Detail Man

Detail Man

Lives in United States WA, United States
Joined on Jul 31, 2010

Comments

Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

John Kay: "Neither does DxO Optics Pro 8 allow you to highlight a slider's corresponding value box to adjust the numbers via your keyboard."

I think you'll find that you can! I get a blue outline on the value box when I click on it, and can then type a value in. BTW, that's on a Mac.

Thanks for the article. What it shows is that the software developers have now narrowed their differences substantially in the image editing results, but still have different approaches to management, etc. Wonderful for the consumer!

That has always worked just fine on all Windows versions of DxO Optics Pro (6.1 - 7.23) when installed on WinXP Pro. It seems unlikely that DxO 8.x would drop that functionality ?

Also - when the user single-left-clicks on (any of the) control-sliders themselves (at the location of where the control's "cursor" is set), the keyboard's Up/Down Arrow keys will advance or decrement that particular control setting-value, incrementing by one gradation-unit, as opposed to the super-irritating individual steps of 5 gradation-units that Lightroom 3.x insists upon stepping-by (in all cases except where it comes to the "Black Level" control-slider).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2013 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: While it is true that it is necessary to purchase the DxO Optics Pro Elite 8.x version (normally priced at $299 USD) in order to ensure compatibility with some relatively higher-priced dSLRs, DxO Optics Pro 8.x Standard version (normally priced at $169 USD) can suffice in all other cases - where it is, as a result, much more competitively priced in comparison with Lightroom 4.x's $149 USD costs.

<< << Hello Peter,

at DxO we also offer special upgrade price to existing customer. ...

Best,
Olivier >>

The above statement relating to the availability of upgrade licenses for DxO Optics Pro could only be interpreted to be accurate if the word "special" is construed to have been intended to mean:

"possibly for certain time periods if and when DxO Labs may so choose" (with reference to the existence of an upgrade license price that is reduced in cost relative to the full license price in effect at any given time).

... as opposed to being construed to have been intended to mean:

"special" (with reference to the monetary cost of an upgrade license that is reduced in cost relative to the full license price in effect at any given time).

Thus, it appears that customers who have purchased licenses for previous release-versions of DxO Optics Pro are "special" to DxO Labs only if and when DxO Labs may at times so choose.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 06:07 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: While it is true that it is necessary to purchase the DxO Optics Pro Elite 8.x version (normally priced at $299 USD) in order to ensure compatibility with some relatively higher-priced dSLRs, DxO Optics Pro 8.x Standard version (normally priced at $169 USD) can suffice in all other cases - where it is, as a result, much more competitively priced in comparison with Lightroom 4.x's $149 USD costs.

<< Hello Peter,

at DxO we also offer special upgrade price to existing customer.

Concerning the price of the upgrade on DxO Optics Pro 8 :
From version "x" (any version) to v8 the upgrade price was as low as 49USD (Standard edition) and 69 USD (Elite edition) during the launch.
Those prices were only available for those who have purchased a previous version of course. (only online via the DxO customer account)

Best,
Olivier >>

This is to inform DxO Labs that the statement in the first paragraph (above) is only partially accurate, and past-tense references of the second paragraph (above) are not accurate.

Since the Release of Version 8.0 on Oct 30, 2012, DxO Labs emails sent to members of the DxO Labs mailing-list show that there was no notification of any upgrade license availability whatsoever, until ...

... four emails (dated 22 and 27 Dec, 2102, and 4 and 16 Jan, 2013) advertise $49 USD (Standard) and $69 USD (Elite) upgrade licenses still being offered through 31 Jan, 2013.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 05:39 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: Regarding DxO Optics Pro:

In the case of Panasonic, quality of rectilinear distortion correction appears to be notably higher than Panasonic correction meta-data utilized by applications such as Adobe LR/CR. Presumably characterized at more Focal Lengths.

"Lens Softness" correction default settings were changed (in V 6.x) to "V2" (Global=-0.5, Detail=50). Have found that these settings can overdo the sharpening effects. I typically use the original "V1" (Global=0.0, Detail=0).

I find the auto NR controls' settings can be (uniformly) reduced by factors of between 2 and 5.

Adobe LR/CR Color NR is more effective than DxO Chrominance NR. DxO Luminance NR (particularly at settings <= 10) appears to result in less detail-smearing than LR/CR Luminance NR. This article speculates as to why that may be so.

See Section (1) here:

http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=395:la-reduction-de-bruit-avec-dxo-optics-pro-6&catid=67:dxo-optics-pro&Itemid=317

Almost all of my applications are nature/landscape - and I am the type who (with any RAW processor) prefers to process each image individually using manual controls (Versions 6.x followed by Version 7.23 using the "DxO Lighting" interface).

It is not clear to me whether I would prefer the new ("just like Lightroom") tone-control-sliders. I don't tends to let much in the way of detailed subject-matter "clip" when shooting RAW.

Lightroom 4.x's "highlight recovery" is less than impressive for things other than wispy clouds - and it sounds like DxO's offering is not better.

Then there is the question of how well the "Lens Softness" corrections function in conjunction with "highlight recovery"?

"Auto-brain" controls are not for me. I like the use of the Gamma control (in "DxO Lighting" interface) combined with Exposure Compensation - though that (pre-versions 8.x) interface can tend to overdo the shadow-tones. That "DxO Lighting" interface is available as an option in versions 8.x.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: Regarding DxO Optics Pro:

In the case of Panasonic, quality of rectilinear distortion correction appears to be notably higher than Panasonic correction meta-data utilized by applications such as Adobe LR/CR. Presumably characterized at more Focal Lengths.

"Lens Softness" correction default settings were changed (in V 6.x) to "V2" (Global=-0.5, Detail=50). Have found that these settings can overdo the sharpening effects. I typically use the original "V1" (Global=0.0, Detail=0).

I find the auto NR controls' settings can be (uniformly) reduced by factors of between 2 and 5.

Adobe LR/CR Color NR is more effective than DxO Chrominance NR. DxO Luminance NR (particularly at settings <= 10) appears to result in less detail-smearing than LR/CR Luminance NR. This article speculates as to why that may be so.

See Section (1) here:

http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=395:la-reduction-de-bruit-avec-dxo-optics-pro-6&catid=67:dxo-optics-pro&Itemid=317

My experience is primarily with the Panasonic DMC-LX3, and LGV 14-45mm and LGV 7-14mm lenses on a DMC-GH2 body. Sorry, no Nikon camera/lens experiences to recount.

It is possible that other manufacturers provide more rectilinear distortion correction image-file meta-data pertaining to more individual ranges of Focal Length. Don't know.

I have a feeling the the "Lens Softness" setting characteristics (may) well apply in general relative to different manufacturers.

The business about (in the case of Panasonic cameras) being able to reduce the NR-control settings below what is automatically selected (may) apply (to some extent) in general - as DxO Labs states that they characterize the image-noise spectrums for each camera model, and adjust the (internal) weighting of their NR controls accordingly.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 07:49 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: While it is true that it is necessary to purchase the DxO Optics Pro Elite 8.x version (normally priced at $299 USD) in order to ensure compatibility with some relatively higher-priced dSLRs, DxO Optics Pro 8.x Standard version (normally priced at $169 USD) can suffice in all other cases - where it is, as a result, much more competitively priced in comparison with Lightroom 4.x's $149 USD costs.

OK. Thanks for that specific information. I guess that DxO Labs figures that "full-frame > full price".

Now that DxO Labs writes the essential core of the DxO Optical Correction Modules into the software application itself, rather than into the downloadable Modules themselves (ever since the release of Version 7.50) ...

... that means that roughly once per year (as in the case of Versions 8.x replacing Versions 7.x), if you want support for that newly added camera body or lens, the customer will be forced to purchase (Version 9.x, etc.) all over again.

$299 USD per year could get rather expensive, indeed ...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

Jolly Oly: Fantastic read, thank you very much.

Having both Lr4 and DxO 7.5, and sometimes also using Olympus Viewer2 (for the OMD files) one thing is not clear and I would appreciate if someone could explain it to me.

Why the same WB color temperature value will result in more or less different colors in all three on them ?

There is a lot more than the de-mosacing algorithm used that influences color rendering.

While image-file meta-data contains color matrix coefficients (not absolute color temperature and tint data), different RAW processors use differing color matrices applied to the de-mosaiced RGB image-data. The latitude taken is significant - and does not lend itself to consistency in absolute color temperature comparisons.

A given indicated color temperature in Lightroom 3.x yields an image (viewed on a sRGB-calibrated monitor) that is appears to the eyes as being approximately 500 Degrees Kelvin "cooler" than DxO Optics Pro Versions 6.x and 7.x.

In example, 5000 Degrees Kelvin in DxO (6.x and 7.x) looks about the same as 5500 Degrees Kelvin in Lightroom 3.x (for sunlit scenes).

In addition to the numerical value of WB Color Temperature, the amount of applied WB Tint alters chromaticity as well.

Most "As Shot" WB co-ordinates include both Temperature and Tint; these are not simple matters.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 07:12 UTC

While it is true that it is necessary to purchase the DxO Optics Pro Elite 8.x version (normally priced at $299 USD) in order to ensure compatibility with some relatively higher-priced dSLRs, DxO Optics Pro 8.x Standard version (normally priced at $169 USD) can suffice in all other cases - where it is, as a result, much more competitively priced in comparison with Lightroom 4.x's $149 USD costs.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 05:30 UTC as 120th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Neodp: Shoot Raw

Pull the embedded JPEG out, with dcraw ("draw -e *", and setup in your chosen file manger; as a right click option.) This is not developing, and is instant, and camera dependent(size).

Use the JPEG(s), where sufficient to your own goals. AKA, you got the settings right, in the camera, and controlled the light where you could.

For time purposes: For those fewer Raw shoots; that would benefit, from 16 bit light adjustments (including color), then just click the Raw file, that you preset, to bring up "ufraw".

Learn what the ufraw (free, and cross-platform) settings do, from it's web page. You do not have to adjust all of them; but only the few, that matter, and to effect the change you are after. With ufraw, you just download, or make your camera's profile, first, and then ufraw produces a default photo; matching your cameras JPEG, if that's what you want. It mostly finished developing; upon loading. You can match any style, this way. Do the rest in gimp, and it's plug-ins.

UFRaw 0.18 is positively "ancient" at this point, and uses older DCRaw binaries which do not support any camera released in what is now (nearly) 2 years time.

20/02/2011 - UFRaw-0.18 released, based on DCRaw v 9.06:

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

Further, it will not function with versions of GIMP later than 2.611 on WinXP OS. I uninstalled UFRaw 0.18 (and the 8-bit only GIMP 2.80) completely as a result of this unfortunate situation.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 05:08 UTC

Regarding DxO Optics Pro:

In the case of Panasonic, quality of rectilinear distortion correction appears to be notably higher than Panasonic correction meta-data utilized by applications such as Adobe LR/CR. Presumably characterized at more Focal Lengths.

"Lens Softness" correction default settings were changed (in V 6.x) to "V2" (Global=-0.5, Detail=50). Have found that these settings can overdo the sharpening effects. I typically use the original "V1" (Global=0.0, Detail=0).

I find the auto NR controls' settings can be (uniformly) reduced by factors of between 2 and 5.

Adobe LR/CR Color NR is more effective than DxO Chrominance NR. DxO Luminance NR (particularly at settings <= 10) appears to result in less detail-smearing than LR/CR Luminance NR. This article speculates as to why that may be so.

See Section (1) here:

http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=395:la-reduction-de-bruit-avec-dxo-optics-pro-6&catid=67:dxo-optics-pro&Itemid=317

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 04:58 UTC as 121st comment | 4 replies
On aurora photo in gollywop's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Very nice ! Great capture, GW !

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 22:17 UTC as 1st comment

DxOReview ... featuring controlled-exposure, pixel-resolution-normalized, and non-Adobe-massaged Studio Comparison Tool RAW image-samples for the purpose of readers actually being able to make reliable comparisons between RAW-recording cameras !

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 21:22 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Detail Man: Axel,

Had a look at my DxO Optics Pro 7.23 installation. According to DxO Labs, I have full rights to obtain an activation-code for Version 7.5.x and later 7.x versions.

Because I have a 32-bit WinXP Pro OS, and 3 GB maximum amount of addressable RAM, I have no desire at all to install a likely more code-intensive and RAM-hungry (7.5.x) version that does me no good on a 32-bit OS. I see *nothing* substantial regarding the actual processing functionality added.

In the case of Versions 7.x, DxO Labs' motivation for denying Version 6.x users access to newer DxO Optical Corrections Modules was obvious - money. Forcing users to upgrade resulted in more sales. OK. So I paid DxO Labs for a Version 7.x license.

I see that my installed Version 7.23 is clearly "locked out" of access to all of the post-Version 7.5.x DxO Modules. This cannot be about money - it could be for *no other reason* than to irritate users.

This "32-bit lock-out" represents very poor planning in software development !

As I stated over two weeks ago, Axel, please (DxO Labs) prove me wrong with actual and tangible actions (not more mere words).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: Axel,

Had a look at my DxO Optics Pro 7.23 installation. According to DxO Labs, I have full rights to obtain an activation-code for Version 7.5.x and later 7.x versions.

Because I have a 32-bit WinXP Pro OS, and 3 GB maximum amount of addressable RAM, I have no desire at all to install a likely more code-intensive and RAM-hungry (7.5.x) version that does me no good on a 32-bit OS. I see *nothing* substantial regarding the actual processing functionality added.

In the case of Versions 7.x, DxO Labs' motivation for denying Version 6.x users access to newer DxO Optical Corrections Modules was obvious - money. Forcing users to upgrade resulted in more sales. OK. So I paid DxO Labs for a Version 7.x license.

I see that my installed Version 7.23 is clearly "locked out" of access to all of the post-Version 7.5.x DxO Modules. This cannot be about money - it could be for *no other reason* than to irritate users.

This "32-bit lock-out" represents very poor planning in software development !

"... the reason why some modules are only available for version 7.5.x is that they use some features added to this version."

I do not know of a single example of the addition in Versions 7.5.x of any "feature" (in the sense of actual operational functionality as a RAW processor; separate from camera/lens compatibility). Please provide specific examples.

"We are making backward-compatible modules (for v6.6 and v7.2.3) when possible, but it's not always possible."

I do not know of any cases of a (post - Version 7.0 released) DxO Module provided for the use of DOP 6.6 users. Please provide specific examples. Please also provide specific examples for DOP 7.23 users.

Please explain (specifically) why providing such backwards-compatability would not be (technically) possible" ?

After paying DxO Labs in full for a Versions 7.x license, it appears to me that legitimate and obvious customer needs and concerns are of a very low priority at DxO Labs.

Prove me wrong with actions (not words).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

Detail Man: Axel,

Had a look at my DxO Optics Pro 7.23 installation. According to DxO Labs, I have full rights to obtain an activation-code for Version 7.5.x and later 7.x versions.

Because I have a 32-bit WinXP Pro OS, and 3 GB maximum amount of addressable RAM, I have no desire at all to install a likely more code-intensive and RAM-hungry (7.5.x) version that does me no good on a 32-bit OS. I see *nothing* substantial regarding the actual processing functionality added.

In the case of Versions 7.x, DxO Labs' motivation for denying Version 6.x users access to newer DxO Optical Corrections Modules was obvious - money. Forcing users to upgrade resulted in more sales. OK. So I paid DxO Labs for a Version 7.x license.

I see that my installed Version 7.23 is clearly "locked out" of access to all of the post-Version 7.5.x DxO Modules. This cannot be about money - it could be for *no other reason* than to irritate users.

This "32-bit lock-out" represents very poor planning in software development !

Hello Axel,

You have not answered any of my questions asked as to: by what possible reasonable rationale has DxO Labs deliberately chosen to lock Version 7.0 - 7.23 users out of access to DxO Optical Corrections Modules released after the release of Version 7.5 ?

This makes no sense at all. It cannot be about money - I already own a Versions 7.x license. Please explain why it would be that the newer Modules are completely inaccessible (and thus unusable) when using my Version 7.23 ?

Axel: "I wanted to reassure you about the memory and processing power requirements of DxO Optics Pro v7.5.x 32 bits: it isn't more resource hungry than the previous version. We even see some performance improvments on some systems. So, there is no risk for you to upgrade to the latest version."

If I were to activate a Version 7.5.x installation with required new Activation Code, and then discover that I would prefer instead to revert to a Version 7.23 installation, will the Pace Anti-Piracy allow that ?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

dkadc: Detail Man, at some point companies will stop writing code that runs on obsolete operating systems. Windows XP is now an obsolete OS.

There's no excuse for companies to sell software that doesn't take advantage of 64 bit processors and 64 bit operating systems. Photo and video editing software are two of the best examples of software that show huge performance gains running in 64 bits.

Microsoft stopped offering full support for Windows XP over THREE years ago, except for once a month security updates. And even that low level of support ends in less than two years.

32 bit OS's were great in their day, but that era is over, just like the 16 bit era is over. Its time to update your hardware so you can run new software.

An inspirational oration about how other people's resident 32-bit Operating Systems may no longer seem relevant to some (though MS supports WinXP SP3 into 2014, BTW), but you evidently have not noticed the fact that that (all) DxO Optics Pro Versions 7.x fully support WinXP.

Therefore, I think that your points might be said to be more relevant with reference to other subjects and discussions completely ...

BTW - If WinXP is so irrelevant, then I wonder why Adobe PS CS6 and CR 7.x (also) support it ?

"On the Windows side, minimum requirements are Windows XP with Service Pack 3, Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise with Service Pack 2, Windows 7, or Windows 8."

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2601746315/photoshop-cs6-beta-new-features-for-photographers/5#system

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 06:46 UTC

What could possibly be a reasonable software development rationale for intentionally causing the newer (post-Version 7.5) DxO Optical Corrections Modules to not be viewable or download-able when using the (32-bit OS) Versions 7.x (thru Version 7.23). ???

Regarding money - I paid the required cost in full for a DxO Optics Pro Versions 7.x license - and in this case I am clearly being barred from being able to utilize the functionality which I have already paid DxO Labs (in full) for.

If the explanation is something on the order of, "we had to make the new DxO Optical Corrections Modules compatible with 64-bit code only", that makes no sense - as Versions 7.5.x are said to (also) run on 32-bit OSs.

Further, the DxO Optical Corrections Modules created since the release of Version 7.0 and Version 7.23 run fine on Versions 7.5.x, do they not ?

I am unconvinced that this "32-bit lock-out" is anything but arbitrary and senseless.

Please give me an answer that makes rational sense. Thanks

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 05:09 UTC as 5th comment

Axel,

Had a look at my DxO Optics Pro 7.23 installation. According to DxO Labs, I have full rights to obtain an activation-code for Version 7.5.x and later 7.x versions.

Because I have a 32-bit WinXP Pro OS, and 3 GB maximum amount of addressable RAM, I have no desire at all to install a likely more code-intensive and RAM-hungry (7.5.x) version that does me no good on a 32-bit OS. I see *nothing* substantial regarding the actual processing functionality added.

In the case of Versions 7.x, DxO Labs' motivation for denying Version 6.x users access to newer DxO Optical Corrections Modules was obvious - money. Forcing users to upgrade resulted in more sales. OK. So I paid DxO Labs for a Version 7.x license.

I see that my installed Version 7.23 is clearly "locked out" of access to all of the post-Version 7.5.x DxO Modules. This cannot be about money - it could be for *no other reason* than to irritate users.

This "32-bit lock-out" represents very poor planning in software development !

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2012 at 23:59 UTC as 6th comment | 5 replies
On User Guide: Getting the most out of the Olympus E-M5 article (262 comments in total)

"Hats off" to Mr Timur Born for his steadfast interest in, knowledge gained, and knowledge shared with others, surrounding the Olympus OM-D E-M5 !

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 09:06 UTC as 93rd comment | 1 reply

When will a 30-day trial version of DxO Optics Pro 7.2.3 be made available ?

It seems immediately obvious that since DxO Labs is allegedly always improving their product (in terms of functionality and operational integrity), and a newer version than Version 7.2.2 (Version 7.2.3) is now available, that prospective customers such as myself would want to try the latest Version 7.2.3 ...

Axel (or other designated DxO Labs representative), please respond to this inquiry, and please provide information to DPReview members regarding the specific date after which the download-able trial-version of DxO Optics Pro will be updated to the latest Version 7.2.3.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2012 at 09:09 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »