DxO pro

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Rob., Mar 28, 2008.

  1. Rob.

    Rob. Guest

    Rob., Mar 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rob.

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Rob. wrote:
    | Anyone using DxO Optics Pro ??
    |
    | http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo
    |
    | What you opinion?
    |
    | r

    This is a real trick program. I've been using it since version 1.0. It's
    best claim to fame is how it creates files from RAW that have all the
    image flaws in it's supported lenses and cameras fixed.

    The most dramatic example of it is when you shoot with a Canon kit lens
    and don't realize the pattern in someone's shirt is a symbol. Run the
    file through DxO and it produces an image so close to an "L" lens
    result, you wonder why on earth you paid for the expensive lens.

    The last remaining Canon I keep to hand out to contract shooters has a
    17 - 85 Kit lens on it. A long way from being a "decent" lens but using
    DxO it removes the barrel distortion, the purple fringing and if you set
    the distance before processing, it will produce results as clear and
    free of defects as any of my new Nikon lenses or the previous Canon stuff.

    You still need Lightroom or Photoshop because despite it's claims, it is
    ~ only an image correction de-mosaic program -- probably the best around
    but needs a bit more development in image manipulation before it becomes
    a standalone solution.

    Get the demo and see for yourself. It'll only do 50 images at a time in
    demo mode. I often dump 600 or more images into it and let it run on
    auto overnight. Lightroom for a few hours the next day and all but a
    dozen or so of the images are printable. The rest go through Photoshop
    or to the bin.

    If you want it as a RAW editor... Forget it. If you want to fix some
    image faults from your lenses and colour issues from your camera, get it.



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFH7JRehuxzk5D6V14RAuzpAKCicCdFAMe/qvsvFFjt7hP5lrwqVwCgjYhb
    EdCj5mXdnZcZzW5JQDL7ito=
    =eLzv
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Mar 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rob.

    Kelpie Guest

    What version/settings go you use?
     
    Kelpie, Mar 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Rob.

    Rob. Guest

    Thanks Doug
     
    Rob., Mar 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Rob.

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Kelpie wrote:
    | | Rob. wrote:
    | | Anyone using DxO Optics Pro ??
    | |
    | | http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo
    | |
    | | What you opinion?
    | |
    | | r
    |
    | This is a real trick program. I've been using it since version 1.0. It's
    | best claim to fame is how it creates files from RAW that have all the
    | image flaws in it's supported lenses and cameras fixed.
    |
    | The most dramatic example of it is when you shoot with a Canon kit lens
    | and don't realize the pattern in someone's shirt is a symbol. Run the
    | file through DxO and it produces an image so close to an "L" lens
    | result, you wonder why on earth you paid for the expensive lens.
    |
    | The last remaining Canon I keep to hand out to contract shooters has a
    | 17 - 85 Kit lens on it. A long way from being a "decent" lens but using
    | DxO it removes the barrel distortion, the purple fringing and if you set
    | the distance before processing, it will produce results as clear and
    | free of defects as any of my new Nikon lenses or the previous Canon stuff.
    |
    | You still need Lightroom or Photoshop because despite it's claims, it is
    | ~ only an image correction de-mosaic program -- probably the best around
    | but needs a bit more development in image manipulation before it becomes
    | a standalone solution.
    |
    | Get the demo and see for yourself. It'll only do 50 images at a time in
    | demo mode. I often dump 600 or more images into it and let it run on
    | auto overnight. Lightroom for a few hours the next day and all but a
    | dozen or so of the images are printable. The rest go through Photoshop
    | or to the bin.
    |
    | If you want it as a RAW editor... Forget it. If you want to fix some
    | image faults from your lenses and colour issues from your camera, get it.
    |
    |> What version/settings go you use?
    |
    |

    I upgraded to Version 5.04, Elite a few weeks ago to get the D3 modules
    I'm still playing with the settings for these cameras. Is there
    something you want to do with it?


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFH7Mv/huxzk5D6V14RArlKAJ9SWbTjOpHBqf/twUgpBJbcXw/ygQCgmvpK
    5pHliYvAYvrF1mlKdak5mWE=
    =Crmi
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Mar 28, 2008
    #5
  6. Rob.

    Kelpie Guest

    Yup, correct converging verticles on a 5D with a few different WA lenses.
    24-70L and a shitty Tamron 19-35
     
    Kelpie, Mar 28, 2008
    #6
  7. Rob.

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Kelpie wrote:
    | | Kelpie wrote:
    | | | | Rob. wrote:
    | | | Anyone using DxO Optics Pro ??
    | | |
    | | | http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo
    | | |
    | | | What you opinion?
    | | |
    | | | r
    | |
    | | This is a real trick program. I've been using it since version 1.0. It's
    | | best claim to fame is how it creates files from RAW that have all the
    | | image flaws in it's supported lenses and cameras fixed.
    | |
    | | The most dramatic example of it is when you shoot with a Canon kit lens
    | | and don't realize the pattern in someone's shirt is a symbol. Run the
    | | file through DxO and it produces an image so close to an "L" lens
    | | result, you wonder why on earth you paid for the expensive lens.
    | |
    | | The last remaining Canon I keep to hand out to contract shooters has a
    | | 17 - 85 Kit lens on it. A long way from being a "decent" lens but using
    | | DxO it removes the barrel distortion, the purple fringing and if you set
    | | the distance before processing, it will produce results as clear and
    | | free of defects as any of my new Nikon lenses or the previous Canon
    | stuff.
    | |
    | | You still need Lightroom or Photoshop because despite it's claims, it is
    | | ~ only an image correction de-mosaic program -- probably the best around
    | | but needs a bit more development in image manipulation before it becomes
    | | a standalone solution.
    | |
    | | Get the demo and see for yourself. It'll only do 50 images at a time in
    | | demo mode. I often dump 600 or more images into it and let it run on
    | | auto overnight. Lightroom for a few hours the next day and all but a
    | | dozen or so of the images are printable. The rest go through Photoshop
    | | or to the bin.
    | |
    | | If you want it as a RAW editor... Forget it. If you want to fix some
    | | image faults from your lenses and colour issues from your camera, get
    | it.
    | |
    | |> What version/settings go you use?
    | |
    | |
    |
    | I upgraded to Version 5.04, Elite a few weeks ago to get the D3 modules
    | I'm still playing with the settings for these cameras. Is there
    | something you want to do with it?
    |
    |> Yup, correct converging verticles on a 5D with a few different WA
    lenses.
    |> 24-70L and a shitty Tamron 19-35
    |

    You might find the 24 -70 is always going to be an issue at 24mm FL on a
    5D. Maybe DxO isn't going to do what you want mate?

    Have you looked at "Flos Filters" from France? He has a bonza set of
    plugins for Photoshop I wouldn't be without for working with wide angle
    lenses. http://flofilters.free.fr/download.php

    It'd be a lot cheaper than DxO. You have to buy the Elite version to get
    a 5D module and it doesn't support anything but Canon a a couple of
    Sigma lenses.

    Florian's filters are intended to straighten up distorted images. I use
    them to fix the perspective errors my "stepped out" panorama's get as
    well as fix just about any other optical anomaly caused from lens
    angles. I haven't got much joy out of trying to automate a droplet for
    them but working on a single image yields excellent results. The bought
    version is the one to have.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFH7WtPhuxzk5D6V14RAqnYAKCOdOk5aUmdsO9r43aQAM6EYycnCwCeLWuO
    jOFYL/HPpcxtgf3Sy224uWY=
    =Hziy
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Mar 28, 2008
    #7
  8. I have used it a few times, not a fan.
     
    Father McKenzie, Apr 1, 2008
    #8
  9. Rob.

    Murray Crabb Guest

    DXO is having some serious issues with DXO Optics v5. Just access the Forums
    on their site (you now have to register in order to read the problems they
    are having). It is quite buggy with missing features although it works for
    some and not so well for others. I was lucky, it more or less did what I
    wanted it too but not as well as the previous release v4.5.1 that is no
    longer available. When a new update is released then I might consider
    upgrading. Check first that your camera body and lenses are supported before
    purchasing otherwise it's of no use. There is a fully functional trial
    download available.

    mc
     
    Murray Crabb, Apr 4, 2008
    #9
  10. Rob.

    Alienjones Guest

    I think many people miss the concept of DxO. It is lens correction
    software. It's only purpose it fix the image errors in lenses. If you
    want it for anything else, as I said at the start, you need to look
    further afield. Some of the lenses it has no support for, don't produce
    noticeable errors in the first place.

    I happen to think it is absolutely without peer. An excellent program
    there simply isn't anything to compare it with. I do however know the
    first release of V5.0 was prone to breaking down. My version used to
    drop off the dual image processing and revert to 1 image at a time. It
    often crashed after I'd prepared a hundred or so images as I was about
    to process them but... I replaced my RAM with certified modules and
    upgraded to version 5.01 and the issues disappeared.

    Build 6610 and later fixes most of the problems. I notice you haven't
    cited any problems you are having other than vague reference to "buggy".

    The maker of the BIOS on your mainboard and which Pentium chip you use
    along with the latency of your RAM all has an effect on programs like
    DxO that use 90% of CPU resources to work efficiently.

    The RAM you buy for $80 a gig often turns out to be the problem, rather
    than software when graphic processing applications start crashing. Cheap
    video cards that use cheap RAM and inadequate GPU cooling can all
    contribute to people blaming the new software when it's actually the old
    hardware at fault.

    Water or vapor cooling for your CPU , RAM and graphic GPU are, in my
    opinion essential ahead of any graphics software. Before ever I upgraded
    to CS3, I re-built my PC with HD cooling gear, able to stand the stress
    of running hard all day long without overheating.

    Anyway... Who gives a hoot in hell about fixing problems? Lets just
    complain about them. It's much more entertaining to knock peole about
    than help them.

    --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFH9dWxhuxzk5D6V14RAgFrAKCTcMTctPjEY2Trut8bAe8cC1T5KACfX4Mq
    mr7XvimElMsnlh9iTII60I8=
    =Ikod
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 4, 2008
    #10
  11. Rob.

    N Guest

    Why are your posts appearing as attachments?
     
    N, Apr 4, 2008
    #11
  12. Rob.

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    N wrote:
    | |
    |
    | Why are your posts appearing as attachments?

    I could ask why are you using an E-mail program as a newsreader too.

    There have been a lot of forged messages using my name that some less
    than network savvy people wrongly believed were from me. My solution is
    not as graceful as I'd like it but none the less provide a means of
    ensuring my posts are from me.

    It's called "Pretty Good Privacy". An encrypted key that, provided you
    have one of my public keys, can be used to verify the post is actually
    from me.

    The program you are using to browse newsgroups with is actually an Email
    program (Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16480). I'm not surprised you
    see my messages as 2 attachments. One is the text message and the other
    is the security key. If you changed over to a decent newsreader, you'll
    see the message as just text.

    Most dedicate newsreaders will either show you the message "Begin PGP"
    at the top and "END PGP" at he bottom with the key a bunch of character
    under my name.

    I use Mozilla Thunderbird for posting but there are a lot of other
    dedicate newsreaders which will let you use PGP. I use motzarella.org
    for my news host because they have in their news servers, software to
    allow the keys. Many ISPs news servers see my key as a binary attachment
    and bounce the message.

    If you intend to engage in conversations in newsgroups, you would be
    well advised to work with PGP because even this low traffic group has
    it's more than fair share of idiots who think it's kool to impersonate
    other and make trouble where none should be.

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFH9eMwhuxzk5D6V14RAs1xAJ9bdqaaY08wZ6hvIbqOAOF/EonBMACfSZ47
    u+TpaTwMgxM77yore+j4MxE=
    =glg0
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 4, 2008
    #12
  13. Rob.

    N Guest



    OK, that's fine for you. Yes I'm well aware of the idiots around and
    haven't yet been fooled by them.

    As for Windows Mail, I don't use it for mail. It was Microsoft's decision
    to give the new version of OE a different name. The program is very
    different underneath the covers. It comes as part of the OS and I see no
    valid reason to install another program to do what WM does.

    Incidentally, my ISP doesn't support binaries but both your attachments are
    there. In fact, if the attachments were binaries, your posts wouldn't be
    there.
     
    N, Apr 4, 2008
    #13
  14. Rob.

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    N wrote:
    =d bounce the message.
    |
    | If you intend to engage in conversations in newsgroups, you would be
    | well advised to work with PGP because even this low traffic group has
    | it's more than fair share of idiots who think it's kool to impersonate
    | other and make trouble where none should be.
    |

    | OK, that's fine for you. Yes I'm well aware of the idiots around and
    | haven't yet been fooled by them.

    | As for Windows Mail, I don't use it for mail. It was Microsoft's
    | decision to give the new version of OE a different name. The program is
    | very different underneath the covers. It comes as part of the OS and I
    | see no valid reason to install another program to do what WM does.

    | Incidentally, my ISP doesn't support binaries but both your attachments
    | are there. In fact, if the attachments were binaries, your posts
    | wouldn't be there.

    Well by not including the key but still cryptographically signing the
    posts, you get to read it with Microsoft's idea of a "standard"
    deviation from an Industry standard. Less secure when it comes to
    positive ID but probably good enough for newsgroups.



    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFH9oLbhuxzk5D6V14RAoO9AJ9adbRdTRs8zErMMKoVhPZAMInkYACeOzX7
    0gzdxOhWwWgVNqRjSgCCUKQ=
    =XgT1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 4, 2008
    #14
  15. He invented Usenet he can do what he likes and doesn't have to explain
     
    Online News Server, Apr 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Which one?

    You have used 428 different names in the last 8 years.
    Which one is being forged? I noticed a post from Sarina recently that
    was different to your original Sarina post that you signed off as Douglas.

    How many have applied for your key?
     
    Online News Server, Apr 5, 2008
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.