DxO Optics 9

[kers]

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

I just tried DXO9 on my d800e 6400 files - and i am not impressed:
The grain is less but as usual the noise reduction reduces everything - also loosing and smearing detail in an ugly way.
The grain you see on screen is not so prominent in print ( even at large sizes like over 1 meter wide)
and if you want to use the file on the web you do not need this large file so grain will become invisible.
Coming from the analog film days i even welcome this last bit of grain - only found in my 6400 asa files...

[Fine_Art]

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.

Wow, I will have to give it a go.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wow, I will have to give it a go.

Noise reduction is said to be very good. Just be aware of the Adobe RGB gamut limitation of output files, even if they are converted to ProRGB.

Cheers,
Bart

[hjulenissen]

Did anyone publish a side-by-side of the new noise reduction vs other methods?

-h

[Fine_Art]

Either it refuses DNG or it is refusing Camera: DNG Converter

I am trying to load this stress test:
http://www.libraw.su/data/porcupine.dng

Tif doesnt work. Anyone know how to get this loaded?

The noise on regular Raws looks good. The detail looks equivalent to AMAZE demosaic, Maybe they have started using it? Only basic USM is offered for sharpening. Colors look a bit strange. That may be me needing more time with it.

[Fine_Art]

Here is a side by side screenshot of DxO 9 vs RT Both are using their D600 color profiles.

I would say DxO does well on default color. RT needs some tweaking to get it close to the View NX, DxO colors which are similar.
On detail RT has the advantage. Here is DxO with sharpening 100 while RT has sharpening off, just using mild Contrast by Detail which is richardson-lucy. The difference is clearly visible in the fine veins of the petals.
The biggest strong points of DXO remain the lens corrections for people using zooms or cheap primes that are in the database. The auto corrections save you having to make your own if you need them. Color saturation is still over the top. The NR seems very good. If you like the idea of better than camera jpgs with minimal work DxO is the right product.

[Dr Tone]

Try the Neutral or Neutral 2 color rendering.

[BernardLanguillier]

FYI, it seems that DxO has just added support in DxO 9.1 for some of the Zeiss lenses for, at least, the D800.

This includes the new Otus 55mm f1.4 APO, 135mm f2.0 APO, 50mm f2.0,...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Phil Indeblanc]

I'm loving these images Bernad...B/W are super!
Well done!

[Arizona]

I've been using V9 for four weeks now, processed over 100 images, and really like it. V6.2 worked fine on my old machine but I could not get further updates to work. That machine started dying so I got a refurbished Windows 7, 3.1 ghtz processor, 4 gigs RAM and a 1T HD. a very inexpenive computer that works good. V6 would just crash on the new machine but V9 is perfectly stable and runs at light speed compared to the older setup.

I've been with DXO since V3 or V4 and can't stand ACR or other processors.

and I had a few images we took inside a Kiva in Blanding, Utah where the light comes in only through an entrance hole in the roof. I had to set my old Canon 20D, a camera that is near 10 years old now, on ISO 1600 and underexposed to a certain extent to get the shots. PRIME just blows me away. It made those images look great even when I brought up details in deep shadows. Normally I don't go past ISO 800 on that camera. It took away the sensor patterns, all the other noise and kept an amazing amount of details. I used the standard High on the other images, all the noise is gone, all the fine detail remains. I no longer use Noiseware plugin. They have done some stellar work thoughout this entire version.

[Dave Gurtcheff]

Support for Sony A7R, but NOT for the new Zeiss 35 mm FE, or Zeiss 55mm FE. I have a big investment in Zeiss and minolta A mount glass for my A900. Would it be possibl for DXO to build profiles for the A7R plus Sony LAEA 4 adapter and A lenses? They already have those lens profiles built for the A900. Just wishing...
Dave in NJ

[Ligament]

Noise reduction is said to be very good. Just be aware of the Adobe RGB gamut limitation of output files, even if they are converted to ProRGB.

Cheers,
Bart

This is important to remember, folks. High end monitors and modern printers easily print well beyond Adobe RGB, therefore you are potentially loosing color information if you use DXO Optics Pro! I find it inexcusable that DXO uses Adobe RGB as its internal working gamut, how myopic of them.

[localhosta]

I've tried new noise filter and its very good. Here is the test - handheld shot at ISO 25600 with default preset + PRIME NR.

[BernardLanguillier]

For what it is worth, I have spent more time working with DxO vs C1 Pro and have to revise my judgement a bit downwards for DxO.

For the D800, I still find C1 Pro a bit superior at low ISO in terms of colors, tone mapping and detail extraction. I'll stick to the following:
- tripod images -> C1 Pro,
- all others -> DxO

Cheers,
Bernard

[robgo2]

This is important to remember, folks. High end monitors and modern printers easily print well beyond Adobe RGB, therefore you are potentially loosing color information if you use DXO Optics Pro! I find it inexcusable that DXO uses Adobe RGB as its internal working gamut, how myopic of them.

I find this quite astonishing.  What year does DxO think this is--1998?  I suppose that it won't matter much for people with narrow gamut monitors and printers.  There are other inexplicable deficiencies in DxO 9.  For instance, it cannot open Adobe DNG files.  Why?  I have no idea, but it is not a technically difficult feat.  Even minuscule freeware raw convertors, such as Raw Photo Processor (RPP), can do it.  I bought DxO 9 for the sole purpose of having the Prime NR engine available for very high ISO images with extreme levels of noise.  (Even Prime is not without its issues, such as blotchiness in out of focus areas.)  But I cannot see any reason to use the program on other images.  Color space considerations aside, it is slow and clunky, and the output is not the best. 

Rob

[JimAscher]

I find this quite astonishing.  What year does DxO think this is--1998?  I suppose that it won't matter much for people with narrow gamut monitors and printers.  There are other inexplicable deficiencies in DxO 9.  For instance, it cannot open Adobe DNG files.  Why?  I have no idea, but it is not a technically difficult feat.  Even minuscule freeware raw convertors, such as Raw Photo Processor (RPP), can do it.  I bought DxO 9 for the sole purpose of having the Prime NR engine available for very high ISO images with extreme levels of noise.  (Even Prime is not without its issues, such as blotchiness in out of focus areas.)  But I cannot see any reason to use the program on other images.  Color space considerations aside, it is slow and clunky, and the output is not the best. 

Rob

Having recently added to my "arsenal" of cameras a Ricoh GXR with the M-Mount, which mirrors Leica in employing the Adobe DNG raw format, I have been in an ongoing (and quite pleasant) dialogue with a DxO rep on this issue for several weeks.  I have been a dedicated user of of DxO up to its Version 8, but have been reluctant though to upgrade to the new Version 9 until (or if) this DNG issue is resolved.  She (Alison) tells me their techs are currently working on this (I sent them, at their request, a sample DNG photo from my camera for their inspection) and Alison believes the matter will shortly, eventually be resolved.  If I hear anything further, positive or negative, on the matter I'll let the forum know.

Jim

[robgo2]

Having recently added to my "arsenal" of cameras a Ricoh GXR with the M-Mount, which mirrors Leica in employing the Adobe DNG raw format, I have been in an ongoing (and quite pleasant) dialogue with a DxO rep on this issue for several weeks.  I have been a dedicated user of of DxO up to its Version 8, but have been reluctant though to upgrade to the new Version 9 until (or if) this DNG issue is resolved.  She (Alison) tells me their techs are currently working on this (I sent them, at their request, a sample DNG photo from my camera for their inspection) and Alison believes the matter will shortly, eventually be resolved.  If I hear anything further, positive or negative, on the matter I'll let the forum know.

Jim

Jim,

I have a Pentax K-01 that only produces raw DNG files.  DxO9 can open them, but it cannot open Adobe DNG files.  The reason for this is that Pentax DNG is not quite the same as Adobe DNG.  I suspect that your GXR DNG files would be OK.  If you want to send me one, I can try to open it on my computer and let you know how it goes.

Rob

[JimAscher]

Jim,

I have a Pentax K-01 that only produces raw DNG files.  DxO9 can open them, but it cannot open Adobe DNG files.  The reason for this is that Pentax DNG is not quite the same as Adobe DNG.  I suspect that your GXR DNG files would be OK.  If you want to send me one, I can try to open it on my computer and let you know how it goes.

Rob

Rob:  Many thanks for the kind offer.  However, it's because I can't open my DNG files in my DxO -- in practice, not in the abstract -- that I initiated my conversation with the DxO rep.  I don't know whether DxO can handle DNG files as produced from the Leica digital cameras themselves, but I have assumed that the GXR DNG files wold have been intended by Ricoh to be the same as the Leica files, as the purpose of their A-12 M-Mount is to use Leica M-Mount lenses.  Well, we'll just wait and see.  Thanks again.  Jim 

[jjj]

I thought one of the main benefits of DNG files was to eliminate such issues.

[JimAscher]

As an update to my still ongoing dialogue with the "friendly" DxO rep, after more than two months she regularly informs me that they're still "working on it."  At her request I've sent them several DNG photos directly from my SD card from my Ricoh GXR M-Mount for them to examine.  Needless to say, at this stage I'm no longer hopeful that they'll be able to resolve "their" DNG problem.