Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Longer look at Dx) 6.2  (Read 10450 times)
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



WWW
« on: May 26, 2010, 01:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I've just finished looking in more detail at DxO Optics pro on the Mac:
DxO Optics pro V6.2 review
Hope it's of interest.

It runs very well on my Mac Pro and my general thoughts are that it feels a lot tidier in design. I've always tended to use it for individual images in the past, so I've not looked in detail at the workflow aspects (such as integration with LR)

The conversion quality is improved, particularly in noise handling at high ISO.

I know it's not to everyone's taste (or pocket) but I look forward to using it for certain types of work until I get a 1Ds4 and then have to wait for my camera and lenses to be supported :-)
Logged

Tom H.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2010, 11:09:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: keith_cooper
I've just finished looking in more detail at DxO Optics pro on the Mac:
DxO Optics pro V6.2 review
Hope it's of interest.

It runs very well on my Mac Pro and my general thoughts are that it feels a lot tidier in design. I've always tended to use it for individual images in the past, so I've not looked in detail at the workflow aspects (such as integration with LR)

The conversion quality is improved, particularly in noise handling at high ISO.

I know it's not to everyone's taste (or pocket) but I look forward to using it for certain types of work until I get a 1Ds4 and then have to wait for my camera and lenses to be supported :-)


Keith,

I really enjoyed your review! And totally agree.

I've been using various versions of this software for about 1.5 years and really like it. I find it as fast and easy as you want (especially for batch conversions), or you can fiddle to you heart's content. I love the workflow, and I do not import into Lightroom.

The quality of the output is outstanding and I much prefer it to ACR - which I also use for some cameras that I own - ones DXO does not yet support (and there is my biggest gripe!).

They need to be faster with their modules and more thorough. In my case, they still don't have an 85 1.2 module for the 5D MKII. Very frustrating (worse it tries downloading the Canon 85 1.8 module, and if you let it it will give you an error).

Also I have a GF1 for fun - still no support. This is a great little camera  who's output would benefit greatly from DXO (but alas nothing yet), so I use ACR.

For some reason I always feel this software is not taken quite as seriously as Phase One (which I've also owned and used) or ACR.

My sense is that when you finally do get a lens module for your body, it is far better than the "home made" ACR modules - I think your examples bare that out.

If I were DXO I would start making deals to have it be the RAW conversion tool bundled with as many prosumer cameras as possible - once people try this software, I'm sure they will like it.

While it's not perfect, the quality of output and ease of use make it a winner in my mind - when time is of the essence and you want to be productive, this is the way to go.

Thanks again for your review!


Logged
Tom H.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2010, 12:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tom H.
Keith,

I really enjoyed your review! And totally agree.

I've been using various versions of this software for about 1.5 years and really like it. I find it as fast and easy as you want (especially for batch conversions), or you can fiddle to you heart's content. I love the workflow, and I do not import into Lightroom.

The quality of the output is outstanding and I much prefer it to ACR - which I also use for some cameras that I own - ones DXO does not yet support (and there is my biggest gripe!).

They need to be faster with their modules and more thorough. In my case, they still don't have an 85 1.2 module for the 5D MKII. Very frustrating (worse it tries downloading the Canon 85 1.8 module, and if you let it it will give you an error).

Also I have a GF1 for fun - still no support. This is a great little camera  who's output would benefit greatly from DXO (but alas nothing yet), so I use ACR.

For some reason I always feel this software is not taken quite as seriously as Phase One (which I've also owned and used) or ACR.

My sense is that when you finally do get a lens module for your body, it is far better than the "home made" ACR modules - I think your examples bare that out.

If I were DXO I would start making deals to have it be the RAW conversion tool bundled with as many prosumer cameras as possible - once people try this software, I'm sure they will like it.

While it's not perfect, the quality of output and ease of use make it a winner in my mind - when time is of the essence and you want to be productive, this is the way to go.

Thanks again for your review!

Quick correction on the above ... I got my sources wrong.
It's the latest  DP Review article that shows various lens corrections with different software. In my opinion DXO does best. Folks can decide for themselves by viewing the samples in the article.
Logged
jamesn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2010, 09:23:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: keith_cooper
I've just finished looking in more detail at DxO Optics pro on the Mac:
DxO Optics pro V6.2 review
Hope it's of interest.

It runs very well on my Mac Pro and my general thoughts are that it feels a lot tidier in design. I've always tended to use it for individual images in the past, so I've not looked in detail at the workflow aspects (such as integration with LR)

The conversion quality is improved, particularly in noise handling at high ISO.

I know it's not to everyone's taste (or pocket) but I look forward to using it for certain types of work until I get a 1Ds4 and then have to wait for my camera and lenses to be supported :-)



Keith,

Thanks for a really interesting and informative review.

I recently upgraded from v5.3 to v6.2 for my Mac Pro.  I've always been very happy with what DXO does with my RAW files.  I shoot everything in RAW format now and use DXO to process everything.  With v5.3 I had gotten into the habit of leaving all of the automatic presets in place with the exception of the Highlight recovery which I would set to Maximum, and the DXO Lighting which I set to Auto-Medium.  I would estimate distances for the shots with my old Canon 20D.  Results usually quite good.

DXO 6.2 just looks better with fewer needs for extra adjustments than before.  I started out by applying the same 2 settings as before but was not happy with the finished look in comparison to 5.3.  I did some testing and found that I could leave the default settings in place as received in 6.2 and get much more satisfying results.  They have apparently been doing a lot of fine tuning on their default settings. I think it's best to start with no changes initially and then make adjustments when you see what it does first out of the box.  I've added a single adjustment back to the DXO lighting set to Auto-Medium instead of the default Auto-Slight.  I always leave my WB control on the camera set to automatic and it seems  that DXO is doing an improved job of setting the white balance without my having to make adjustments as before.  Not perfect but close enough so I just do a minor touch up in Aperture to get the color balance where I like it (this could naturally also be done in DXO but its so close after the automatic RAW processing that an Aperture adjustment is just easier for me to do on a picture by picture basis where desired.)

I was shooting a group of people outside yesterday and inadvertently shot a dozen pictures at ISO 800 instead of the 200 that I was planning to use (quite bright yesterday).  When viewing the finished images (I use Phoenix viewer to view completed jpeg files- it's much faster and sharper than using Preview) I didn't notice any real difference in the look of the pictures.  I had to go into my copy of Aperture and check the metadata to see the ISO settings.  And when I used the Aperture loupe at settings of 100% or 200% I didn't see much of any difference in grain on the 800 vs. 200 images.   Obviously not a scientific method here but it seems a noticeable improvement from earlier DXO.

Indoor pictures taken on tripod at ISO 1600 also exhibit very little grain with this old Canon 20D.  I keep wanting to get a better camera, but DXO keeps improving their product and with a new module for the Canon EFS60 macro lens they have modules for all 6 of the lenses that I own.  Not the case with the Canon 7D at this point- the 70 - 200L f4 IS is covered but not the 70-200L f4 which is the lens that I think that most of the people thinking of graduating from an older Canon 20,30D etc. would be more likely to own.  Also, no module for the Tamron 28-75.   I expect these modules will eventually be forthcoming but I'm not rushing to get the 7D before this happens.

I get fantastic results with my Canon 17-40L- a lens that never satisfied me when I let my Canon do the in-camera JPG processing but which really bloomed when I started shooting in RAW and processing with DXO (Keith, I realize that you have had I couple of really bad copies of this particular lens- there seems to be quite a variation in quality control of the Canon and Nikon lenses).

Why would anyone want to use ACR if DXO had their particular camera model and lenses covered?  I guess the folks who buy the Zeiss lenses for their Nikon or Canon might- but I wonder if they still might do better using DXO and the settings available for non-covered lenses?  I wonder how the new Photoshop will do in comparison?
Logged
sjprg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41



« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2010, 12:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply


I've been using DXO since 2003 when I upgraded my 10D to the 20D. Going back and reprocessing my 2003 images with 6.2 shows me that if I had 6.2 in 2003 I would never upgraded my 20D to the 5D and than the 1DSIII. The later cameras are great BUT the 20D with proper processing is no slouch. I still get on DXOs case about the lack of modules for the 1D series, since they charge a premium, but overall i'm very happy with DXOs processing.
Paul
Logged

Paul
Galleries: www.sjprg.us
              www.pbase.com/sjprg
Theresa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2010, 06:25:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jamesn
I was shooting a group of people outside yesterday and inadvertently shot a dozen pictures at ISO 800 instead of the 200 that I was planning to use (quite bright yesterday).  When viewing the finished images (I use Phoenix viewer to view completed jpeg files- it's much faster and sharper than using Preview) I didn't notice any real difference in the look of the pictures.  I had to go into my copy of Aperture and check the metadata to see the ISO settings.  And when I used the Aperture loupe at settings of 100% or 200% I didn't see much of any difference in grain on the 800 vs. 200 images.   Obviously not a scientific method here but it seems a noticeable improvement from earlier DXO.

I use a Sony a850 and even with its bad rep (unearned in my opinion) it produces very good images even at iso 1600.  Of course for four times the money one can buy the much "better" top of the line Nikon or Canon.  Anyway, people seem to be way too concerned about noise considering the tools we have to deal with it.
Logged
mstudios
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2010, 08:26:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to really like DxO and have tried version 6.2 ( for my Nikon and Canon cameras) , my only thoughts on this is that they refuse to support Leica DNG files.

 You would think that a company that claims to be the "best raw converter" would go out of it's way to support one of the best cameras made. Yes, I understand a Leica m9/m8 is a niche market but so is the DxO program. Maybe they should consider marketing with Leica instead of leaving them out of their program.

In addition they should be supporting Zeiss lenses on Canon and Nikon by this time as well.

Logged
dralph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2010, 10:27:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Allow me to ask a really dumb question.

The DxO interface does not provide a way to work on a file and then save it with a chosen name nor to a chosen directory.  I like the output, and sometimes it is superior to what I can do myself with other converters.

So, how does one select when and called what the output will occur?

TIA

Logged
Sigi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2010, 06:26:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello TIA,

you can not rename files in DXO but in the process tab you can determine the output folder and some other characteristics. You can also add a suffix.

Siegfried
Logged

jfwfoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2010, 01:03:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I realize this is a bit off topic but the best way to achieve highlight control is to auto bracket and blend those well exposed highlights into the image. I understand that one purpose of the article was to demonstrate highlight recovery but I just don't have to do that any more especially on a landscape.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad