DxO OpticsPro 10 is here

[jjj]

So I guess our friend JJJ will be more than happy to withdraw his mind numbingly idiotic comment?

Why should I? It is true?
Dx0's a complete and utter waste of time in my view. For example as Jim mentioned above, it doesn't support DNG files as such and because Dx0 doesn't support the open DNG standard or many other cameras it is therefore is about as useful to me as a steaming pile of monkey poo. Yes it may support the odd camera that uses DNG, but that is not the same as support for DNG which is to repeat myself is an open standard. One invented to to avoid this very issue.
Why would anyone invest time and effort into software that the developers cannot even be bothered to support all cameras? The next camera you may buy and love may not make the Dx0 criteria for inclusion. In fact Dx0 doesn't support any of the pocket cameras I have owned until the RX100III and I think that's why I never got as far as testing it before.

Mind you it's so badly designed and buggy, I still wouldn't use it if if they had got their act together regarding camera support.

[JimAscher]

Re: DNG support...  

I also shoot with a Ricoh GR, a camera that produces raw files natively as DNGs.  I can open these in DxO 10, as well as DxO 9 (I did not own the camera when I was using DxO 8 or earlier).  The GR is a fixed focal length lens with no AA filter, and it has its own DxO correction module.

kirk

The difference here, as Kirk points out, is that for his Ricoh GR, as opposed to my Ricoh GXR, DxO has created a "correction module."  In my lengthy email exchange with DxO Customer Service, they ultimately informed me that because the GXR model was being phased out by Ricoh, it wasn't really worth their while to create a separate correction module for it. 

[jjj]

The difference here, as Kirk points out, is that for his Ricoh GR, as opposed to my Ricoh GXR, DxO has created a "correction module."  In my lengthy email exchange with DxO Customer Service, they ultimately informed me that because the GXR model was being phased out by Ricoh, it wasn't really worth their while to create a separate correction module for it.  

It's not worthwhile buying software whose developers have that attitude. Why would anyone buy camera software from a company who may or may be bothered to add your camera, even if the the files it outputs are a standard easily read by say LR, Windows/OSX without any updating.
C1 appears to be of the same mindset from a recent discussion I had regarding the new version with one of it's promoters. So I won't waste any time or money in a product that half-arsed.
No point having the best processing engine in the world if it doesn't even work with DNG files or cameras that are not deemed worthwhile.

[Damon Lynch]

JJJ this is my take: as has been discussed in these forums, merely having a camera output DNG does not auto-magically mean that every RAW convertor that supports DNG will instantly work with it. The developers still have work to do to in order to support it. Maybe the camera manufacturer will help them, maybe not. The Ricoh model you have is a niche model compared to other models, making it less likely it will be supported by third party convertors. It doesn't mean you don't have a very fine camera, and as you note you have other choices of convertors; you can ignore DxO's offerings.

[jjj]

JJJ this is my take: as has been discussed in these forums, merely having a camera output DNG does not auto-magically mean that every RAW convertor that supports DNG will instantly work with it. The developers still have work to do to in order to support it. Maybe the camera manufacturer will help them, maybe not.

I don't recall any cameras that record DNG having to wait for LR to update to use it. Which was one of the points of establishing such a standard.

[Valdo]

And DxO Viewpoint has been upgraded to 2.5.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/photo-software/dxo-opticspro

The excellent Prime noise reduction is found only in the $200 version. Personally I've always thought the price is pretty expensive, especially given it's upgraded every 12 months. I stick with Viewpoint myself, which I'm most happy with. But I guess enough people like OpticsPro and are happy to pay that much for it for DxO to make a go of it!

In the Elite version is also the ClearView. Excelent results, but use the slider in a conservative manner.

[johnscherrer]

Hi.  I am newly here.  I have just recently been using a GXR with M adapter and love it.  May I ask what DNG processor you are using?  I was an Aperture user but am looking to switch because Apple will no longer support it.  Regards, Jack

[jjj]

Hi Jack, most people on LuLa seem to use Lightroom, though Capture One has supporters. But like DxO it is more limited in its camera support with similar issues with DNG support.
Just looked at the LuLa raw processing forums and about four times as many topics on LR/ACR compared to all the other options combined.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi Jack, most people on LuLa seem to use Lightroom, though Capture One has supporters. But like DxO it is more limited in its camera support with similar issues with DNG support.

DNG files converted by Lightroom are supported since version 10.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/community/tutorials/optimizing-your-dxo-opticspro-10-and-lightroom-workflow

It's possible to check whether a camera and camera/lens combo is supported here. Most are, with the exception of MF backs.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/photo-software/dxo-opticspro/supported-cameras

Cheers,
Bernard

[JimAscher]

Hi.  I am newly here.  I have just recently been using a GXR with M adapter and love it.  May I ask what DNG processor you are using?  I was an Aperture user but am looking to switch because Apple will no longer support it.  Regards, Jack

Jack:  As with the other respondents to your query,  I use Lightroom for my raw conversions, no matter which of my cameras I'm using.  However, to get around the DxO inability to convert my GXR DNG files, I will occasionally convert the DNG file to tiff (either in Lightroom or Photoshop) and then send it to DxO for processing when I still want to utilize some of the advantages DxO offers.

[jjj]

DNG files converted by Lightroom are supported since version 10.

But DNG files out some cameras are not, which was my point. Not to mention having to buy Lightroom to convert files to use in Dx0, seems like a good reason not to bother with Dx0. Do they really expect people to convert their DNG files to DNG files to then import into Dx0?

[ario]

But DNG files out some cameras are not, which was my point. Not to mention having to buy Lightroom to convert files to use in C1, seems like a good reason not to bother with C1. Do they really expect people to convert their DNG files to DNG files to then import into C!?

C1 does not support dng files converted in LR or in DNG converter, only native dng files are supported.

[jjj]

C1 does not support dng files converted in LR or in DNG converter, only native dng files are supported.

Duh, typed C1 when I meant DxO. Better correct it.
Though C1 doesn't accept all native DNG files either. 

[BernardLanguillier]

But DNG files out some cameras are not, which was my point. Not to mention having to buy Lightroom to convert files to use in Dx0, seems like a good reason not to bother with Dx0. Do they really expect people to convert their DNG files to DNG files to then import into Dx0?

As mentioned higher in this thread, DNG files produced by most cameras were already supported since DxO 9 and still are in DxO 10.

When this was made clear to you, you said that what mattered was the support of Adobe generated DNG files.

What are the remaining gaps in terms of DNG support from your point of view?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Denis de Gannes]

What does DNG have to do with the usefulness of DxO Optics Pro as a Premium Application for processing raw files from digital cameras.

DNG is the product of Adobe and it has many benefits which users of Adobe Products can take advantage of in their workflow. Not necessarily so for people who use other software to process their raw files that may or may not provide support for DNG files.

If you have painted yourself into a corner by converting your photo files to DNG and have not retained your original raw files produced by your camera, so you are unable to use software applications that do not support DNG, then that is your choice. DNG is not an adopted standard format, despite having been actively promoted by Adobe for over ten years.

Most of the major camera manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, FujiFilm to name a few) have completly ignored its existance and the software they provide also do not support DNG.

This link provides a fair assesment of the current situation.  http://members.lightroomqueen.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1159/183/should-i-convert-to-dng

I for one use Lightroom as my main processor for rendering my raw files and I am pleased with the performance. I am particularly please that all the work that I do on my files is stored in the Catalog file so I have no use for "sidecar" xmp files for storing data. If I need to send files to Photoshop for additional work I use the "edit in feature from Lightroom".

I also utilize a few other raw processing software applications on occasions, some of which do not support DNG. As a result DNG has no place in my workflow, to me it's like the proverbial "Tower of Babel" from the Bible.

At this stage I think DxO and Capture One have leapfrog-ed Lightroom / ACR in terms of the quality processing of raw data. I expect this to be corrected with the release of LR 6. Competition is what drives the development to the benefit of the user.

Hey this is why I retain my original raw files to benefit from superior processes in the future.  

[kers]

I just tried DXO10 on a 12800asa exposed D810 image: i did not like it - you get a structure shown in the shadows.. ACR does a better job and Nikon NXD - as awful its workflow is -produces for now the best high iso image rendering.. I have not tried Phase one8 on it, but i do not like its (bad) sharpening... However at high iso that will not be an issue...
What I never liked about DXO is its blackbox way of handling the raw- somehow i never understand what it is doing...i feel out of control.

[BernardLanguillier]

I just tried DXO10 on a 12800asa exposed D810 image: i did not like it - you get a structure shown in the shadows.. ACR does a better job and Nikon NXD - as awful its workflow is -produces for now the best high iso image rendering..

Was that with Prime noise reduction?

Cheers,
Bernard

[jjj]

What does DNG have to do with the usefulness of DxO Optics Pro as a Premium Application for processing raw files from digital cameras.

DNG is the product of Adobe and it has many benefits which users of Adobe Products can take advantage of in their workflow. Not necessarily so for people who use other software to process their raw files that may or may not provide support for DNG files.

If you have painted yourself into a corner by converting your photo files to DNG and have not retained your original raw files produced by your camera, so you are unable to use software applications that do not support DNG, then that is your choice. DNG is not an adopted standard format, despite having been actively promoted by Adobe for over ten years.

Always a good idea to check facts before having a pop at others.
DNG can also be a native raw file format used by off the top of my head...Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Ricoh. Which is what it was designed for actually - a format that anyone can use free of charge to stop needless file variations and let photographers use their current software with a new camera without waiting for unnecessary updates. The fact that C1/Dx0 do not support this open standard shows they are not worth buying, as why would you invest in software that can't be bothered to support all cameras, not even ones with a standard file format? Your next camera may not be one they deem important enough to add.

[jjj]

As mentioned higher in this thread, DNG files produced by most cameras were already supported since DxO 9 and still are in DxO 10.

When this was made clear to you, you said that what mattered was the support of Adobe generated DNG files.

No I didn't, you now seem to be making things up now to argue your case. 
I was only talking about support for out of camera files. Having to convert to DNG for use in Dx0 as you suggested, is a bodge as far as I am concerned.

What are the remaining gaps in terms of DNG support from your point of view?

Rather obviously, the fact that not all cameras that use an open file standard are not supported.


Whilst double checking for the mythical post you alluded to I found a post of yours that I missed.

Excellent? Really. I can make my images look just as smeary and unsharp in LR and much quicker too.

If that's what you think it shows that you haven't spent enough time with DxO because that simply isn't the case.

Well seeing as the examples Dx0 use to promote this feature also look equally crappy to my eyes, you better tell the folks that make DxO they need to learn to use their product better. 
You seem to be missing the actual point I was making. Yes there may be less noise, but the end result is not an improvement in my eyes and I don't particularly like how LR does it either. I wasn't saying LR is better at NR. I prefer images with some noise/grain to less sharp images, other may prefer less grain as expense of detail sharpness and if so, Dx0 or LR's NR may suit them just fine.

[Denis de Gannes]

Always a good idea to check facts before having a pop at others.
DNG can also be a native raw file format used by off the top of my head...Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Ricoh. Which is what it was designed for actually - a format that anyone can use free of charge to stop needless file variations and let photographers use their current software with a new camera without waiting for unnecessary updates. The fact that C1/Dx0 do not support this open standard shows they are not worth buying, as why would you invest in software that can't be bothered to support all cameras, not even ones with a standard file format? Your next camera may not be one they deem important enough to add.

The camera manufacturers you name are all renowned for high quality products. However the market statistics speak for themselves the major camera manafacturers have not accepted the "DNG Standard". This is the point I am trying to convey.
https://www.google.tt/search?q=camera+market+share+2013&client=firefox-a&hs=Ag1&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0RlaVIO2CMGeNsGagKAP&ved=0CBwQsAQ&biw=1493&bih=688