Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DxO - Opinions?  (Read 9404 times)
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« on: September 16, 2006, 06:10:13 PM »
ReplyReply

After using CS2 for the last year or so I've been looking around at converters for a while and stumbled across DxO.  The beta for V4.0 is out and I have to say I'm pretty impressed by the quality of the images I'm seeing, though the interface is either lousy or so different that I have yet to figure it out.  I looked back 4 months and could not find a single thread about them so I figured I'd just ask.  Any experience with DxO?  Opinions?

Thanks,

Todd Warnke
Logged
wood
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2006, 09:10:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

Look at this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ptics-pro.shtml
« Last Edit: September 17, 2006, 09:13:55 AM by wood » Logged

[span style='color:gray'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']take a look... [/span][/span] [span style='color:gray']Postal Digital[/span]
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2006, 11:44:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The last time I tried DxO I was quite happy with the conversions but absolutely hated the interface to the point that I wouldn't use it.  Haven't tried 4 to see if it is any better.
Logged
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2006, 12:23:06 PM »
ReplyReply

It's slow and not particularly friendly (or at least the version before this latest update was), but for certain lenses in certain circumstances it's absolutely superb.

For example the Canon 24-105 4.0L IS is a superb lens, but it distorts and vignettes badly at the wide end, DxO fixes this more comprehensively and more quickly than Photoshop.

In fact if you regularly use zooms, particularly wide angle zooms, then DxO is well worth considering, maybe not for day-to-day batch processing, but sometimes it's simply the best way of getting the most out of a special shot.

The other thing I'd say about DxO is that I don't like the way it handles noise reduction, it tends to be a bit heavy handed and wipes out fine detail, producing a "plasticky" over-processed look to the shot, so go careful with this control.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7733



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2006, 05:13:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The other thing I'd say about DxO is that I don't like the way it handles noise reduction, it tends to be a bit heavy handed and wipes out fine detail, producing a "plasticky" over-processed look to the shot, so go careful with this control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is an option is the contextual menu on the thumbnails that says something like "preserve small details". I don't know what it does, but the resulting images are a lot sharper.

Overall, I find that DxO can be a life saver when images have to be processed with little or no human intervention. The automatic corrections that it does locally usually being images in the right ballpark with zero intervention.

The batch convertion is slow, but the time you spend on the images can be reduced dramatically.

I agree with the comments on the interface of version 3. I have downloaded the beta of version 4 and will start testing it.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2006, 05:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with the comments on the interface of version 3. I have downloaded the beta of version 4 and will start testing it.
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Version 4 is a big improvement.  The interface is completely new and it comes with a Photoshop Plugin that has the main features of the full program. The PC version Beta is available now and the final version will be released later this month.  The Mac version will be available in October.  With the new Macs now able to run Windows which release comes first isn't as much of a concern anymore.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2006, 05:57:14 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2006, 07:59:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello,

Look at this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ptics-pro.shtml
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the link.  I had already read that, and since was waaayyyy back in 2004    I'm looking for more current info.

Thanks,

Todd Warnke
Logged
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2006, 08:01:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The last time I tried DxO I was quite happy with the conversions but absolutely hated the interface to the point that I wouldn't use it.  Haven't tried 4 to see if it is any better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I have to say that 4 offers up a superb conversion but the interface is just plain odd.

Thanks,

Todd Warnke
Logged
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2006, 08:06:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's slow and not particularly friendly (or at least the version before this latest update was), but for certain lenses in certain circumstances it's absolutely superb.

...

In fact if you regularly use zooms, particularly wide angle zooms, then DxO is well worth considering, maybe not for day-to-day batch processing, but sometimes it's simply the best way of getting the most out of a special shot.

The other thing I'd say about DxO is that I don't like the way it handles noise reduction, it tends to be a bit heavy handed and wipes out fine detail, producing a "plasticky" over-processed look to the shot, so go careful with this control.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Gary!  That's exactly the type of info I was hoping to find out.  I use zooms a lot and find that the PTLens plug-in does better with certain lenses than others.  I ran a series of shots through both CS2 with PTLens and DxO and quite agree, with certain lenses they shine.

Thanks for the heads up on the NR.  I'll look out for it.

Lastly, I think I may end up doing as you do and avoiding it except for the proper lens/capture combo.

Thanks,

Todd Warnke
Logged
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2006, 08:09:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is an option is the contextual menu on the thumbnails that says something like "preserve small details". I don't know what it does, but the resulting images are a lot sharper.

...

The batch convertion is slow, but the time you spend on the images can be reduced dramatically.

I agree with the comments on the interface of version 3. I have downloaded the beta of version 4 and will start testing it.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Bernard, I'll try the preserve details option.  I have run a couple images through it that needed the NR and I'll re-run them to check this out.

I seldom have more than a 10-20 images to process at a time so the batch stuff isn't a real selling point but it is good to know about, thanks.

I look forward to your comments about the new interface as I'm still fighting with this thing a bit.

Again, thanks!

Todd Warnke
Logged
OldRedFox
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2006, 08:12:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Version 4 is a big improvement.  The interface is completely new and it comes with a Photoshop Plugin that has the main features of the full program. The PC version Beta is available now and the final version will be released later this month.  The Mac version will be available in October.  With the new Macs now able to run Windows which release comes first isn't as much of a concern anymore.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank Alain for the heads up on the PS plug-in.  I just set it up and it works very nicely, with controls that are finely starting to make sense to me.  I think I'll give this program a few more trials as I really am pleased with the results - and the plug-in lets me drop the results right into CS2 as I'm used to doing with ACR.

Again, thanks!

Todd Warnke
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2006, 12:53:29 AM »
ReplyReply

The PhotoShop plug-in vesion version of DXO 4.0 is scheduled for release sometime soon. I'm hoping that fits into my workflow better than the standalone, and has a better interface too. I bought the 3.5 version last week, and though the interface is a little strange, I figured it out pretty quickly, and no longer mind it so much.

I've always used the PTlens plug-in for for lens correction, and it does a fantastic job for the money. DXO is a hair better (possibly because it computes its correction with the distance variable), but drastically more expensive. I use the Neat Image plug-in for noise control, and so far, I haven't gotten results from DXO that are anywhere near as good as Neat Image. Not even in the same league. PTlens and Neat Image also work with a far greater range of cameras and lenses than the limited selection in DXO. In both cases, you can tune those two plug-ins to pretty much whatever equipment you own, including scanned film images, which DXO will never support.

But some of the new capabilities promissed for DXO 4.0 could be really terrific, esp. the advanced geometry and perspective corrections. That's what really intrigued me enough to make the purchase. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Logged
David R. Gurtcheff
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2006, 11:03:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The PhotoShop plug-in vesion version of DXO 4.0 is scheduled for release sometime soon. I'm hoping that fits into my workflow better than the standalone, and has a better interface too. I bought the 3.5 version last week, and though the interface is a little strange, I figured it out pretty quickly, and no longer mind it so much.

I've always used the PTlens plug-in for for lens correction, and it does a fantastic job for the money. DXO is a hair better (possibly because it computes its correction with the distance variable), but drastically more expensive. I use the Neat Image plug-in for noise control, and so far, I haven't gotten results from DXO that are anywhere near as good as Neat Image. Not even in the same league. PTlens and Neat Image also work with a far greater range of cameras and lenses than the limited selection in DXO. In both cases, you can tune those two plug-ins to pretty much whatever equipment you own, including scanned film images, which DXO will never support.

But some of the new capabilities promissed for DXO 4.0 could be really terrific, esp. the advanced geometry and perspective corrections. That's what really intrigued me enough to make the purchase. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use the older stand alone version. I do seascapes, and some of the Canon wide zooms produced such badly curved horizons, that they were unuseable. DXo corrects these, and now some of my best images have been made using these same lenses. I also use it as my RAW Canon converter at the same time.
Dave
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2006, 03:40:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been using DXO optics for a year now and have nothing but praise for the output quality, the interface took a bit to get used to but the results are superb
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2006, 05:35:16 PM »
ReplyReply

As a response to this thread I downloaded the V4 Beta demo. I have mixed emotions about the experience. On one hand the results are so staggeringly good (esp with the wides) that I'm excited about reprocessing all my favourite images, and then I think about the time required to do all that. Arrrgh, why didn't I try this programme when I first bought a DSLR!?

I have recently been toying with the idea of getting a Zeiss wide and adapter for the 5D because of the occasional disappointment with the Canon 16-35. The increase in output quality with DxO makes me rethink that prospect. Has anyone had the opportunity to test a known WA performer and compared the results with the 16-35 that has been corrected with DxO? I'd be very interested in your conclusions.  

(Later edit) I have been searching for tutorials or user forums for DxO, but am having trouble locating any. There is a Yahoo Group, but it has only had one posting, and that was in March. It is such a complex program, that it would be great to talk to people who have mastered it.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2006, 12:19:49 AM by tesseraphoto » Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2006, 01:15:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm no master but I have been using it for about a year and process all my images with it. You get used to the user interface. V4 is a bit easier. In a month it will feal better to you. I now only buy lenses supported by DXO. I process my RAWs with it but do little image correction. I output a 16 bit tiff.  I then use PSCS2 for croping, adjustments etc. It alows you to output to any colorspace and the images are better than those processed by ACR. I wish there was a forum for it too.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2006, 01:32:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I only use the lens correction feature of DxO and none of the other features.  For lens correction it is superb.  I output in DNG and then use ACR/Lightroom for the rest of the RAW conversion.  Unfurtunately, it is an extra step outside of my workflow.  The plug-in doesn't seem to offer any advantage is this respect.  The program is severly crippled, for my use, by the inability to read the DNG format.
Logged

David White
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2006, 05:21:43 PM »
ReplyReply

It was interesting to read that DxO technology has been included in the in-camera processing for a Carl Zeiss Digiscope. This was first talked about several years ago as a way to improve output quality of inexpensive cameras or increasing zoom capabilities, but this is the first time I've read about it actually being incorporated into a camera.

I wonder if this will allow the development of super zoom digicams that are generous in the wide-angle end of the focal range (where DxO appears to be particularly effective). A 12x zoom digicam going from 24-288 rather than the more common 36-432 (ish) focal range would suit my shooting style very well.
Logged

jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2006, 07:58:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I only use the lens correction feature of DxO and none of the other features. For lens correction it is superb. I output in DNG and then use ACR/Lightroom for the rest of the RAW conversion.
This is precisely what I do, too, and have been quite pleased with the results.

DxO is largely the reason I haven't yet felt the need to upgrade from the Canon 28-135 to their newer 24-105 or the 24-70. $400 in software vs $1,200 in lens upgrade - not a bad deal. I did my testing with a Canon 5D looking at 12x18 inch prints. DxO processed images shot at 28mm f/3.5 looked as good in the corners as the same shot at f/8 processed strictly through ACR, maybe a bit better. The center was too close to call between the two. Granted, that particular lens needs a lot of lens correction for softness, but DxO lens correction is that good.

I bought the upgrade to v4, but it won't run on Win2k unless you're in the "Administrators" group. I'm waiting on a solution from DxO. I changed the permissions on the files, and a multitude of registry entries it added (by searching for "DxO"), but apprently there's something I missed and it still won't work.

Be warned: a DxO generated DNG file from a Canon 5D is typically about 40 MB, while a DNG straight from Adobe's DNG converter is about 10 MB. Great results, though, using DxO for lens correction to DNG, then ACR.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2006, 08:01:49 PM by jimhuber » Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2006, 02:09:34 AM »
ReplyReply

What do you find better in ACR than doing the processing in DXO then adjustments in PSCS2? Is ACR doing a better job in some aspects? Are you just more comfortable with ACR?

Thanks Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad