• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

DxO Optics Pro 4.2 is now available

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
That's a good news!
I'll give it a go as I almost forgot about V4 wasn't that good…
I hope that amongs improvements they did boost the poor speedness…

Will let you know what I found…
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks, Nicolas! I knew there was a purpose in delaying the boat launch!

So sit down, load the new DXO and tell us how it goes. BTW, do they have your UW Sigma zoom in the data base? That would seem very helpful. Till now, did you need to correct the lens for color or distortion as a routine thing?

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Thanks, Nicolas! I knew there was a purpose in delaying the boat launch!

So sit down, load the new DXO and tell us how it goes. BTW, do they have your UW Sigma zoom in the data base? That would seem very helpful. Till now, did you need to correct the lens for color or distortion as a routine thing?

Asher

Hi Asher
yes 12-24 Sigma is in there…
No I don't need that often to correct the lens for color distortion…
The only routine maybe for little vignetting…

I have downloaded the 4.2 version and will give it a try right now… Stay tuned!
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
So, I'm back after having played more than 3 hours on a "difficult" image…

I have to say that I am not that impressed, of course they are some improvement, for me C1 is still the winner (though we're still waiting for V4):
- vibrance brings better colors
- speed seems to be better (but I also have changed of machine since the last time I used Dxo (from Dual G5 to Dual intel 2,66 Mac)
- Ergonomia is a bit better, but it is still impossible to separate all module's tabs, they still stick together and you can't develop them.
- Noise module : couldn't find the good tweak… I'm maybe too much used to Noise Ninja… I battled with chrominace/luminace/grey settings with no good success…

As a first conclusion, I think I would need to learn more in order to get the same result as I already get with C1…

Of course the distortion tool is a real plus.

C1 on left Dxo on right. I left the color aberrations on both version for you to compare.

C1VsDxo4.jpg


- C1 version (on left) is out of the box + a very little Noise Ninja treatment + my action for sharpness.
- Dxo version (on right) is out of the box plus a very little Noise Ninja treatment

Below is the overall 1Ds (not MkII) file, developped with C1 - 1200 pix wide:

91AU4725_1200px.jpg



And now for the members of OPF only and exceptionally, here are my 2 gifts of the day!

1- My sharpness action - Denoise 1st, do what you wish to your file (colors, curves, levels, filters, enlarge etc.) then aplly the action from PS CS2 or CS3. It will provide you in LAB space with an untouched background and a sharpened layer, set as 70% so you may adjust…
This action is the result of many years of research, I hope you'll enjoy it…

2 - The raw file (though it is named .tif) it is from my previous body Canon 1Ds (not Mark II)
Please use it for experimentation only, don't sell it, neither a part of it. It is just for play!

If you ever wish to post a treatment of yours, it should be in OPF only, I do ask you to credit: photo Nicolas Claris - Edited by "your name"

Enjoy, tomorow, I fly ;-)
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So, I'm back after having played more than 3 hours on a "difficult" image…

Thanks so much for this major window on the new DXO version. This is a large effort and I suspect it is all becasue of the request I made and even if that is not the case, thanks so much!

I have to say that I am not that impressed, of course they are some improvement,

This is a disappointment!


for me C1 is still the winner (though we're still waiting for V4)- vibrance brings better colors

This information will be music to the ears of phase one users.

- speed seems to be better (but I also have changed of machine since the last time I used Dxo (from Dual G5 to Dual intel 2,66 Mac)
- Ergonomia is a bit better, but it is still impossible to separate all module's tabs, they still stick together and you can't develop them.
- Noise module : couldn't find the good tweak… I'm maybe too much used to Noise Ninja… I battled with chrominace/luminace/grey settings with no good success…

As a first conclusion, I think I would need to learn more in order to get the same result as I already get with C1…

Of course the distortion tool is a real plus.

C1 on left Dxo on right. I left the color aberrations on both version for you to compare.

C1VsDxo4.jpg


- C1 version (on left) is out of the box + a very little Noise Ninja treatment + my action for sharpness.
- Dxo version (on right) is out of the box plus a very little Noise Ninja treatment

So basically DXO still does not appear to be much more than a lens correction tool and is not yet ready for devoting a a whole workflow to. That's a pity. Especially since other companies are catching on!

Now these gifts are very generous! Thanks Nicolas!

1- My sharpness action - Denoise 1st, do what you wish to your file (colors, curves, levels, filters, enlarge etc.) then aplly the action from PS CS2 or CS3. It will provide you in LAB space with an untouched background and a sharpened layer, set as 70% so you may adjust…
This action is the result of many years of research, I hope you'll enjoy it…

2 - The raw file (though it is named .tif) it is from my previous body Canon 1Ds (not Mark II)
Please use it for experimentation only, don't sell it, neither a part of it. It is just for play!

If you ever wish to post a treatment of yours, it should be in OPF only, I do ask you to credit: photo Nicolas Claris - Edited by "your name"

Enjoy, tomorow, I fly ;-)

Wonderful and important report on DXO. It is what it is. Hopefully others will find more use in their work. If for you DXO is super, let's hear that!

Meanwhile, Nicolas, be safe, hang on to your new lens. Take to Advils before you go!

Asher
 

Dave New

Member
I use DxO exclusively as a lens correction tool, and it got a lot more useful for me, after they added the ability to process DNGs and leave them in RAW format. Although, as I found out after a discussion with Thomas Knoll, DxO deBayer-izes the original RAW format, performing the base interpolation -- DNGs can contain these 'pre-digested' RAWs as well as true RAW format. This means that some things that I would rather have control over in PS CS2's ACR have already been 'cooked' into the DNG file.

I had asked Thomas to consider a 'plug-in' architecture for ACR (realizing how difficult that might be), to allow one to use 'best of breed' 3rd party tools, like DxO and Noise Ninja at more appropriate places in the RAW workflow, instead of downsteam after ACR has already interpolated the RAW file to 8- or 16-bit TIFF format.

It would seem that perhaps Lightroom will show the way, because it implements a non-destructive 'stack' of RAW operations. Given an appropriate plug-in architecture, 3rd-party software could be made to insert itself itself into the appropriate place in the stack, it would seem.

I would really like to see Lightroom, or some similar non-destructive processing framework 'stack', host a variety of items like Lightzone-like zone processing, DxO-like lens corrections, Noise Ninja-like noise reductions, and even QImage-like resizing.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Dave
I totally agree with you.
Since V3 of Dxo, I use it only for lens correction ans save the DNG file.
If only C1 could open DNG!
Though I like the color and the light treatment of Lightroom, I don't like the how it handles the contrasts in the dark shadows…
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Dave
I totally agree with you.
Since V3 of Dxo, I use it only for lens correction ans save the DNG file.
If only C1 could open DNG!
Though I like the color and the light treatment of Lightroom, I don't like the how it handles the contrasts in the dark shadows…
So, Nicolas,

You first do the lens corrections and tonalities in DXO, save as a DNG and go to Lightrom? That's what you do?

Do you ever process in C1 and then blend them with the former.

Also how about using Aperture of better Lightzone for the shadows and then going to Lightroom?

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Unfortunately you cannot blend a picture processed with lens correction with one that haven't.
They are not any more the same. (i.e. barrel corrected/barrel not corrected)

I do:
lens and vignetting corrections only (no color/tone/light correction) with Dxo
save as DNG
finish the image with ACR

The pitty for me is that I prefer C1 than ACR but C1 doesn't open DNGs...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Of course Nicolas, I should have been more precise!

One cannot layer images with altered geometry after lens correction!

I was thinking of just the tonal adjustments. Can one use Lightzone or Aperture first for greyscale and the shadows, then use DXO for the geometrical and other lens corrections and Lightroom from then on?

In other words use each in its strongest capability.

Now in all this, where do you put in your sharpening action or noise ninja?

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
I have no clue with Lightzone nor Aperture… kinda lack of knowledge!


- noise ninja if needed as 1st job in CS3
- sharpening action last job after eventual enlarging…
 

Dave New

Member
I was thinking of just the tonal adjustments. Can one use Lightzone or Aperture first for greyscale and the shadows, then use DXO for the geometrical and other lens corrections and Lightroom from then on?

In other words use each in its strongest capability.

Asher

I much prefer to use DxO on RAW files, so using any other program like Lightzone first removes that option.

This is why I'd like to use each tool as a plug-in in a non-destructive stack-like hosting program. A lot of actions are best taken on some form of the RAW data, before interpolation.
 
Top