Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Hands on with DXO

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Hands on with DXO

 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On 1/17/2013 11:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> I thought I should follow up on the discussion which arose after late
> last year I mentioned that until 25 Dec 2012 DxO Optics Pro 8 was
> available at a discounted price.
>
> At that time I got the impression that it was being primarily judged
> by those who responded as a raw converter for Adobe products. My
> primary interest was in the DXO claims as to image quality.
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/9wv894m
>
> I've groping my way through DxO8, trying it out on older photographs,
> some of which have resisted my best attempts with other software. I
> still have few things to sort out but my preliminary conclusions are
> that by and large it lives up to its claims. It's rather like driving
> a Ferrari. You can do quite well just trundling around in it but it's
> performance is extraordinary if you can push it to its limits.
> However, it is easy to exceed it's limits and make a mess of things.
> Fortunately the mess is much easier to make good than it is with a
> Ferrari.
>
> For those who can read Nikon NEF files, here is a photograph I shot
> some years ago with a D70
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC1372.NEF
>
> This is the JPG created after only two passes (so far) with DxO8.
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC1372_DxO.jpg
>
> The following are two photographs taken in Norway about 16 months ago
> using a Canon G12: The first original is
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0769.JPG
>
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0769_DxO_12.jpg has been
> processed and converted to a JPG 1200 wide. For the patient
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0769_DxO.jpg is a larger image
> which when viewed at a large size makes a better job showing the
> detail which has been extracted from the original JPG. At smaller
> sizes the image is cluttered with artifacts which I think may be
> created by the in-computer image compression process required to fit
> it on a smaller screen.
>
> The second original is https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0771.JPG
> It's 1200 wide version is
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0771_DxO_12.jpg and the larger
> is https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/IMG_0771_DxO.jpg
> This image too has it's share of artifacts. (I've since tried printing
> it at an A4 size with DxO8 and all the rubbish has disappeared.)
>
> My object in all of these is to test the ability of the software to
> extract detail from the images. I have not attempted to sharpen these
> images or adjust the colour in any way.
>
> More later when I get a bit further.
>



I downloaded a trial version for testing, but got distracted. However, I
am still undecided about my need for it.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On 1/21/2013 3:05 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:02:58 -0500, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> I downloaded a trial version for testing, but got distracted. However, I
>> am still undecided about my need for it.

>
> I am glad you are trying it. I can't ask you to like it. I've seen
> some examples of your work which suggest you don't really need it but
> might appreciate it just the same. I will be interested in your later
> opinions.
>


I am more interested in seeing if I can produce interesting distortions
with it. However, I am still learning to use what I have, so that is low
on my agenda.
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2013
On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:44:28 AM UTC, peterN wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 3:05 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:02:58 -0500, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >

>
> >> I downloaded a trial version for testing, but got distracted. However, I
> >> am still undecided about my need for it.

> >
> > I am glad you are trying it. I can't ask you to like it. I've seen
> > some examples of your work which suggest you don't really need it but
> > might appreciate it just the same. I will be interested in your later
> > opinions.
> >

>
> I am more interested in seeing if I can produce interesting distortions
> with it. However, I am still learning to use what I have, so that is low
> on my agenda.
>
> PeterN


It can rectify lens distortion. But if you lie about the lens you used it will mess things up just like you like them


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >It can rectify lens distortion. But if you lie about the lens you used it
> >will mess things up just like you like them
> >

> The problem is that the software identifies the lens and camera from
> the EXIF data. There is no easy opportunity to lie.


actually, there is. sigma reuses rom chips, so some lenses misidentify
themselves, which means you might not get the results you expect.

<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/25101608>
Sigma does not license anything. It's actually apparently their
policy to never license something like a rom from another company
from what others have brought up on them in the past. Thus all their
lenses are reverse engineered. This is also why you get sigma lenses
that use lens IDs of the camera makers lenses to fake out the cameras.

<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/26630814>
When I imported my pictures into Lightroom, the lens shows up as an
18-200 3.5.-5.6. My 150mm shots show as 18mm, and my 500mm shots
show as 200mm, and the 250mm as 52mm...
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >It can rectify lens distortion. But if you lie about the lens you used it
> >> >will mess things up just like you like them
> >> >
> >> The problem is that the software identifies the lens and camera from
> >> the EXIF data. There is no easy opportunity to lie.

> >
> >actually, there is. sigma reuses rom chips, so some lenses misidentify
> >themselves, which means you might not get the results you expect.
> >
> ><http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/25101608>
> > Sigma does not license anything. It's actually apparently their
> > policy to never license something like a rom from another company
> > from what others have brought up on them in the past. Thus all their
> > lenses are reverse engineered. This is also why you get sigma lenses
> > that use lens IDs of the camera makers lenses to fake out the cameras.
> >
> ><http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/26630814>
> > When I imported my pictures into Lightroom, the lens shows up as an
> > 18-200 3.5.-5.6. My 150mm shots show as 18mm, and my 500mm shots
> > show as 200mm, and the 250mm as 52mm...

>
> I still think it will be hard for Peter to get the lens manufacturer
> (Sigma?) to cause the lens to lie to the camera so as to cause DxO to
> give him the distortion he is after. Of course he could always edit
> the EXIF of the file he wants to experiment with.


he doesn't have to do a thing to get sigma to lie. they do it without
any prompting.

as for editing the exif, what would you edit the lens id *to*, when
there isn't a valid id for the lens in question? apparently creating a
new rom with a new id is beyond the capability of sigma, even if it has
identical ballistic data.

at best, you could pick an existing lens with the same focal length,
but then the distortion correction might not be right because the
lenses are not exactly the same.
 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2013
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:07:33 AM UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:

> The problem is that the software identifies the lens and camera from
> the EXIF data. There is no easy opportunity to lie.


Fine, use an EXIF editor.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2013
On 1/21/2013 11:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:16:50 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>> It can rectify lens distortion. But if you lie about the lens you used it
>>>> will mess things up just like you like them
>>>>
>>> The problem is that the software identifies the lens and camera from
>>> the EXIF data. There is no easy opportunity to lie.

>>
>> actually, there is. sigma reuses rom chips, so some lenses misidentify
>> themselves, which means you might not get the results you expect.
>>
>> <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/25101608>
>> Sigma does not license anything. It's actually apparently their
>> policy to never license something like a rom from another company
>> from what others have brought up on them in the past. Thus all their
>> lenses are reverse engineered. This is also why you get sigma lenses
>> that use lens IDs of the camera makers lenses to fake out the cameras.
>>
>> <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/26630814>
>> When I imported my pictures into Lightroom, the lens shows up as an
>> 18-200 3.5.-5.6. My 150mm shots show as 18mm, and my 500mm shots
>> show as 200mm, and the 250mm as 52mm...

>
> I still think it will be hard for Peter to get the lens manufacturer
> (Sigma?) to cause the lens to lie to the camera so as to cause DxO to
> give him the distortion he is after. Of course he could always edit
> the EXIF of the file he wants to experiment with.
>


Actually ther is no need forme to do that. I simply use: Edit !
Transform Image. I also use a custom lens calibration in PS.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2013
On 1/24/2013 7:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:43:50 -0500, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2013 11:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:16:50 -0500, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It can rectify lens distortion. But if you lie about the lens you used it
>>>>>> will mess things up just like you like them
>>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the software identifies the lens and camera from
>>>>> the EXIF data. There is no easy opportunity to lie.
>>>>
>>>> actually, there is. sigma reuses rom chips, so some lenses misidentify
>>>> themselves, which means you might not get the results you expect.
>>>>
>>>> <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/25101608>
>>>> Sigma does not license anything. It's actually apparently their
>>>> policy to never license something like a rom from another company
>>>> from what others have brought up on them in the past. Thus all their
>>>> lenses are reverse engineered. This is also why you get sigma lenses
>>>> that use lens IDs of the camera makers lenses to fake out the cameras.
>>>>
>>>> <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/26630814>
>>>> When I imported my pictures into Lightroom, the lens shows up as an
>>>> 18-200 3.5.-5.6. My 150mm shots show as 18mm, and my 500mm shots
>>>> show as 200mm, and the 250mm as 52mm...
>>>
>>> I still think it will be hard for Peter to get the lens manufacturer
>>> (Sigma?) to cause the lens to lie to the camera so as to cause DxO to
>>> give him the distortion he is after. Of course he could always edit
>>> the EXIF of the file he wants to experiment with.
>>>

>>
>> Actually ther is no need forme to do that. I simply use: Edit !
>> Transform Image. I also use a custom lens calibration in PS.

>
> I think we were discussing what you might do with DxO.
>


True. But I have to decide whether DXO is worthwhile for me.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2013
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:09:26 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:44:28 AM UTC, peterN wrote:


>>> I am more interested in seeing if I can produce interesting distortions
>>> with it. However, I am still learning to use what I have, so that is low
>>> on my agenda.


Just use any software that lets you enter a,b,c values for
distortion correction. Bibble^WAfterShot Pro (may it rest in
piece) and hugin come to my mind immediately, there must be
lots of others --- and that way you have lots of control.

(Hugin does lots of distortions, like mapping from a lens type
(which you can choose freely from) to a projection type ---
and of course you can set the parameters as you like them.)

>>It can rectify lens distortion. But if you lie about the lens you used it will mess things up just like you like them


> The problem is that the software identifies the lens and camera from
> the EXIF data. There is no easy opportunity to lie.


EXIF editors are really high tech.
And rather inconvenient compared to just selecting the
distortion one wants.

-Wolfgang
 
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
Re: Hands on with DXO me Digital Photography 0 01-18-2013 07:24 PM
Re: Hands on with DXO me Digital Photography 0 01-18-2013 10:07 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
DxO gets the thumbs down from dPreview.com Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 22 09-12-2004 06:30 PM



Advertisments