-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DXO worth it?
- Thread starter Sean O'Connor
- Start date
Thank you all, Bob, John, Abrak and Tom for your input, I appreciate.
I have one further question : when using mft lenses, which DXO says are supported, does that mean they are just applying the same correction as you get from the out of camera jpegs (aka the correction indicated by the manufacturer) , or the one you get from LR, or does that mean you get really better results (for instance sharper corners in wide angle and better distorsion correction) ?
Do you think that starting with the raw conversion, one can get better results than converting in LR and using View Point only afterward (mainly thinking to corners sharpness here).
As you can see, I'm hesitating between View Point and the converter.
I have one further question : when using mft lenses, which DXO says are supported, does that mean they are just applying the same correction as you get from the out of camera jpegs (aka the correction indicated by the manufacturer) , or the one you get from LR, or does that mean you get really better results (for instance sharper corners in wide angle and better distorsion correction) ?
Do you think that starting with the raw conversion, one can get better results than converting in LR and using View Point only afterward (mainly thinking to corners sharpness here).
As you can see, I'm hesitating between View Point and the converter.
jimoyer
Veteran Member
Prefacing with people here have forgotten more about this stuff than I'll probably ever know and also that I've JUST started using DXO 
In my limited experience with it, the most significant correction I've seen has been in processing RAW. JPEGS, some, but not nearly as significant a correction. Right now, I've been doing initial in DXO, then exporting into LR for final tweaks and catalog. That may or may not change. Correction wise, what I like, if I'm understanding everything correctly, is that it is applied for the specific camera/lens combination, where in LR, at least for me and the lens's I have/use, the corrections are user defined. As I mentioned earlier, my experience/training with LR is self, and poorly, taught. User defined corrections is probably NOT a good thing for me.
All of DXO's software has a 30 day trial. Try it out. If you don't like it, delete it. That's what I ended up doing, and found that it did a great job for me at my experience and knowledge level that it was worth buying at the current (until 31 December) sale price which is pretty significant.
In my limited experience with it, the most significant correction I've seen has been in processing RAW. JPEGS, some, but not nearly as significant a correction. Right now, I've been doing initial in DXO, then exporting into LR for final tweaks and catalog. That may or may not change. Correction wise, what I like, if I'm understanding everything correctly, is that it is applied for the specific camera/lens combination, where in LR, at least for me and the lens's I have/use, the corrections are user defined. As I mentioned earlier, my experience/training with LR is self, and poorly, taught. User defined corrections is probably NOT a good thing for me.
All of DXO's software has a 30 day trial. Try it out. If you don't like it, delete it. That's what I ended up doing, and found that it did a great job for me at my experience and knowledge level that it was worth buying at the current (until 31 December) sale price which is pretty significant.
The corrections have nothing based on camera jpegs or LR. The corrections are based on thousands of exposures taken and analyzed for the particular camera body/lens combination. I personally have seen better results with DxO than with other excellent raw developers.
Regarding corner sharpness, DxO applies the corrections that it's analysis indicates (don't expect miracles - just subtle improvement). DxO uses an edge offset technology which "puts an emphasis on the edges and helps protect uniform surfaces from excessive and unnecessary sharpening" also in regards to the Unsharp Mask palette that is used for non-supported lenses.
"This sub-palette will only be visible for images for which the appropriate DxO Optics Module is loaded. If no module is available, you should use the Unsharp mask sub-palette and, more specifically, the Edge Offset slider to manually adjust the sharpness in the image corners."
With supported camera lens combinations, I've found that the DxO Lens Softness normal setting gives a good overall sharpening. Further sharpening would be applied for specific purposes i.e. web viewing, inkjet printing etc.etc..
JeanPierre Martel
Veteran Member
I've bought DxO Optics recently and it has changed my work flow dramatically. It's too early to be sure if that these changes are definitive.
Previously my pictures were put in different folders with Lightroom and post-processed with Photoshop.
Since I have DxO Optics, all my travel pictures (taken by an OM-D) receive a first pass through DxO Optics. The latter treats about 100 pictures an hour on my Mac. The JPEGs are saved with a quality of 10 (rather than the default 9).
Then I use Photoshop to process slightly the images. If I have to correct parallax, I use DxO ViewPoint (which is amazing). Then most of my pictures received a very slight "HDR look" with Ajust (from Topaz lab) used at about 10% of its strengh.
It should be noted that optical aberration correction is done differently under DxO Optics and Photoshop. If I put on top of each other the same RAW image imported by Photoshop and its copy imported by DxIO Optics, at some focal length (of the same Lumix 12-35mm), you'll different results.
The result can be seen in this slideshow (skip the French text):
http://jpmartel.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/la-plaza-de-la-catedral/
texinwien
Veteran Member
JeanPierre,
Thanks for sharing your experience, as well as the enjoyable slideshow. You had some very nice shots and video clips in the show with a few real standouts that were superb.
Are you using the lens-softness (aka sharpening) corrections in DXO Optics Pro? I've just installed Optics Pro 8 and DXO's film pack - judging by the first few images I've run through both tools, I think I could save a massive amount of time over depending on just LightRoom.
Would like to get some input on DXO's sharpening corrections with OM-D files, however. I don't have a good eye for sharpening at all.
Thanks!
tex
From the DxO Pro 8 Users Guide:
"DxO Lens Softness
About lens softness
The exclusive DxO Lens Softness tool is one of the major strengths of DxO Optics Pro.Lens softness is an optical aberration in which a point is transformed by the lens into a small blurred circle.(This should not be confused with out-of-focus or motion blur, which DxO Optics Pro is unable to correct).DxO Optics Modules have been created by measuring the amount of blur at every point in the image area for each camera body and lens combination.
Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored corrections according to the position of each pixel in the image field.This correction is not the same over the whole image, since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels need less correction.
DxO Lens Softnessis a “smart” correction, which limits its effects in noisy areas of the image, or when the ISO setting is high."
"DxO Lens Softness and Unsharp Mask
We recommend that you perform as much of your sharpening as possible using theDxO Lens Softness correction before using the Unsharp Mask(USM).Of course, for images for which the appropriate DxO Optics Moduleis not installed, you will have to use the USM for all sharpening.
Unlike the Unsharp Mask tool, enhancing details with the DxO Lens Softness tool does not create white edges around the sharpened areas."
I've personally found DxO's description correct when using Lens Softness on my own OM-D files with the Olympus 12-50mm zoom and the Panasonice 20mm f1.7. And I do find that the DxO automated corrections to be a great time saver.
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
See this web-page for descriptions and examples:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features/optics_geometry_corrections/lens_softness
I usually use the "Lens Softness" corrections with the "v1" defaults (Global=0.0 Detail=0, Bokeh=50).
If more image acuity is desired, reduce the "Global" control in steps of -0.1 while simultaneously increasing the "Detail" control in steps of +10 (until a maximum setting of Global=-0.5 and Detail=50 is reached).
Increasing the Bokeh control (above 50) will smooth the result (reducing high spatial-frequency components). Only necessary if artifacts are seen (particularly in OOF areas with a lot of color-contrasts). Reducing the Bokeh control (below 50) will sharpen the result (enhancing high spatial-frequency components). Bokeh of 40 is plenty low in that regards.
Better to keep settings near Global=0 and Detail=0 to avoid overdoing the effect. I tend to prefer to use just a little bit more DxO NR (Luminance and Chrominance) to smooth artifacts, rather than increase the setting value of the Bokeh control.
I avoid using the USM at all. Better to use very mild USM only after down-sampling (if needed).
Note: I use small fractions of the automatically set DxO NR control-slider values. Less works well.
Last edited:
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
That is because (I strongly suspect) DxO's "Lens Softness", and quite possibly also elements of the Luminance (and perhaps the Chrominance) NR, operate on a RAW level (prior to de-mosaicing).jimoyer wrote:
Prefacing with people here have forgotten more about this stuff than I'll probably ever know and also that I've JUST started using DXO
In my limited experience with it, the most significant correction I've seen has been in processing RAW. JPEGS, some, but not nearly as significant a correction.
When processing JPGs generated by in-camera JPG-engines (or when processing 16-bit or 8-bit TIFs), DxO Labs has to work with a situation in which some optical corrections, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, and sharpening adjustements have already been applied by the camera body itself. As a result, the "Lens Softness" corrections proceed differently, and are not as dramatic in their effect. Also, the Nosie Reduction is different and more limited in effect. The Rectlinear, Chromatic Aberration, and Vignetting corrections function in a manual mode only.
Lightroom / Camera RAW Noise Reduction (which appears to proceed, at least in part, on the RAW level prior to de-mosaicing) are also notably less effective (particularly where it comes to the Color NR) when processing TIF and JPG images (as opposed to when processing RAW images).
Silent (non-defeatable) Rectlinear Distortion corrections are performed in LR/CR (as well as in Silkypix) based on image-file meta-data that exists in all Panasonic RAW-recording camera image-files.
Last edited:
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
How long did you use DxO Optics Pro, and how many RAW image-files did you process using it ?
Last edited:
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
That requires creating (or finding somewhwere) custom lens profiles that have been created by Adobe's Lens Profiling software, where doing a good job means recording nearly 100 test-shots. If one wants to create multiple profiles at various combinations of Focal Lengths and F-Numbers (similar to DxO Optical Corrections Modules), the complexity increases considerably.
DxO Optics Pro has a full suite of perspective adjusting controls (including, from what I am reading, all of the functionsthat are provided by DxO Labs' ViewPoint plug-in application).
Which is no help at all to Panasonic and Olympus Micro Four Thirds camera owners.
DxO Optics Pro (including versions 8.x, as I understand it) does lack that useful functionality.
True. DxO Optics Pro (also) has separately adjustable RGB Tone Curves, and a 6-color H/S/L tool.
Since you report not having ever used DxO Optics Pro, your statement strikes me as pure speculation.
As a matter of fact, I have LR 3.60 myself, and find that when viewing in-process images at only 100% (which is less than many large prints), LR 3.x (and LR 4.x, which Adobe's Eric Chan has stated has the very same NR/Sharpening tools) when using any amounts of deconvolution-deblurring sharpening (by setting the "Detail" control-slider above a setting of Zero), the Lightroom images readily show what I would describe as "gritty/grainy" sharpening artifacts that require the liberal use of LR Luminance NR to remove (thus requiring the smearing of desirable fine-details in the process).
On the other hand, the use of DxO Optics Pro "Lens Softness" corrections to enhance image acuity (when not overdone, and when using the Bokeh control to tame any artifacting in OOF high color-contrast areas), together with mild amounts of DxO Optics Pro NR (which I find can very often be set to a mere fraction of the NR control-settings which are automatically selected), produces in-process image which show far less in the way of processing artifacts when viewed at 100% magnification).
Last edited:
JeanPierre Martel
Veteran Member
Thanks
Since I'm just starting to use DxO Optics, I've used the default settings (except for the JPEG compression).
For Lens sharpness, its the default settings :
Global : -50%
Details: 50
Bokeh: 50
You might like to try Detail Man's suggestion. He seems more knowledgeable than me about using DxO Optics.
Sergey Borachev
Veteran Member
Thanks, Jean Pierre. DM is no doubt very knowledgeable and I wont' be surprised at all if he works for DXO.
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
In my Version 7.23, the user is able to select that the "V1" defaults (rather than the later adopted "V2" defaults) be used when opening images. The only difference between "V1' and "V2" default-settings are that the "Lens Softness" correction tool Global=0.0, Detail=0, and it is also necessary to check the "Remove dead pixels" box in the Noise Reduction tool settings.
I used to use the "V2" settings myself (or some thing in between, as described, where the Detail settings is increased by 10 for each simultaneous decrease by -0.1 of the Global control).
However, I have found that (particularly in out of focus areas where a lot of color-contrasts exist), there can exist deconvolution-deblurring artifacts (most visible at higher magnifications). Further, when down-sampling algorithms using coefficients intended for "sharper" output results, and/or when using anything but the tiniest amounts of USM following down-sampling, such artifacts can be visible, and/or the image can take on a bit of an "over-crispy" look.
To some extent, I think that our minds' eyes are simply not accustomed to seeing high levels of detail (particularly in far-field subject matter), and something of a visual "dissonance" can result.
Though it is true that the "Bokeh" control (added in Versions 7.x) allows for a variable low-pass spatial frequency filtering to be applied (where the default of 50 appears to correspond with what was used in Versions 6.x as a fixed, non-adjustable value), increasing the Bokeh control-setting in conjunction with increasing the effect of the "Lens Softness" controls is somewhat counter-productive.
I tend to use small increases (say, on the order of 10% - 20%) of the Luminance and Chrominance Noise Reduction control-sliders as an alternative to increasing the Bokeh control-setting.
The initial (unmodified as per the above recoimmendation) levels of NR controls can (I find) often be only a fraction (1/5, 1/4, 1/3, etc.) of the values that DxO Optics Pro automatically selects. I usually scale-down all three of the NR controls by what are equal geometric amounts.
On my GH2, I typically use the following fractions as a function of ISO Sensitivity with success:
ISO=160 - 20% (divide automatic NR settings by 5)
ISO=200 - 25% (divide automatic NR settings by 4)
ISO=400 - 33% (divide automatic NR settings by 3)
ISO=800 - 50% (divide automatic NR settings by 2)
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
No, Sergey, I don't work for anybody. I write what I do in order to perhaps share some knowledge.
As a matter of fact, there is no love lost between myself and DxO Labs due to issues that have arisen surrounding DxO Optical Corrections Modules that have been released since the release of my (Win 32-bit) Version 7.23 being purposely disabled from being usable when using my installation of DxO OP Version 7.23 (such as the E-M5 and GX1 DxO OC Modules, for instance).
I paid in full for a Versions 7.x upgrade license, yet I am (thanks to DxO Lab's deliberately chosen actions) unable to utilize any subsequently released DxO Optical Corrections Modules (including OC Modules the release dates of which preceded the release of DxO Optics Pro Versions 8.x).
Last edited:
Yes, one area that DXO 'automatic' settings do a poor job is their over aggressive noise reduction that renders an unreal image that I imagine few people will like. Your approach sounds eminently sensible and also reveals the extent of DXO's over enthusiasm. It may actually sees these settings that have put some people off DXO.
I have previously simply switched NR off and used Nik's Dfine which works on the exported tiff files.
Detail Man
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 17,489
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
DxO Optics Pro's NR has been described by some as imparting a sort of "plasticine" appearance to subject-matter. When the NR settings are left at their automatically assigned values, such impressions can occur. It is rare that I do not divide the control-setting values by less than 2.
Since image-noise (due to Photon Shot Noise) is a function of Exposure (the illuminating light levels, F-Number, and Shutter Speed), and not ISO Sensitivity (except where it comes to Read Noise levels), it is important to maximize the Exposure levels in recorded shots when reducing the level of the NR control-settings.
Since DxO Labs tends to market their applications as a "hands free" item to use, I think that some who try it take that a bit too literally, and then turn away from DxO Optics Pro when it fails to magically "think" for them. The truth (in my experience) is that I have never used any RAW processor that did not need "shaking up", and image-specific custom settings to produce satisfying results.
The RAW processor(s) to find is the one which, after being learned and tamed by the user, delivers results that please the user without making the practice of RAW processing a frustrating headache. Silkypix and Lightroom give me headaches, and even RAW Therapee (while having some very nice features) falls short for me in several fairly important ways.
DxO Optics Pro's ability to adjust the Gamma correction is a very useful function that the Gamma control in Silkypix does not equal, and which LR/CR and RAW Therapee leave out completely.
DxO Optics Pro's proprietary "Lens Softness" corrections, it's excellent Rectlinear Distortion corrections, and it's Gamma control are always sorely missed when I use other RAW processors.
Optical1
Veteran Member
Prior to this thread, and Bob Tullis' thread on Viewpoint, I'd never really considered DxO as a supplement to LR4. However, based on everyone's positive review, and the price reduction on DxO Optics Pro 8 - I've decided to order this software.
Now, my question is do I also order FilmPack 3? Is this software well integrated into the Optics Pro program, or does this work as a standalone program? Any recommendations for 'essentials' or the 'expert' version?
-Kiel
Now, my question is do I also order FilmPack 3? Is this software well integrated into the Optics Pro program, or does this work as a standalone program? Any recommendations for 'essentials' or the 'expert' version?
-Kiel
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum