Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: A Look at DxO 10  (Read 6284 times)

keith_cooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
    • Northlight Images
A Look at DxO 10
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:46:27 AM »

I've used versions of Optics Pro right since it first appeared (and only supported JPEG files) and have written up some notes on how I'm using V10

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/software/dxo_optics_pro10.html

It's still a tool I keep for more problematic images or where I'm likely to want to make a large print - it also works a treat on old images I took with my 1Ds (and I'm glad I've all my raw files).

As software improves I'm seeing less and less obvious improvements and the look of different converters becomes more of a question of personal taste.  I do use ACR for a lot of my day to day commercial work, but DxO tends to come in where I'm working on just a few shots.

V10 does seem to be snappier and generally easier to use, and I'm glad they've not tried to shoehorn in some asset management/catalogue style of front end to it  ( YMMV - I know quite a few like the LR all-in-one style, but I don't)
« Last Edit: December 11, 2014, 09:49:15 AM by keith_cooper »
Logged
bye for now -- Keith
[url=http://www.nor

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: A Look at DxO 10
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2014, 12:57:39 PM »

I enjoyed your review Keith! Like you I have found Optics Pro a very useful tool to turn to with older RAW files, as well as certain contemporary ones where it will do a better job than other converters I've tried. Personally I sometimes take advantage of the better highlight recovery in ACR/LR to adjust the highlights from the resulting DNG output by Optics Pro.

The lens softness algorithm they use can produce very nice results, as you indicated. Not as sharp as a custom solution like offered by Piccure+, but of course it is orders of magnitude faster.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11388
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: A Look at DxO 10
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2014, 06:10:10 AM »

The lens softness algorithm they use can produce very nice results, as you indicated. Not as sharp as a custom solution like offered by Piccure+, but of course it is orders of magnitude faster.

Thanks for the pointer to Piccure+, I didn't know this solution.

I checked their website but couldn't quite figure out whether their corrections were based on lens profiles or whether they were generic?

If they rely on lens profiles, is the list of available lenses available somewhere?

Cheers,
Bernard

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: A Look at DxO 10
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2014, 06:57:34 AM »

Hi Bernard,

Piccure+ operates purely on what it sees in the image itself. If you hand it an image with no EXIF it will make no difference. When it works its output can be very impressive indeed. However -- and I'm not sure yet -- from my time using Piccure+ it might be that it does a better job on files output by ACR / LR and DPP compared to those coming from DxO. With the latter after Piccure+ I'm sometimes seeing some unpleasant image artifacts, namely dark lines on high contrast edges.

As an aside, today I worked on an image in DxO where 75% ClearView made sense. It doesn't happen too often but this time it did. And it doen't look anything like an over-the-top HDR look, in my opinion:



I also added some Topaz Clarity and Detail and Nik ProContrast to the image too.

Damon
Logged

keith_cooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
    • Northlight Images
Re: A Look at DxO 10
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2014, 07:35:22 AM »

As an aside, today I worked on an image in DxO where 75% ClearView made sense. It doesn't happen too often but this time it did. And it doen't look anything like an over-the-top HDR look, in my opinion:

Just from my own POV, this image does step over what I'd choose, obviously YMMV ;-)
I've not found an image yet where I was happy with the default ClearView setting - useful, but in small amounts.

I've found when using DxO, the lens softness setting is the one that pushed edge contrast too high for my liking, especially noticeable when enlarging a lot. Indeed I'll regularly turn off (or much reduce) this setting whilst keeping the other lens corrections  (depends on the lens and subject).

I've a short note on creating a 3m x 2m print from an 11MP Canon 1Ds image, where I look specifically at this aspect at one stage (about 1/3rd into the article)
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/tutorial_pages/innova-big.html

In previous reviews of Optics Pro I only looked at shots taken with good 'L' lenses, so this one steps away a bit in using the EF-S 10-18 on a 100D. I've not seen Optics Pro make such a pronounced difference as it does in the wide shot of a field, with the viaduct in the distance. It's actually enough that I'm much happier having the 100D (with 10-18 and 15-85) with me as a small backup camera on my commercial jobs.

Logged
bye for now -- Keith
[url=http://www.nor

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11388
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: A Look at DxO 10
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2014, 01:28:38 PM »

Hi Bernard,

Piccure+ operates purely on what it sees in the image itself. If you hand it an image with no EXIF it will make no difference. When it works its output can be very impressive indeed. However -- and I'm not sure yet -- from my time using Piccure+ it might be that it does a better job on files output by ACR / LR and DPP compared to those coming from DxO. With the latter after Piccure+ I'm sometimes seeing some unpleasant image artifacts, namely dark lines on high contrast edges.

As an aside, today I worked on an image in DxO where 75% ClearView made sense. It doesn't happen too often but this time it did. And it doen't look anything like an over-the-top HDR look, in my opinion:



Hi Damon,

Thanks for the feedback!

Cheers,
Bernard
Pages: [1]   Go Up