Previous news story    Next news story

DxO Labs introduces Optics Pro 9 with 'PRIME' noise reduction

By dpreview staff on Oct 23, 2013 at 13:53 GMT

DxO Labs has released Optics Pro 9.0, a major update to its RAW conversion and image correction software. It offers improved highlight recovery, adds creative visual presets known as 'Atmospheres', and includes all-new 'PRIME' noise reduction technology that claims to offer significant image quality gains at high ISOs. The software is available to download now, with a special introductory price to November 20th. See below for full details.

Press Release:

DxO Optics Pro 9 introduces revolutionary PRIME denoising technology and pushes the limits of high ISO photography even further

With its award-winning and unrivaled image processing quality, DxO Optics Pro definitively emerges as the software of reference for the most demanding photographers

Special introductory offer through November 20, 2013

October 23, 2013 - DxO Labs announces the immediate availability of DxO Optics Pro 9, the major new version of its image-processing software. DxO Optics Pro 9 introduces PRIME, a revolutionary noise reduction technology whose spectacular performance produces detailed and vividly-colored images even under the most extreme shooting conditions.

Based on DxO Labs' exclusive approach of prior calibration of equipment in its laboratories, DxO Optics Pro integrates many powerful tools for automatically processing RAW and JPEG images: precise optical and geometric corrections, intelligent optimization of exposure and contrast, preservation of colors and details. Its numerous presets can be adapted to photographers' personal tastes and will help them bring out the best in their photos in just a few clicks.

Breathtaking images, even at extremely high ISO

Thanks to PRIME (Probabilistic Raw IMage Enhancement) denoising technology, which analyzes the structure of RAW images in depth in order to differentiate between noise and fine details, DxO Optics Pro 9 offers a gain in image quality of up to one full stop over the best noise reduction algorithms currently on the market.

"In contrast to the usual approach of finding a better compromise between image quality and execution speed, we have created a tool whose sole purpose is to obtain the best image quality possible," explained Frédéric Guichard, Chief Scientific Officer of DxO Labs. "For each pixel, more than a thousand neighboring pixels are analyzed. This vast exploration allows DxO Optics Pro to identify similar data that can serve to reconstruct image information. Several minutes may be required to do this, but this process takes place in the background, so users can work on other images and projects while they wait for the results."

PRIME technology results in truly spectacular images: noise is suppressed, and textures, details, and color saturation are preserved, particularly in shadows, for a beautifully natural look.

For photographers who prefer to denoise their images immediately, DxO Optics Pro 9 still offers a newly-improved high-quality "classic" denoising tool that produces finely-detailed renderings quickly, even at the highest sensitivities.

Unrivaled highlight management and color rendering

The exclusive DxO Smart Lighting feature optimizes the overall contrast of an image by intelligently adapting to its contents. This tool has been further improved in DxO Optics Pro 9, which now offers even more powerful highlight management: details that once were thought lost are revealed, even when the information is missing in the original RAW data, and colorimetric errors are minimized.

DxO Labs' highly precise knowledge of the way each camera reproduces color allows DxO Optics Pro to emulate the rendering of any camera on RAW images. DxO Optics Pro 9 goes even further by proposing a new color rendering called "DxO Portrait," which preserves skin tones and naturally-saturated colors.

New visual presets

DxO Optics Pro 9's library of presets has been completely redesigned. Portrait, Landscape, Black & White, Single-shot HDR: the new DxO presets respond to different use cases that photographers frequently encounter, and are supplemented by "Atmospheres," a new set of creative renderings.

A new visual presets window makes it easier for users choose which preset to apply to their images by letting them preview thumbnails of the rendering effects prior to application.

New export tools

DxO Optics Pro 9 simplifies its workflow by allowing photographers to go directly from customizing their images to using and sharing them. 

The "Export to Disk" feature lets users generate and save JPEG, TIFF, and DNG images in just a few clicks. The new "Export to Application" feature groups into a single transaction both processing and opening images in an external application, such as other DxO software products or other editors that specialize in photo retouching, panoramic shots, HDR, and cataloguing. Finally, the "Export to Flickr" feature adopts this same new approach, letting users process and publish their photos directly online in just one step.

Even more comfortable and productive

The DxO Optics Pro interface has undergone another evolution, with a new workspace that highlights essential correction tools, optimizes vertical space, and reorganizes toolbars and palettes in an even more logical fashion. Further, it is now possible to access context-sensitive help directly in the correction palettes.  

Availability and special introductory offer

The Standard and Elite editions of DxO Optics Pro 9 for Mac and Windows are now available in the DxO Labs line store (shop.dxo.com) and at photo resellers at a special discount through November 20, 2013:

USD:

  • DxO Optics Pro 9 Standard Edition: $99 instead of $169
  • DxO Optics Pro 9 Elite Edition: $199 instead of $299

GBP (Suggested retail prices, including VAT):

  • DxO Optics Pro 9 Standard Edition: £79 instead of £119
  • DxO Optics Pro 9 Elite Edition: £159 instead of £239

EUR (Suggested retail prices, including VAT):

  • DxO Optics Pro 9 Standard Edition: 99€ instead of 149€
  • DxO Optics Pro 9 Elite Edition: 199€ instead of 299€

Photographers who acquired a DxO Optics Pro 8 license on or after September 1, 2013, are entitled to a free upgrade to version 9. Other customers can benefit from a special discount on their upgrade directly from their customer account through November 20, 2013.

A fully-functional trial version of DxO Optics Pro 8, good for one month, is available on the DxO Labs website (http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/download). 

60
I own it
4
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums
80
I own it
4
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 172
12
Andre842
By Andre842 (4 months ago)

I have just bought DxO Optics Pro 9 for my Sony DSC RX100 and the program will not display or open any of my RAW images (DNG or ARW) that are on external hard drives and is giving me the following message: "This image cannot be processed since it was taken with a camera that is not supported by this version of DxO Optics Pro".

Also noticed that if I place some photos on the **internal** disk then DXO sees and opens them OK . But of course I cannot put thousands of RAW images on my MacBook Pro internal hard disk. DXO has no problem with JPG and TIF images on my external hard drives.

I'm on a MacBook Pro 2011, running OSX 10.8.5. My photos are on three 1T WD MyPassport external FireWire 800 drives connected directly to the MacBook's FireWire connection.

AndreD

0 upvotes
DXOproshooter
By DXOproshooter (4 months ago)

forgot to say ... that most modules I used so far are not accurate and needed additional tweaking.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DXOproshooter
By DXOproshooter (4 months ago)

.
After using the DxO ELITE for the past 2 years professionally,
I can safely say this:

A, Pro customer support is simply not existent.
>It sometimes takes weeks before Olivier get's back to his help desk.
( the other help desk people are quite useless )

B, Installs are very limited > that means if you have HD trouble and reached your maximum installation limits, you are pretty much left with nothing.
( this proved to be very painful in a remote location this summer )

C, DxO Modules are n e v e r added or updated for older versions.
Instead they put every thing in a new package around X-mas and sell it as a "new" version.

D, Processing speed is low.

E, Many tools are cumbersome and awkward to use.

F, Navigation options are limited.

Bottom line:
Within it's limitations DxO proved to be a specialized and sometimes useful tool.
Choose wisely if you are a pro and never leave home without a safety plan.

... not sure I would buy again.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RobertoAvanzi
By RobertoAvanzi (5 months ago)

ThomasSwitzerland makes a very important point: DxO is a small company and they fight against a giant that has near monopoly on RAW conversion.

But another interesting aspect of DxO is that at some point the quality and robustness of their SW degraded - SW was very unstable, crashing constantly... and they managed to turn around and make their development lifecycle more robust, they even improved the user interface. Their SW is now of much, much higher quality than a few years ago. DxO 9 is a pleasure to use, it is fast, and the quality of the conversion is very high.

Roberto

0 upvotes
Cheezr
By Cheezr (6 months ago)

Here is my test. I took an image at ISO 12800 in decent light and converted it in Adobe Camera Raw CC, Aperture (latest), DxO8 and DxO9. Below are the links to the dropbox files, enjoy.
PS in both DxO I used default but smart lighting to medium and luminance to 15
Aperture was apple defaults and ACR adobe defaults

ACR https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836PS.JPG
Aperture https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836Aper.jpg
DxO8 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836_DxO8.jpg
DxO9 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836_DxO9.jpg

Original DNG (Pentax K5IIs) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836.DNG

also btw, DxO8 took 11 seconds to export and DxO9 took 2 minutes 7 seconds (both as reported by the software). Both on a Mac Mini i7 w/8GB ram and SSD

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Hrm, dynamic range is huge difference between ACR and DxO. I assumed that DxO9 you used prime took 2 mins 7 secs. Normal setting would only take 11 seconds like the DxO8.

The black in DxO is being clipped, it should never happen like that though if you don't want shadow details to be clipped. I guess there some setting somewhere you can change to avoid that? Or DxO did attempted to darken image with smart lighting thats probably why. I still like the way ACR does though for that Pentax image.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

From my camera Canon 50D in extreme shadow area with 2 software on zero setting both Adobe ACR and DxO9. ACR took less than 1 second to process and DxO9 took few seconds to process. Both without any setting applies to it.

Here you go

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2734537/2softwareonzerosetting

Shadow is not good in DxO9 though to be frankly honest, it totally clipped.

Both are pretty close for on harsh highlight area on zero setting when first open file.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2734539/2softwareonzerosetting1

I think I noticed DxO9 seems to come out a little bit sharper than ACR in all zero setting though!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

Pentax is a bad example: they apply some NR for their RAWs from ISO3200 (extremely bad practice, strong limitation). So, the Prime just could not to reveal its potential.

2 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (6 months ago)

I compared DXO Prime against NIK DeFine 2.0. I found no real difference except that NIK was much, much faster.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

steve:

Define works after extraction right?

And what camera and ISO levels were your shots taken with? And how were they extracted from raw to tiff/psd?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

steve:

With a 5000 ISO Samsung NX100 raw I extracted the file to tiff with zero NR in ACR 8, then tried both Define and Topaz Denoise. Define did a better job at noise reduction and detail preservation than Denoise.

However starting with the same raw, DXO 9 did a better job at noise reduction and detail preservation than doing the work post extraction or doing the extraction with ACR. And the job ACR did was nearly as good as the extraction with DXO 9.

Right Define is much faster than DXO 9, but not the equal. Stick with ACR if you need speed and good quality high ISO noise extraction.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

It would be nice if DxO supports DCP/ACR camera profile. So we could use those to produce more faithful profile rather than their own DxO profile that clips some of shadow in some photos especially Canon images? So it make it look flat profile same as ACR. The shadow detail would come out a lot better than that.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

Here is a quick take. You can see the comparison in my dpreview gallery.

I evaluated it by personal “fit for use” preference.

1. DxO9 with prime comes first, but had automatic lens correction applied, no further adjustments made. Slightly lacks in detail might be caused by denoising. But, I find the overall vivid impression outstanding.

2. Out of the box TIFF with Nikon’s proprietary View NX

3. Adobe PS6 NEF to TIFF comes close to Nikon’s propr. SW.

My conclusion:

DxO is great. With Adobe I had to work on it. I got no time. And I don’t know whether Adobe can achieve the shadow improvements, clarity, and reality impression like DxO “out of the box”.

Disclaimer: This is a quick personal opinion without scientific relevance taken under circumstances not being repeatable and traceable. I cannot be held liable for wrong buying decisions. It is not a general judgment on vendors.

Hope it contributes. Have a great weekend.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Just to be clear, Nikon NEFs only right?

No I didn't look at your gallery, lowspeed connection.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Yeah thats true its very helpful when there are lots of good automatic there. But however you can create one in Lightroom and ACR though. Although sometimes you need to fine tune some if it doesn't look right.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Here are samples of noise reduction.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2733374/dxonoisereduction Default auto noise reduction with no prime at all though as it is useless when taking too long to process. I sharpened it with Photoshop. Sharpened not done in DxO software.

Compare to this here:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2733373/acrrawnoisereduction In ACR Camera RAW I set Lum NR to 25% and Color to 25% without sharpened, open up into photoshop then sharpened.

Notes both are sharpened at 100% amount and radius 1.0 and threshold 0.

It shows that Photoshop noise reduction + sharpened retains more details than the DxO so far. And Photoshop dynamic range is better than DxO software.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

The original image doesn’t appear to be in focus, so that’s not helping.

However on my very good monitor, the DXO example does a better job of preserving detail and colour differentiation.

Not sure about the dynamic range claim either, again my monitor is really good.

Clearly I can’t test this on a printer with an image only 800 dots square and not a tiff.

So besides the focus thing, I don’t think this example is making the point you think it does.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

That was a cropped image of 800 x 600 out of 15mp on bottom right corner where darkest and noisy image was. That camera was Canon 50D with iso 3200 taken in cave with no flash allowed as was told by tourist guide.

My monitor is very good and it shows me that DxO is no good. LR and ACR Raw still winning the competition with best noise reduction (much more gentle approach compare to DxO) And LR ACR do not clip both highlight/shadow when first open file so dynamic range is intact. While DxO did not leave it intact and instead still clipping shadow in particular to full pure black 0. So dynamic range is totally lost. Thats not acceptable for the photography quality in standard of using raw editing. When it is already clipped. There is no room for you to pull shadow detail, it still stay horribly black and no detail there anymore. I do not believe the claim of Emacs23 below for that D800E. He hasn't said what setting was he using did he use original Dxo setting or what?

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

And I examined the details after noise reduction/sharpening was applied. LR and ACR still intact a more details than the DxO. DxO leaves it very grainy and lost of details like murky. And the moire start to appear after sharpening applied to DxO noise reduced while the LR/ACR did not show any moire symptom to it. Prime is the worst most offensive noise reduction I have ever seen, way too aggressive, a lot more detail disappears and it nearly kills everyone computer. So I believed DxO still never convince me to buy it. LR and ACR has won over again and again. And once again Adobe support more cameras than DxO does. Especially Fuji and others.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

n:

Making assertions and then citing those examples, but the examples don’t back up your assertions, what’s up?

Thank you for telling me that the photo was taken in a cave, but that means it is unlikely to be one colour of rust brown.

It’s not like I didn’t do my own testing of DXO 9 with high ISO raws before coming to the conclusion that yes DXO 9 is better than ACR 8 at high ISO NR (Lightroom has nothing to do with extraction based NR).

And I’ve never been impressed with DXO’ NR in previous versions, so there’s no loyalty here.

2 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Although on other post I found that D800E (RAW sample from dpreview) did a better job with that DxO compare to my old photos from former camera Canon 50D doesn't fare well with noise reduction. More likely to do with 50D sensor was not good generation that time. 7D had a bit of improvement over 50D with better noise than that. So thats the main reason why. Canon is working hard to improve all the time. 70D beats 7D with better noise this time. It gets better all the time. 50D is fairly old model though and is not well advance with high iso compare to nowaday camera can do a lot better with high iso many years later than 50D.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

n:

The problem is that I tested at least 3 raw file types and was getting better results with DXO9 than ACR.

Now I will say that the ACR extraction of ISO 25,800 NEFs was close to that from DXO9 (used a D4 body).

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

This method should not work very well on very high ISO values, where it should be just on par with simpler methods that based on high frequencies filtration. It's mid ISOs (12800 or lower on FF) where it shows significant advantage over them.

1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

I got my words back: Prime is the BEST commercial denoiser right now.
Here is the test, the D800E at ISO 3200: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/D800EhSLI03200.jpg
Truly spectacular!
And high resolution sensors, such as one used in D800(E) or A7r will obviously benefit from it: put an NR, downsample. Profit!

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mrmut
By mrmut (6 months ago)

Yeah, I came to this conclusion myself. First I done some quick testing, and PRIME looked fine. However, now I processed several hundred of awful images, and the results are jaw-dropping. It works so well, that some 30 or 40 images of mine that I marked as unusable junk passed stringent quality control at respectable stock site.

Now, the program is sluggish, but who cares. - The computer can work over night. :-)

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

I find it very difficult to believe what you did to D800E though. What setting did you use? Did you use a LOT more gentle than DxO default setting right?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

I used 40 intensity for denoising. Also, all my shots look great. And, if I'm right about algorithm used in Prime (family of algorithms), there's no way ACR's can do better. It is just FAR more advanced.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Oh I see. I guess it doesn't work well for Canon I tried out. Probably works ok for Nikon. Obviously that DxO likes Nikon than any other brand. Probably is only because DxO is a Nikon fan. lol I am not sure if that is correct. Correct me if Im wrong though. Canon will have different response of noise signal from sensor to the Canon chipset processing it will do differently to Nikon does.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

I tried out that with D800E sample from this website and tried it, I can confirmed that DxO does very good job with D800E it seems. So I was not sure why my 50D image fails to turn up good quality out of DxO compare to ACR/LR. But I am thinking it is to do with Canon sensor is different and the on chip processing does different to Nikon when processing image. So it does look like it need some tweak in DxO to work better with Canon.

0 upvotes
Keith Reeder
By Keith Reeder (6 months ago)

Optics Pro 9 is doing a SPECTACULAR job on my 7D's high ISO files - so it's not "just" Nikon that will benefit from this improvement.

Probably not a brilliant idea to generalise about a whole manufacturer on the basis of your experience of results from one mid-range camera body.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Well so far since I had DSLR all the way from 10D to 50D to 7D. But now with Sony Nex 7. I don't think Sony lens is anyway as good as Canon lens to be honest though. Except Sigma and Carl Zeiss is better off than Sony lens itself anyway. But still once again cannot compete with Canon lens.

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/DSC06163.jpg – shot at ISO3200 then pulled up in 1.72 stops, so this is ISO10542 in fact. Not bad for 1.53 crop?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

@nantho, again, if my "prediction" of algorithm used is right one (I guess it is BM3D, based on how well it works with textures), then I can state it strongly benefits higher resolution sensors by its nature: for each pixel and its close neighborhood it looks for similar neighborhoods around (based on some metrics). Once completed it rearranges them by some criteria and averages these patches with certain weights which it found somehow. So, it does a good job in image restoration. You can try to lower threshold value though.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Yeah I reckon I need to tweak value to more acceptable level for 50D image at high iso. 70D nowaday has better tolerance at high iso noise than 50D previously so thats probably why 50D wasn't good at high iso compare to nowaday. D800E would kill 50D big time yes.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

I pretty much doubt that DxO is really convincing me to buy it though. There are still some problems to it. Im not the only one. I read here lots of people have had similar problem as well.

Pro
1. Accurate colours, lighting/brightness otherwise an okay dynamic range.
2. Plenty of lens profile built in for distortion correction as well as aberration correction. Even you can play with keystone there. Very good.
3. Plenty of options to play with as well there.
4. Very good layout of software to navigate with ease.

Con.
1. Dynamic Range not as good as LR when first open up raw file with shadow clipped.
2. Moire effect in noise reduced area when using sharpening, mostly in near corner area.
3. Prime noise reduction sometimes too aggressive and is taking too long to process a single file with i7, 8gb ram, 2gb DVI and 240gb SSD.

Thats summary up for it.

Nathan.

1 upvote
clicstudio
By clicstudio (6 months ago)

I haven't tried version 9 yet. I used 8 a few times but the work flow was painful and slow.
I use Apple Aperture which has trouble resolving detail on shadows, specially reds, and also making hair look like straw...
Sometimes I use photoshop CS6 raw processor which works better in shadows but lacks saturation and accuracy sometimes.
I have a canon 1dx which has amazing detail up to 5000 ISP.
I use imagenomic's noiseware plugin and the "night" preset is just incredible and almost instant.
You should try it.

1 upvote
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (6 months ago)

Worked a bit more on Prime. Topaz does give the impression of "better" NR but upon close inspection, while Prime may still be a bit grainy on the luminance component (Chroma handling is very good). It does have an edge (literally) on details.

Up close, text and hair have better definition. The thing about watercolor effects is that it is expected in almost every NR with high ISO images. Pixel Peepers go nuke with this when in reality, subjective viewing of the images as a whole on a monitor or in print makes the artifact imperceptible.

Counter to some who tested it was that Prime seem to be able to extract about an additional better-than-half stop in the shadow areas. This is when compared to LR5/DFine and Topaz, with LR5/DFine being a close second.

Prime is definitely an incremental improvement but a huge step backward in speed. Especially for its intended audience that process RAWs by the hundreds (thousands).

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

I agreed, taking photos of rather high iso is not good idea. I stay at below 3200 iso as a safest option so detail stays there. If it goes way beyond it may become unusable when you see at 100% pixel. So smaller photos and smaller photo print will be fine for higher iso. But for enlargement may remain ugly to look at.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Nuku:

No TopazDenoise isn't really close to DXO 9 for NR.

Right speed (lack of) is a problem, but CPUs and GPUs will catch up in a few years.

I assume you mean you're extracting with ACR8, not LR5, and using Define on tiffs. Define applied to tiffs is better than Denoise but not up to either ACR or DX0 9.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

Sometimes one gets the feeling that dpreview got too large to contribute further to real photography. One will consider to exchange opinions and experience elsewhere.

1 upvote
Ronald A Yorko
By Ronald A Yorko (6 months ago)

All comments could be posted in the DXO Forum- tech support does read them and reply, and it might help to get this program changed to what users want-http://forum.dxo.com/index.php

Great feedback from everyone. I like the features on V.8, and don't think the redesigned interface, controls, and functions would be to my liking in V.9. I use Topaze Denoise, which works well and relatively fast, and don't think V.9's Prime would be a significant improvement.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Have you tried DXO 9? Or are you just commenting without trying the trialware?
Someone from DXO has posted comments here in the past.

Topazlab's Denoise is a well and good, but it’s a joke compared to fixing high ISO noise problems during raw extraction with ACR, so Denoise is nothing compared to high ISO raw extraction with DXO 9. Denoise does a lot of blurring to achieve lowered noise levels–not so much DXO 9, sort of DXO 8.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW
I'm afraid you are wrong. Most modern algorithms (including non local means derivatives, such as one – based on dxo prime presentation video – used in Prime) works after demosaicing, so, there should be no difference.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Emacs:

Given that I have Topazlabs’ Denoise and have used it extensively, I know of what I speak.

You can make any claim you want, but clearly working from the raw files with either ACR8 or DXO9 and reducing noise creates less blurring than working after the fact on a tiff with Denoise. That means that raw extraction software has some method (algorithm) of seeing noise in the file during extraction.

If you read through the press release from DXO above about version 9 you can make a guess what that method would be, and why DXO 9 is better at high ISO noise problems than ACR, but I’d posit that ACR works in a similar way–if less intensively. PhotoNinja clearly uses methods like those of DXO 9.

In short: No, you’re wrong. And I’d posit that either you’re not particularly familiar with extracting raws or haven’t used Tlabs’ Denoise very much.

continues:

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

I suggest you try either PhotoNinja or DXO 9 (or even ACR 7) before commenting.
I feel perfectly assured in saying Topaz Labs’s Denoise is kind of a joke compared to working on noise control from the raw.

Yes I have the latest Denoise running in PhotoShop CS6.

0 upvotes
Ronald A Yorko
By Ronald A Yorko (6 months ago)

Just the opinion of a novice amateur, as I certainly don't have the pro level of knowledge or experience. My subjective opinion, not scientific- I've just gotten better results with Topaz Denoise (less smearing and more detail preservation) than the NR built into ACR, DXO Optics Pro 8 or Aftershot Pro with Noise Ninja.

I'm not going to try DXO Optics Pro 9 (time to install trial and then uninstall) because I just don't think it's worth the $49 upgrade price. Perhaps the next version will be worth the price, but not this one.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Ronald:

Quoting Emacs23 from a comment above, he/she has changed her/his tune:

"I got my words back: Prime is the BEST commercial denoiser right now.
Here is the test, the D800E at

ISO3200:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/D800EhSLI03200.jpg

Truly spectacular!

And high resolution sensors, such as one used in D800(E) or A7r will obviously benefit from it: put an NR, downsample. Profit!" (the comment box forced me to break it up that way for clarity.)

Now I'm not actually sure that DXO 9 is better than PhotoNinja and PN of course does Fuji Xtrans files, however I'm sure that DXO 9 is better than ACR8 at noise reduction and much better at NR than TopazDenoise.

It's not like I think TopazDenoise (there are other Denoises) is bad, it's just not particularly good.

0 upvotes
Keith Reeder
By Keith Reeder (6 months ago)

"Denoise does a lot of blurring to achieve lowered noise levels"

You REALLY need to learn how to use it properly, then. SAYING you know how to drive is no proof, and - based on my own extensive and satisfied use of it - you CLEARLY don't.

Oh - and I'm deeply familiar with Photo Ninja too.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Keith:

Boring. And calls in to question your "familiarity with TopazLabs' Denoise and high ISO raws in general.

I'll just repeat myself from above:

"Now I'm not actually sure that DXO 9 is better than PhotoNinja and PN of course does Fuji Xtrans files, however I'm sure that DXO 9 is better than ACR8 at noise reduction and much better at NR than TopazDenoise."

I think you need to remember the amount of calculating PN and DXO9 do to achieve those results, whereas Topaz Denoise not so much. And I don't think that DXO would simply want to waste CPU and GPU capacity to equal the not very good Topaz software.

Denoise doesn't come anywhere near ACR 7 or 8 either.

Like me, you can make any assertion you wish about Denoise, but I can't challenge your judgement about your satisfaction with Denoise--there are people who claim RawTherapee is good at extracting raws; it isn't.

0 upvotes
keith Bennett
By keith Bennett (6 months ago)

well for what it's worth from little old me, i think dxo9 is excellent - selective luminance, contrast, color, noise and distortion tweaks are very fine + at only $69 upgrade from dxo8 what's not to like about it....but i might be wrong....

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (6 months ago)

I have no idea how to punish NR quantitatively but it may be a good idea to do it subjectively through competition, that two person try to please a group of customers with two different cameras and lenses and free use of any software NR available on the market.

or they compete to read text (different colors against different backgrounds) with least possible exposure.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

Since the beginnings I used Photoshop and DxO in parallel, processing all in RAW. Up to now, Photoshop had the lead. The prior edition of DxO went on par with Adobe and had a lead in fine tuning the pictures. Some time I thought that DxO is a gimmick. Today, I believe in their future. Smart algorithms are more important than “glass” and physical sensor limitations. SW trumps HW.

I will support everything which is contrarian to the Adobe cloud rip off. The cloud is the biggest danger at present for mankind with the outlook of total communication control and exploitation. Therefore: thumbs up for DxO. You get my money.

14 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

I'm all for telling Adobe to get outta town because of the rental only thing (it's not a "cloud"; this comments thread is part of a cloud), and DXO 9 sure does noise reduction well, but it is a system resource hog and I managed to crash DXO 9 pretty easily.

And my laptop is plenty fast with a big video card. So DXO needs to work on that and work out a better library like Adobe Bridge.

2 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

I develop SW on high standards. It is very tough to make it against large conglomerates with pockets full of cash of greedy casino investors. Adobe is a giant compared to DxO. Have understanding for DxO, they fight a very tough battle – still alive. That’s why I wish them well.

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

ThomasSwitzerland:

One of the huge, and completely unacknowledged, reasons that Microsoft is faltering so badly goes back to the release of unstable software in in the 1990s and then the huge insult of Windows Vista in 2007.

But by the time Vista released there were people who'd grown up using computers, who could easily say "I'm going to use something else than this crap--this is no longer 1995 and no one is going to tell me to use Microsoft."

AutoDesk, the makers of AutoCAD, have made similar a mistake: Their software is expensive and the AutoCAD for Windows is really stupid to use and not real capable, so now people who've grown up using 3D CAD over the last 20 years are saying "enough". AutoDesk has been a bit smarter than Microsoft; AutoDesk has some okay software, mostly acquired through purchases--eg Alias.

Adobe has made the same mistake as AutoDesk, and now as you realize DXO has given people a way to ignore Adobe for raw processing.

2 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

Hi HowaboutRAW

I agree to your observations. Adobe have always made mysterious suite sw packages just to milk the people. Their SW is great. But we need competition. MS and Autodesk, all are the same breed coming in different sizes. We need true value minded innovation. DxO is not great but a fresh initiative. Otherwise you are a brave consumer of the common. We are in need of change being specified.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

ThomasSwitzerland:

Have you tried high ISO raw extraction with DXO 9? It's really impressive, if slow.

One can use PhotoShop CS6 for years as a great editor--it has Selective Colour, but now one doesn't have to rent Adobe software to do good high ISO raw extraction. Yes, I know about Capture One and LR5 being available for purchase too.

1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

Hi HowaboutRAW:

Could not test DxO 9 yet. I will try this weekend. Would like to learn from your experience.

I use picture manipulation not at large, more on the dynamic levels and some color shades. I want to keep my pictures as they are with their imperfections.

A camera as hardware will always have limitations by material. Therefore, I think that SW is the powerful driver. One reason to keep photos in RAW. A run of those present pictures in say ten years’ SW quality will produce amazing results – you will think having shot with a new camera generation. In my view shooting jpg is not future proof. Hard disks are so cheap. Pictures are rare personal moments you cannot create again.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

ThomasSw:

Don't understand those who shoot jpeg either, in camera memory cards are fast and big now. So the only reason to shoot jpeg is if you need to send the jpeg somewhere immediately.

DXO 9 has real curve control so that should help with dynamic range and other shading. As best I can tell: No DXO doesn't have the really powerful colour control of ACR 8--example no 8 colour saturation control during extraction and no area of application selection brush.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (6 months ago)

Thanks a lot. Will try this. As with raw converters I found the own SW as from Nikon better than Adobe. I convert to TIFF, keep the raw; and process the TIFFs in PS or DxO. I did a lot of pixel-analysis and found the TIFF from Nikon SW better than Adobe or others. But I am not a lab, just an enthusiast.

0 upvotes
spitfire31
By spitfire31 (6 months ago)

Still no local adjustment features. So, no more DxO for me, thank you very much.

1 upvote
Leandros S
By Leandros S (6 months ago)

As a noise reduction software, it's not price competitive.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

This is extraction of raws and yeah it is price competitive.

No it's not $50 like TopazLab's Denoise PS plug-in, but it sure is better.

2 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (6 months ago)

Highly doubtful.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (6 months ago)

I don't think there are a lot of people cheering Topaz Denoise right now, but Noiseware looks a better value proposition. LR wins as a central platform b/c it allows *managing* large numbers of photos using metadata and keywords. Along with a number of other solutions, DxO is lost somewhere in the middle, with an extortionate price tag, and no thorough organisation tools.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Leandros S:

Adobe Bridge wins as a central platform.

The screen name Emacs, above and two comments down, is certainly cheering Denoise, and even claiming it's pretty much as good as doing NR during raw extraction with say ACR.

It has its uses, but that selective application during raw extraction brush, ACR only, is a way around it.

I like the selective focus thing of TopazLabs' LenEffects, though it can be tricky to use well.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (6 months ago)

Some thoughts after I used the trial:

(1) Prime Denoising is good but way too overrated.
(2) Still waiting for a better and improved workflow and UI.
(3) Still slow... One hint: GPU
(4) Better (slightly) than LR5 in the range of image detail tweakability, but for me, they should organize these controls a 'lil better!

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

I tried Prime and I must say one can better buy Topaz Denoise instead of upgrade to the new version (as I did), it just doesn't worth it. The luminance NR was already best built in NR on the market in v8, the new one advanced it even further, but it is too painfully slow. Topaz denoise is faster (and better in detail preservation). Just my $0.02.
BTW, it was my last purchase of DxO stuff. These improvements don't worth new major version. +0.5 at best, definitely not +1.0

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Raist3d
By Raist3d (6 months ago)

I have to agree DXo is watering down their brand by advancing their last two revisions a full "1.xx" number. They should have been more like .x advances.

I love Dxo for its great color but frankly, if they can't support Pentax Q's DNG or Fuji Xtrans, I have no use for it at the moment.

2 upvotes
mantra
By mantra (6 months ago)

hi
why? do you think topaz denoise is better?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

@mantra
It's faster to preview, thus finetuning is much easier with topaz
Second, topaz handles subtle details better: Prime cleaned dirty surfaces (they were dirty IRL) while topaz left these spots on them.
I don't say Prime is not good: it's very good indeed and I very like it on all shots I tried (and I did try only a few: it's just WAY TOO SLOW. Although I'm using it in VMware, so it could be much faster on real hardware. But Topaz is much faster inside the VM). But, frankly, it doesn't seem to be any more potent than Topaz Denoise.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mantra
By mantra (6 months ago)

thanks emacs

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

@mantra
Although in some cases Prime works better. An example: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/Screenshot%20from%202013-10-25%2001%3A27%3A15.png
Left is topaz denoise, right is Prime. You see, Prime is much better in sky, topaz left noticeable gradient quantization, while the sky gradient is smooth with Prime. Otherwise, the difference is negligible.

0 upvotes
Scottie Wang
By Scottie Wang (6 months ago)

@Emacs23
Why these two pictures have different brightness and color?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

Different PP. First was processed with C1 (chroma noise applied), the second is strictly from DxO with some of DxO FilmPack profiles used. Both with photoshop downsampling.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

DXO 9 is a good bit better at NR than ACR8, and is staggeringly better than DXO8 at NR.

So there's a reason for the jump in the numbering system.

0 upvotes
bizi clop
By bizi clop (6 months ago)

A quick PRIME vs ACR comparison

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9091533250/albums/dxo9-prime-test

Original image: DPReview's FZ200 ISO6400 studio shot

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Very interesting comparison! The Dxo one becomes watercolor eek!

0 upvotes
curio77
By curio77 (6 months ago)

In terms of detail, the DxO one is way ahead of ACR. (Geometrical differences and toning are down to other differences in the conversion.)

2 upvotes
Shirozina
By Shirozina (6 months ago)

Turn off all sharpness add ons and resolution and detail are the same in my experience between all RAW processing apps. Both DXO and C1 both add far too much default sharpening which all to easily creates nasty looking artefacts on fine detail. There are better ways of pulling out detail in photoshop actions than any of the RAW processing apps can do. YMMV

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Here are two samples. One with LR is here:
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2731713.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1382605416&Signature=0NzbKOq6J6Hl%2bWOZrg6B%2bMIfSyw%3d

Another one is DxO Pro 9 software

http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2731712.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1382605485&Signature=qgQt%2b%2ffDbolopjEv5VZHa3DXVMk%3d

All setting are 0 except raw noise reduction. Nothing else except DxO white balance is on. LR is all on 0 except noise reduction. Thats it.

I am quite horrified by shadow clips in DxO. Thats a negative part.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (6 months ago)

@naththo: You can't post links like that to S3 - they expire too quickly.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Im sorry my mistake. I thought should be able to direct link to it but no it hasn't work.

So here are the right links this time:

LR Noise Reduction

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2731713/lrnoisereduction

DxO Noise Reduction

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2731712/dxonoisereduction

0 upvotes
Shirozina
By Shirozina (6 months ago)

Finally they have enabled switching between fit the screen and 1:1 with a double click - this is worth the upgrade price alone.

4 upvotes
The Photo Ninja
By The Photo Ninja (6 months ago)

I take back what I said earlier, I'm not a fan. I've played with it quite a bit today. The new PRIME feature is utter nonsense, the noise reduction isn't better than LR5, it's kludgy, and I can get the same or better colors and shadow/highlighting functionality out of LR5.

No go for me DxO

1 upvote
raincoat
By raincoat (6 months ago)

Interesting. In v4-v5 NR engine change most users found the result worse.
Now they claim a big NR change again.

Anyway, I wonder if they've finally fixed the bugs from v6 that were ignored in v7 and v8? Their lead time on bug fixes seems to be a year, so the v6 bugs at least should be done.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

I want to ask question to you anyone who had tried that software, has DxO improves the shadow detail by not clipping? Several previous version I tried out that all of it still clipping shadow, its not good. You need to have gentle approach to both highlight and shadow detail. ACR is still the winner for the shadow/highlight detail compare to DxO is not as DxO is still clipping some.

0 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (6 months ago)

And is the 1 shot HDR feature promised in v6 available yet?

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

I should clarify it better probably no one understands what I mean.

When you first open raw file in photoshop it leaves very flat, so the shadow/highlight details are still intact without anything touch to it. So it give you lots of headspace in highlight and shadow gaps to allow you to edit it. If you open raw file that is already clipped you have no headspace to edit the lighting, that is not good thing to open with, for example in DxO 8 I tried before. It should never ever clip it when you first open it, it should stay flat until you edit it with your own taste to it. 1 shot HDR RAW feature still need room of improvement to stop clipping shadow when using that feature,, it still clipping some shadow as black (pure 0,0,0 in RGB). It would be nice to leave it room like say 2, 2, 2 or 5, 5, 5 so that the shadow detail is still intact. Same for highlight should stay at like 253, 253, 253 or 250, 250, 250. So it stays intact there. Next message still going.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (6 months ago)

Even when you take photos with your camera, you should take few photos with different setting each different photos. So you can review later and check histogram to look out for either both or just one of highlight or shadow clip. If one is no good, trash it, look for the best one to keep. So you don't have to take one picture and check histogram in your camera at a time is a time consuming. But its up to everyone taste what to do with camera. For Sony Nex-7 I leave it as neutral, full 0 on all of contrast, sharpness, saturation with RAW on. And leave DRO, HDR all switch off. And turn off noise reduction if you have or set to low and turn off long exposure iso noise reduction. So that image is intact for raw to edit.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

I discovered that if you adjust then extract then repeat about 5 or 6 times without waiting for the first few to finish, DXO 9 will freeze up and not process any more. Just stops, no error message. There was enough ram space as best I could tell. The raws were 27MB Samsung raws, all with Prime NR engaged, being exported to 8bit tiff. I didn’t try putting 5 or 6 into a queue and then extracting, that could work perhaps.

1 upvote
castleofargh
By castleofargh (6 months ago)

the slow snapshot previews of different presets aren't an improvement at all. this is useful to a beginner. in my workflow I don't go on a limb picking a setting, I know what preset I want as a starting point for my picture. this is just slowing me down big time.

we can change the base picture for the ctrl+d(or mouse3 on win) comparison so I'm not stuck with the original image. great I asked for this since... but we need to export the pic before using it. massive bummer, I'll just create 10virtual copies at every important steps and view one then the other. and save time. how can a trick be faster than your own feature?

I still can't A/B before and after last used setting flawlessly. need to go ctrl+Z and then ctrl+Y and wait for the rendering :(

we all whined for years about not being able to save a workspace with hidden left or right palettes. and you gave zero f**k, again...

when I get to wonder if version 8 wasn't better, I guess it's time to say thanks but no thanks.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (6 months ago)

Downloaded the trial but it doesn't seem to support the Fujifilm X-E1, the main reason I wanted to check it out. If they don't plan on supporting the X cameras, I have no interest in their product, it's a simple as that.

If I want to just process Nikon NEF files, I'll just use LR. And decent RAW converter can do NEF files.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

But this likely does NR of NEF files a bit better than ACR 8. It sure does NR of other raw files better than ACR 8.

Right lack of Xtrans file extraction is a disappointment.

0 upvotes
Antonio G
By Antonio G (6 months ago)

They said they will not support Fuji X-trans sensors and that's a pity because I was using DxO for several versions (and Elite since version 7), alongside with Film Pack, and if they stick with their decision I can't justify to buy version 9 just for Nikon DSLR and having use another program for the Fuji.
But it's funny to read that their technology allows them to build modules for any camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

The DXO 9 Prime high ISO noise extraction is really really impressive.

I tried raws extracted to 8bit tiffs from my Samsung NX100 and my Panasonic LX5, and now I can shoot at higher ISOs. It’s easy to shoot at ISO 3200 with the Samsung and LX5 can be used at ISO 2000. I shot these raws tonight outdoors on the street. Also extracted some old raws from the Samsung shot at ISO 1600-2000 with a Zeiss lens and the noise control results were better than the noise control with ACR 8. Though yes ACR still has some other colour control features that I like–perhaps they go by different names in DXO, I’m not sure about every feature of DX0.

However: DXO is a system resource hog, so is PhotoNinja: All 8 threads of my quadcore i7 CPU pin at 100% for several minutes while running prime extraction with DX0 9, and the videocard heats up as if it’s rendering video files.

continues in the reply

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Then there are many file types that DX0 9 won’t extract, eg, Panasonic LF1, Pana GX7, Olympus XZ10, Fuji Xtrans files from the XE1, DNGs from the Leica X Vario. Obviously DXO will likely add the GX7, but it took years before DXO8 extracted Samsung NX raws.

I tried some extractions of very high ISO, say 25000, raws from a D4 with a Zeiss lens, those extractions didn’t seem a lot better than extraction with ACR 7, yes 7 is what I’d used for those files. May be worth a check. I’m not rushing out to buy DX0 9, I want to try PhotoNinja first, but this is a big step for DXO and seriously challenges Adobe.

No I didn’t download any of the lens or body modules.

0 upvotes
mrmut
By mrmut (6 months ago)

Tested the software a bit. - PRIME works really good, and it is not that slow - about 1:15 on my machine, per 10MP image.

Compared to ACR denoising, PRIME works better. I would say that it does much more than just one stop. The images looks smoother, and the details remain.

For the software in general - it is simpler than before, and with less aggressive initial settings.

All in all, swell. - And the PRIME is fantastic.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (6 months ago)

Some intriguing bits.. but does DXO only work with Raw files? Ie.. could I process a TIFF using it's PRIME capability that was exported from a different Raw converter?

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

I saw none of modern NR related papers on the mosaiced data. So I guess it should. Although I recommend you to try Topaz Denoise: from what I have seen, they are about equal in NR capabilities but topaz is way much faster.

2 upvotes
compositor20
By compositor20 (6 months ago)

Great for noise reduction but its very slow exporting with PRIME noise reduction active! Its the best at high iso in reconstructing detail in colors, supressing low noise frequency. Its like TOPAZ DENOISe.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

Must say this news is rather disappointing. I've been using DxO 8 lately more and more and for many shots preferred the output from it than LR5. It can extract more detail and it's lens modules can really help. But I do find it takes much longer than LR5 to work an image, and the lack of localised changes a huge omission. I had presumed they would have to add localised changes like LR and Capture One as well as tidy up the interface and speed the whole thing up. It's good to see them offer much better NR, but it sounds like another very slow process.

Reading the other comments I think I'll be using Capture One Pro more and more and maybe see what Photo Ninja is like. I tried the trial but it was much older than the release version and I didn't like it and had issues processing files. For ease of use LR5 is hands down the best, but it can quite extract the best detail, but was better than the others for NR IMO.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

try it again; DXO is a big deal for noise reduction in extraction of raws. It's a new day and Adobe+C1 have a real threat on their hands now.

just to be clear you're using LR5 to get yourself to ACR 8.2, right?

Edit: Ah I see below you apprehend that its better than ACR for noise. Not sure about your detail claims.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
rsf3127
By rsf3127 (6 months ago)

Downloaded. Tried. Uninstalled.
LR is still my choice. Its NR tool is unparalleled so far.

1 upvote
DuxX
By DuxX (6 months ago)

Same here! ;)

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (6 months ago)

It's clearly the best for NR and ease of use but not the best for extracting best detail. DxO could clearly deliver better detail for low ISO images. Not a huge difference, but certainly not insignificant.

I have to hope Capture One gets improved NR and highlight recovery as it's capable of better results than LR5 especially colour wise.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

rsf3127:

No this DX0 NR tool is a bigger deal than that in ACR 8.2. Not staggeringly, but at least one stop. And really more than one stop in my testing out on a dark street.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
karinangelika
By karinangelika (6 months ago)

I have used DxO and loved its results since version 6 and updated without hesitation. Now I must consider saying goodbye to DxO just as I have already said goodbye to the world of Canon and Nikon DSLRs. The only camera I have now that DxO works with is my Fujifilm X100. That is simply not good enough.

If DxO publicly commits to pulling its finger out for X-Trans support then I will definitely upgrade to version 9. If not, then I can no longer justify the cost just for one camera.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

You have a point, DXO neglects all sorts of raw types for years--Samsung NX for example, or new DNGs from the Leica X Vario.

If they did XTrans it would probably be pretty good, given how much an improvement DXO 9 is over DXO 8.

0 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (6 months ago)

Notice that DxO suffers from the combinatorial explosion problem of cameras and lenses...

2 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (6 months ago)

@_sem_: How so? There are corrections that are lens-specific and those that are camera-specific. I don't see how there is a combinatorial problem...

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (6 months ago)

$200 for D800 capability isn't going to work for me, Olivier. If the click count hasn't been substantially reduced under previous versions compared to LR5, that's also a no go.

2 upvotes
OldZorki
By OldZorki (6 months ago)

I am such as sucker to DXO "look", I still cannot push myself to upgrade to X-trans and drop DXO. But I am processing may be 100 images a month, so speed and awfulness (it is not great) of the interface is not that important to me.
I almost upgraded to 8, but now definitely will upgrade to 9. I wish one day the whole thing will be a "plugin" for LR.

2 upvotes
Cailean Gallimore
By Cailean Gallimore (6 months ago)

Still no X Trans support.

2 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (6 months ago)

DxO Optics bring the best lens correction engine but Lightroom is still better in overall image quality. I made some studio test shots with my D800 and DxO gives me much warmer skin tones. Lightroom is more natural and also much better in small details rendering.
New version 9 don't make any difference in that regard.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

LR? ACR in LR.

These details look pretty darn good coming out of my ISO 5000 Samsung NX 100 raws. Getting good details too with a not sharp lens on a D4, and those raws were shot at some thing like ISO 25000. Just looked at the ACR extraction of that same 25000 ISO file, the details are tiny bit better with DXO9.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (6 months ago)

Don't know for sure for high ISO values. I have compared ISO100 studio shots and LR have better color reproduction (especially skin tones) and better small details rendering.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

D--

ISO100 in studio is a real limited situation.

Then unless you spent money and hours printing the new tiffs from DXO9, I'd wait to make that judgement. There not being too many monitors that can keep up with a decent inkjet printer--yes of course you could own one of those monitors.

0 upvotes
Emacs23
By Emacs23 (6 months ago)

@DuxX
Stop this "skintone" BS manthra! Try different presets.

0 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (6 months ago)

Emacs
Yes I tried and DxO skin tones are nowhere near to LR. However I think that any RAW converter need to render natural colors including skin tones at default preset. That would be normal start point, right?

I tried to enable/disable all auto corrections but without success.

If you need further explanation with examples I'll be glad to share. Just start some thread and I'll join.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

DuxX:

Are you willing to share raws and tiffs?

0 upvotes
DuxX
By DuxX (6 months ago)

Yes of course. Start some thread and invite.

0 upvotes
Magnus3D
By Magnus3D (6 months ago)

I have spent the evening playing with the demo since it was released and i like it a lot! it's faster than the previous version although still a bit laggy in the interface. The Prime thingy is great but the preview is so small i can barely see if and what effect it has. I would like to have the preview bigger or a option to apply it to the whole photo so i can actually see the effect it has before exporting.

One tiny little thing still bugs me and it's the croptool, it should work as it does in Lightroom or ACDSee Pro 7 where you can adjust it along any point or corner along the edges and then rotate it by using the rotate gizmos when you move outside the crop area.

Besides that, it's a real nice release!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

The film strip is small, the preview is plenty big and there may be a way of making the film strip bigger. But no, not a great replacement for Adobe Bridge.

Prime is really impressive.

0 upvotes
Magnus3D
By Magnus3D (6 months ago)

I always keep the filmstrip with previews in a separate window on a secondary monitor if possible, that way you can easily see which photos you want to process or not.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

Magnus3D:

Okay, but that takes a second monitor, so that's expense and desk space, and much less portable.

DXO would be best to develop something along the lines of Adobe Bridge.

With DXO 9 one can make the film strip bigger on the same monitor as the big preview but then the film strip cuts into the preview.

Odd that you write about a second monitor, when above you're saying the preview is tool small, looks fine to me.

0 upvotes
MadManAce
By MadManAce (6 months ago)

I am not interested in this software until DXO:

1. Do away with Standard and Elite versions
2. Have a LR or Aperture like interface (DXO is just too slow)
3. Option for full DNG support like LR

DXO does great lens corrections and bought Viewpoint 2 to fix complex distortions that LR cannot do. However, with LR I have to create a TIFF file and then in Viewpoint I have to direct it to the original RAW file for it to find the lens used. It is a hassle, that is why I want a fast superior GUI and I will dump LR. Still having to pay extra to get access to full frame cameras is low. Come on, a Canon 5D can be picked up for near $400 and the software without promo is $300!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

One of the reasons that DXO 9 is "slow" to extract is it's doing massive work with the CPU and GPU, that means it's running big calculations which is why the NR results are better than ACR 8.2.

I can't speak to the lens modules.

2 upvotes
carpediem007
By carpediem007 (6 months ago)

Full DNG support really is essential. Been using DxO since version 2 or 3 and still can't open Ricoh GXR DNGs. Upgraded every time but this is it for me... :-(

Also, expensive upgrade cycles are getting shorter all the time. Enough already!

2 upvotes
BLongborough
By BLongborough (6 months ago)

More bad news:

9 doesn't import my custom process output settings from 8. OK, it's not a lot of work for me, but tiresome.

Virtual copies appear to "move forward" from 8 to 9, but not "backward". So if you create a virtual copy in 9, it doesn't (I think) show up in 8. If you then create a virtual copy in 8, and swap back to 9, you now have a total of 4 (!).

Then back to 8, modify copy 2, it disappears from 9 and you're left with 3.

Very confusing; leads me to suspect the underlying loose ends aren't very well tied up.

1 upvote
Raist3d
By Raist3d (6 months ago)

Call me when you have support for Xtrans and Q.

4 upvotes
BLongborough
By BLongborough (6 months ago)

Right royal screw-ups in the UI: no Process tab (replaced by obscure and miserable list); process now needs two clicks rather than one (process tab moved to silly dialogue); presets menu now full of slowly-forming thumbnails, when you finally find it hidden away on the right-hand end of the toolbar; stupid iPhone-like switches in place of tickboxes in the palettes, except they aren't; and before/after preview with mouse click is gone - you have no idea how useful that was.

And it's still slow.

So, DxO, your mark is "E" for Effort, only, I'm afraid.

I get a free upgrade (I only bought 8 ten days ago), fine, I'll run the two versions in parallel; if not, I'll stick with 8, thanlks.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 months ago)

"export" is not an obscure term, though "process" is, even it process relates to film and paper development.

agreed: the "to disk" after "export" is odd, had me half look for a floppy drive for like 5 seconds.

0 upvotes
JackRoch
By JackRoch (6 months ago)

"before/after preview with mouse click is gone…"

it's moved to a 'compare' button at top of window – phew – it WAS (is) useful!

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (6 months ago)

What's missing in standard edition?

0 upvotes
Lightime81
By Lightime81 (6 months ago)

They say on their site the features are the same, but the Elite version supports higher end cameras.
Go here
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-optics-pro/supported-equipment
select the WHICH EDITION tab and find your camera.

1 upvote
Pictus
By Pictus (6 months ago)

Prime is excellent!
Try with high ISO images...

3 upvotes
malteser01
By malteser01 (6 months ago)

Still no X-Trans support! :(

8 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (6 months ago)

Oh, they're using Pentax firmware now?</deliberate>

5 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (6 months ago)

Just tried this out on a D800E file shot at base iso in daylight,it produced a very nice jpeg,good highlight recovery and great colour and detail.. it's a nice app,just like to see them keyboard shortcuts for toggling the palettes and profotoRGB,still doesn't handle Leica S dng's either.. overall I like it though..

1 upvote
Benarm
By Benarm (6 months ago)

Any real-world comparisons of the improved noise reduction against the previous DxO version and competing products?

8 upvotes
lifeflaw
By lifeflaw (6 months ago)

I found one example at the end of this article,
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/tutorials/why-shoot-raw-format

1 upvote
Total comments: 172
12