Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DxO gets the thumbs down from dPreview.com

Reply
Thread Tools

DxO gets the thumbs down from dPreview.com

 
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004
Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I certainly
don't see a reason to buy it now.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
G. Innipig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2004

"Brian C. Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I certainly
> don't see a reason to buy it now.


Right, and not just buy it, but pay through the nose for it, by all
accounts.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sabine
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004

"Brian C. Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I certainly
> don't see a reason to buy it now.


what is the DxO ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004
In article <413f6dd6$0$20254$(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I certainly
> > don't see a reason to buy it now.

>
> Right, and not just buy it, but pay through the nose for it, by all
> accounts.


Really. Like I'm going to pay $50-100 on top of my lenses to "correct"
them no better than I could with 5 minutes in Photoshop.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004
In article <%pN%c.179262$(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I certainly
> > don't see a reason to buy it now.

>
> what is the DxO ?


DxO Image Analyzer. A really expensive method to correct your digital
camera's images, and apparently, not really as good as current manual
methods.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004
"Sabine" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%pN%c.179262$(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I certainly
>> don't see a reason to buy it now.

>
> what is the DxO ?
>
>


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/dxoopticspro/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gisle Hannemyr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004
Brian C. Baird <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I
> certainly don't see a reason to buy it now.


The product doesn't seem to be any good - and the pricing is
ridiculous - but I must admit that I'm intrigued by the concept of
software like this (and the similar idea of «lens profiling» that
Olympus' Four-thirds is supposed to feature).

About a month ago, I experimented with correcting the output of a
truly horrible lens:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/index.php?p=10
I think it is amazing what you can accomplish with software.

While DxO seems to be a dud, I hope that somebody pursuses this, and
come up with usable lens-profile-based software at a sensible price.
(Of course - Panaorama Tools already has the price right, but I know
of no way to get lens profiles that can be used to automate the
workflow with PT).
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
================================================== ======================
«To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004


Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> Brian C. Baird <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>>Suffice to say, I didn't see a reason to buy it before, and I
>>certainly don't see a reason to buy it now.

>
>
> The product doesn't seem to be any good - and the pricing is
> ridiculous - but I must admit that I'm intrigued by the concept of
> software like this (and the similar idea of «lens profiling» that
> Olympus' Four-thirds is supposed to feature).
>


It is not terrible (e.g., review at Luminous Landscape) but the pricing
structure definitely offends. It should do far better, given the
professional pricing.

Phil

 
Reply With Quote
 
Brian C. Baird
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004
In article <neU%c.86$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> It is not terrible (e.g., review at Luminous Landscape) but the pricing
> structure definitely offends. It should do far better, given the
> professional pricing.
>
> Phil


The pricing makes it terrible - as does the lackluster performance. No
RAW support kills the deal entirely.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2004

"Phil Wheeler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:neU%c.86$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

SNIP
> > The product doesn't seem to be any good - and the
> > pricing is ridiculous - but I must admit that I'm intrigued
> > by the concept of software like this (and the similar idea
> > of «lens profiling» that Olympus' Four-thirds is supposed
> > to feature).
> >

>
> It is not terrible (e.g., review at Luminous Landscape) but the

pricing
> structure definitely offends. It should do far better, given the
> professional pricing.


I agree that the pricing strategy creates confusion, and raises
expectations that may be hard to meet in practice (given the available
alternatives). Of course, a benefit for one user can mean a non-issue
for another user, so valuation (e.g. as workflow efficiency) will vary
amongst reviewers. To me, the real offence lies in JPEG only
operation, because that robs any application of valuable pixel
accuracy.

What basically limits the result however, is the quality of each
pixel. So a small word of caution is perhaps justified. The review is
based on the results of a single camera (model). It may well be that
camera's with more efficient anti-aliasing filters, larger capacity
sensors, and different raw processing will benefit more and the
different postprocessing solutions result in more pronounced
differences.

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thumbs Up/ Down postback event DanWeaver ASP .Net 4 09-01-2007 04:14 PM
Unofficial WMF fix gets thumbs up by SANS.org and NIST.org NIST.org Computer Security 8 05-09-2006 06:40 AM
DxO raw file conversion Keith Cooper Digital Photography 0 11-16-2004 12:30 PM
DxO Correction Program? Philip Procter Digital Photography 0 11-08-2004 04:50 AM
Canon 1Ds gets a 32% "thumbs down" rating from users. Georgette Preddy Digital Photography 12 07-13-2004 01:14 AM



Advertisments