Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DxO - Opinions?  (Read 9809 times)
jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2006, 06:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I am more familiar with ACR than DxO, so I may have been a little biased when I did my evaluation of DxO. But ACR also isn't my preferred raw converter, so I don't think it could've been a very strong bias. I'm really partial to Raw Shooter Premium, both for it's workflow and the results I get from it. So while it could easily be a case of "sticking with the familiar", I think "bias" is probably too strong a word to describe it.

It's been a few months since I last tried DxO for full raw conversion, but I recall finding that DxO produces too much contrast for my taste. Just saying "too much contrast for my taste" doesn't really adequately describe it. There is also sharpening going on, but also some smoothing for noise reduction. I just didn't like the look of the images as well as what I was accustomed to, and found it easier to get a look I like by letting DxO do what they're good at and then finishing up with ACR. It may be possible to tweak DxO's settings to get what I wanted, but this method works for me and I didn't pursue it further. If Raw Shooter Premium would read a DNG produced by DxO I'd be even happier, but it won't.

So my investment in DxO is strictly for their lens correction algorithms, and just for that it's worth it to me. To me it's an extra step at the beginning of the process for situations where I feel lens correction is needed, but then leave the rest of my workflow intact.

I don't feel it's a time issue, as I don't mind the extra time DxO takes to process images.  I also tend to do as much optimization as possible in the raw converter, preferring that to leaving extra work for Photoshop. It's really just a nebulous "I didn't like the look as well as what I'm used to." Sorry I can't seem to describe it more precisely.
Logged
lllusion
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2006, 01:02:02 AM »
ReplyReply

As with others here, the DxO distortion correction is top notch. I find the noise correction and capture sharpening to be quite good too. DxO's lack of support for using DNG as an input format (even to view DNG output files!) is a major drawback.

Q: What are the possible problems with using DxO for demosaicing, just for the distortion, noise, and softness modules, and then use Lightroom for all other adjustments?

It would require saving the DxO output as a DNG, which could then be opened in LR. I've heard that errors can occur when using two raw processors.
Logged
russell a
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2006, 07:58:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Like others, I was put off by DxO's interface and had some trouble getting my head around how to make the damn thing work.  But, when it did work, I was intrigued by the results.  After downloading the demo three separate times I finally made the plunge and have not looked back. The first thing I did was print the user manual and read it from cover to cover.  I've been going back and processing problem images and for me it's like having a new camera, but one that I can use to "retake" the exact same photo.  I love the mid-tone contrast and dynamic range it provides.  I use it for Canon lenses for the 1Ds.  I also really like the corrected look of very wide angle lens shots and find that I tend to crop the re-do's less - as if they now appear closer to what I was after in the full frame.
Logged
mcbroomf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2006, 04:13:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried v 3.x but did not have long to test it before it expired, and I've forgotten what the interface looks like.  I also concentrated on conversions of some old 1ds/24-70 images.

I've downloaded V4 beta to try and will have a go in a week or so, but I now have very few Canon lenses as all my WA's are OM, CZ or Leica.

Is there any way to manaully adjust for perceived or real issues with these lenses?  For example CA is a concern on almost any lens, can this be manually corrected or only with a lens module?  

Similarly, can I make manual barrel distortion or vignetting corrections like I can with CS2 Lens Distortion?

Thanks

Mike
« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 04:44:28 PM by mcbroomf » Logged

Mike Broomfield
Website
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2006, 09:42:12 PM »
ReplyReply

In the expert mode Without a lens module you CAN:

Chromatic aberration
Purple fringing
Keystoning

you CANNOT:
Lens distortion
Vignetting
Volume Anamorphosis

It is still the best RAW converter that I have used when coupled to a lens that a module is available for.

Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Arizona
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2006, 08:31:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been testing V4 for a week now and while it is somewhat slow, I am very pleased with the results. There are more tools than either ACR or DPP and the conversions carry more detail. In the Expert mode there is a lot of control. I am becoming used to the interface and will use this until somehting better comes out.
Logged

Glen
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad