Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DxO 5.2 released  (Read 12586 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« on: July 11, 2008, 03:44:46 AM »
ReplyReply

DxO released version 5.2 recently.

Unfortunately the issues I have been facing with pixelization and "stair cases" with high contrast edges involving reds has not been improved.

Their maintenance team has been returning my emails, but they have not been able to provide any useful feedback on this.

I am afraid that DxO will vanish from my dock soon...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2008, 11:18:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
DxO released version 5.2 recently.

Unfortunately the issues I have been facing with pixelization and "stair cases" with high contrast edges involving reds has not been improved.

Their maintenance team has been returning my emails, but they have not been able to provide any useful feedback on this.

I am afraid that DxO will vanish from my dock soon...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the notice; I don't go to the DXO site very often, so I often miss releases of new versions.

Do you have anything posted anywhere that demonstrates the problems you're talking about? I'm quite interested in seeing what you've uncovered.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2008, 06:33:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks for the notice; I don't go to the DXO site very often, so I often miss releases of new versions.

Do you have anything posted anywhere that demonstrates the problems you're talking about? I'm quite interested in seeing what you've uncovered.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have not posted images showing the issue.

I was contacted by DxO this morning and they seem to have a fix in the works, they have sent me a sample correction that still have to check.

No target release date yet though.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2008, 09:17:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have not posted images showing the issue.

I was contacted by DxO this morning and they seem to have a fix in the works, they have sent me a sample correction that still have to check.

No target release date yet though.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd like to hear your thoughts when you've had time to test the fixed version. Working ok for me so far. It's running faster for me than the last version, but I also upgraded my processor since I last used it, so that may not be true for others.

I'm glad that it can read Lightroom catalogs. I need to understand how that works a little better, but this may make it easier to integrate DXO into my workflow.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2008, 10:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd like to hear your thoughts when you've had time to test the fixed version. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the sampe image sent by DxO is encouraging, the problem is mostly fixed in that sample, now as long as as I don't have code in my hands that does that I won't be fully convinced.

As far as 5.2 goes, I am still unable to open large tiff files, and most of the minor GUI glitches are still here. Not sure what they worked on, but they have still a lot more to do to make this a production ready tool IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 12, 2008, 10:51:41 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

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

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2008, 12:58:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, the sampe image sent by DxO is encouraging, the problem is mostly fixed in that sample, now as long as as I don't have code in my hands that does that I won't be fully convinced.

As far as 5.2 goes, I am still unable to open large tiff files, and most of the minor GUI glitches are still here. Not sure what they worked on, but they have still a lot more to do to make this a production ready tool IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I can understand your frustration with the UI glitches. I only use DXO for the kind of images that I end up tweaking relentlessly over time; certainly not a "production" sort of process. In the "tweak" environment, DXO can really work some magic.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2008, 01:37:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I can understand your frustration with the UI glitches. I only use DXO for the kind of images that I end up tweaking relentlessly over time; certainly not a "production" sort of process. In the "tweak" environment, DXO can really work some magic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, not that frustrated actually, I use a variety of tools for raw conversion and consider also DxO as a specific tool, but its creators have obviously spent a lot of time and money trying to make a mainstream tool. They are not that far but stopped at about 90% of what they should have done.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2008, 10:39:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Everytime when I use DxO I feel myself a Beta tester.
Logged

Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2008, 04:05:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Over the last two days, I actually went through every page of the local help document, and really tried to learn how everything works. I understand DxO quite a bit better than I had previously. I still need to get my mind wrapped around the best integration of DxO in my own workflow, but I feel that I now understand all of the settings, and how the designers anticipated they would be used by customers.

Prior to studying the manual, I had been operating DxO in a less than optimal manner. Two examples:

First, you have to actually process an image to get a feel for what the final corrections will look like. Obvious, I know, but I had a habit before of making tweaks at 100%, then looking at the "fit to window" image without realizing DxO doesn't even simulate their final corrections at anything under 75% magnification. That can make a big difference when evaluating contrast settings.

Second, "DxO Lens Sotness" and "Unsharp Mask" shouldn't be used together. Unsharp Mask is really intended just for images that were shot with a lens that has no DxO module, such as my Sigma macro. Using both corrections produces ugly artifacts, which I had previously attributed to DxO's logic. Oops. From now on, I'll look at DxO Lens Sharpness as an analog to Bruce Fraser "capture sharpening." If in image needs more than that, I'll be doing it in Photoshop.

Incidentally, I only found one example of a feature that was present in the documentation, but not in the functioning software (a "stack" button in the project window, which isn't really needed anyway, since there's a stack option on the right-click menu). Previous versions were sometimes out of sync with their documentation, but this one doesn't seem so bad.

The one remaining serious annoyance (for me) is that DxO refuses to read the focus distance information embedded in the EXIF for 40D images. Not a problem for most landscaps shots, which are focused at infinity anyway. But the corrections do look different at close focus, and it sure would be a lot better if DxO would just pick up the data that's already in the image. DPP can, of course.

My next step is to run an experiment to compare raw shots converted with DxO, Lightroom 1.4, DPP and ACR. I'll probably do that in phases. First will be an evaluation of noise/sharpness, then geometry/distortion, and finally light and color. To some extent, those qualities end up overlapping, of course. But I feel I need to break my comparison into controllable pieces, or I'll never have anything other than a vague feel for which is "better" overall.

Looking at the images I used while studying the manual, I can say that 5.2 produces a really nice balance between noise and sharpness, at least for the few old 20D shots I was working with. The default "DxO Lighting" corrections have been pretty good so far, and if anything are usually a little conservative. The color balancing tools are a hair less intuitive than their Lightroom 1.4 equivalents, but they seem to be pretty effective.

I also like the way you can set up concurrent versions of the same image for the same project, and then run mutliple output files for each in a single process. Let's say you have an image that might look good in both color and black and white. You can just make a duplicate selection of the same raw file in the project window, and set them up with entirely different color settings. Then when you go to the "process" tab, you can define multiple types of outputs. Maybe a 16-bit TIFF for further editing in Photoshop, a small jpg for a web site, and a larger jpg for an e-mail attachment. Until you've actually processed those final outputs, you've never duplicated any files. You can do similar things with Lightroom, but you can't just process a whole set of different kinds of output files with one step (or at least I can't.)
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2008, 07:30:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the summary, very useful.

As far as the color alisasing problem I found, DxO is saying that they should be able to release the fix in... autumn... better late than never I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2008, 08:38:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks for the summary, very useful.

As far as the color alisasing problem I found, DxO is saying that they should be able to release the fix in... autumn... better late than never I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208800\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry to hear that. But at least when Fall comes, you'll be in a good city for photography. I love those Japanese maples when it starts getting cold. If it's a little cloudy, they seem to almost glow red.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2008, 09:38:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry to hear that. But at least when Fall comes, you'll be in a good city for photography. I love those Japanese maples when it starts getting cold. If it's a little cloudy, they seem to almost glow red.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, that's for sure. On the other hand we will be shooting with a d3x by then, and it will take another 3 months for DxO to support the next beast...

Providing of course the D3x is not based on a RGB sensor because that would basically reduce the chances of support to nil...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2008, 10:05:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, that's for sure. On the other hand we will be shooting with a d3x by then, and it will take another 3 months for DxO to support the next beast...

Providing of course the D3x is not based on a RGB sensor because that would basically reduce the chances of support to nil...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's always film...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7856



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2008, 11:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's always film...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Might be best indeed.
Logged

A few images online here!
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 997


« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2008, 02:25:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I still get the idea, that you two both love DxO, and suffer a bit because it gives you a hard time.

Looks like DxO has some qualities that you can't find at other converters.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2008, 09:46:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still get the idea, that you two both love DxO, and suffer a bit because it gives you a hard time.

Looks like DxO has some qualities that you can't find at other converters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed. I just got back from a weekend of shooting in the Gila. I used DxO 5.2 to process a few images each night, and I really can't argue with the results I got. I did actually see a few ragged artifacts in bright red diagonal edges (on shots of a new Vespa I bought), as Bernard mentioned, but they are maybe 2 pixels wide, and not lilely to be visible in my work. This morning, I took a few shots at ISO 1600 to see how DxO handles really bad noise, and I'll see what turns up.

I'm even sort of re-evaluating my previous strategy of only using DxO for the images I tweak relentlessly. I always thought that it was too cumbersome for ordinary work. Now that I bothered to read the instructions, I find it does such a good job with most automatic corrections that I may start using a hybrid DxO/Lightroom workflow for everything.

Lightroom has a serious advantage in organizing and keywording new shots. It's also "snappier" feeling overall. I think I can probably get better colors faster with Lightroom too, but that may still be part of the learning curve.

Really, I need to do some controlled tests. I'll post some results when I get a chance.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 997


« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2008, 03:07:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Indeed. I just got back from a weekend of shooting in the Gila. I used DxO 5.2 to process a few images each night, and I really can't argue with the results I got. I did actually see a few ragged artifacts in bright red diagonal edges (on shots of a new Vespa I bought), as Bernard mentioned, but they are maybe 2 pixels wide, and not lilely to be visible in my work. This morning, I took a few shots at ISO 1600 to see how DxO handles really bad noise, and I'll see what turns up.

I'm even sort of re-evaluating my previous strategy of only using DxO for the images I tweak relentlessly. I always thought that it was too cumbersome for ordinary work. Now that I bothered to read the instructions, I find it does such a good job with most automatic corrections that I may start using a hybrid DxO/Lightroom workflow for everything.

Lightroom has a serious advantage in organizing and keywording new shots. It's also "snappier" feeling overall. I think I can probably get better colors faster with Lightroom too, but that may still be part of the learning curve.

Really, I need to do some controlled tests. I'll post some results when I get a chance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let us know, please.

Personal experience can show a software in a very good light: task at hand, what you wanted, and if it was good for that task, and less for another.

That's what pixelpeep tests often miss. They can uncover technical qualities or faults, but how could you know how a plane flies just by the data sheet...
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2008, 10:31:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Let us know, please.

Personal experience can show a software in a very good light: task at hand, what you wanted, and if it was good for that task, and less for another.

That's what pixelpeep tests often miss. They can uncover technical qualities or faults, but how could you know how a plane flies just by the data sheet...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Having flown a number of interesting aircraft, I can vouch for the validity of your analogy. Just looking at the performance statistics, a Mig-25 is much more capable than an F-16, but I wouldn't want to be in the Mig in a dogfight...

I have a lot of shots now that I processed with DxO, but I haven't posted any comparisons yet because I'm strugling with how to confine the results to something representative and repeatable by others.

All raw converters do a certain amount of proprietary processing under the hood, and based on what I've read here before, it seems like there are a lot of photographers who depend quite a bit on the default settings as supplied by the manufacturer.

I can't ever seem to let well enough alone. The first thing I do when I install a new piece of software is to go monkey with all the prefereces and settings. I get the feeling that a lot of people judge image software on the results they get from the default settings, but I just don't work that way. So I don't want to post anything that will be misleading.

I guess I'll try to produce some examples with DxO, DPP and Lightroom, with the settings as close as I can make them. There will still have to be some fudging, but I suppose I can at least try to demonstrate what I feel to be the benefits of each.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad