting version 9 to print to an Epson 3880?

Seems mine launches and acts like it is going to the printer, but it never prints an image.  I have Dxo Optics Pro 8 left over too, and same thing.  Seems it doesn't want to print with Epson, but it will print with the Canon.

Very odd.

SG