DxO gets the thumbs down from dPreview.com

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Brian C. Baird, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Brian C. Baird, Sep 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian C. Baird

    G. Innipig Guest

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    G. Innipig, Sep 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian C. Baird

    Sabine Guest

    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 ?
     
    Sabine, Sep 9, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <413f6dd6$0$20254$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 9, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <%pN%c.179262$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Brian C. Baird

    Mark B. Guest

    "Sabine" <> wrote in message
    news:%pN%c.179262$...
    >
    > "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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/
     
    Mark B., Sep 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Brian C. Baird <> 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)
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 9, 2004
    #7
  8. Brian C. Baird

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

    > Brian C. Baird <> 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
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 9, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <neU%c.86$>,
    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/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 9, 2004
    #9
  10. "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    news:neU%c.86$...
    > 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
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Sep 9, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <414038a2$0$559$4all.nl>,
    says...
    > 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


    I'll believe it when I see it.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
     
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 9, 2004
    #11
  12. Brian C. Baird

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Gisle Hannemyr" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > (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).
    > --


    PTLens isn't automatic enough for you?
     
    Mark Weaver, Sep 9, 2004
    #12
  13. "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > I'll believe it when I see it.


    That's the right attitude ;-)

    Actually I'm confident it does, because it will be more effective to
    base adjustments on knowledge of a particular lens/sensor interaction
    than on a general one-size-fits-all solution based on the output
    alone.

    The question remains, will the additional recovered quality be enough
    to justify the price? That will most likely be the case for "full
    frame" sensors, where the corner performance (especially for lenses
    designed for film) suffers most from sub-optimal corrections. And for
    users of those cameras, the price of the software may be trivial.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Sep 9, 2004
    #13
  14. Brian C. Baird

    John Doe Guest

    Name one program, any program that looks at your image and then attempts to
    correct it that does a good job. I guess they work, but the big problem is
    that each one tends to correct for what the other of the program considers
    to be right and not the person that took the picture so unless you like
    images that look like the author likes it will never do a good job for you.
    Manual correction is the only way to fly.

    John


    "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <%pN%c.179262$>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > 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/
     
    John Doe, Sep 9, 2004
    #14
  15. Brian C. Baird

    Annika1980 Guest

    >From: Gisle Hannemyr

    >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).


    The problem is that the lenses that would benefit from this high-priced
    solution are the cheaper, lesser-quality lenses. Those who could afford the
    software probably already have excellent lenses, while folks who buy crappy
    lenses (Sigma) probably aren't gonna shell out the cash for the software.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 10, 2004
    #15
  16. "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > The problem is that the lenses that would benefit from this
    > high-priced solution are the cheaper, lesser-quality lenses.


    Yes, although it's more a matter of a larger amount of the same
    aberrations that need to be corrected. Kind of, diminishing returns as
    the lens gets better.

    The main potential in the DxO approach is that aberrations that are
    not uniform throughout the image will receive better correction than
    by applying a uniform correction to the entire image.
    An example of such a non-uniform correction is image blur. Technically
    that is described by a Point-Spread-Function (PSF), and it is a
    benefit if different PSFs for e.g. corners and center are used.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Sep 10, 2004
    #16
  17. Brian C. Baird

    brian Guest

    "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote in message news:<41417dfb$0$78749$4all.nl>...
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > SNIP
    > > The problem is that the lenses that would benefit from this
    > > high-priced solution are the cheaper, lesser-quality lenses.

    >
    > Yes, although it's more a matter of a larger amount of the same
    > aberrations that need to be corrected. Kind of, diminishing returns as
    > the lens gets better.
    >
    > The main potential in the DxO approach is that aberrations that are
    > not uniform throughout the image will receive better correction than
    > by applying a uniform correction to the entire image.
    > An example of such a non-uniform correction is image blur. Technically
    > that is described by a Point-Spread-Function (PSF), and it is a
    > benefit if different PSFs for e.g. corners and center are used.
    >
    > Bart


    I suspect that the "DxO approach" to image blur correction is not much
    more sophisticated than mere sharpening. The other things - lateral
    color, distortion, and illumination - are very effectively dealt with
    using *free* software. The whole DxO thing smells of a scam to me.
    At best its a case of some people taking well known public domain
    solutions and re-packaging it as something new and high-tech. A
    pretty sad way to try to make a living if you ask me.

    Brian
    www.caldwellphotographic.com
     
    brian, Sep 10, 2004
    #17
  18. Brian C. Baird

    Guest

    Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >>From: Gisle Hannemyr


    >>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).


    > The problem is that the lenses that would benefit from this high-priced
    > solution are the cheaper, lesser-quality lenses.


    Even high quality lenses can benefit from correction, though. There's
    a good article at
    http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/TutorialsDistortionAndColorFringing.html.

    And yeah, I know this was Nikkors, but the same does apply to Canon
    lenses.

    Andrew.
     
    , Sep 11, 2004
    #18
  19. Brian C. Baird

    DavidG Guest

    "John Doe" <> wrote in message news:<qb10d.12870$>...
    > Name one program, any program that looks at your image and then attempts to
    > correct it that does a good job. I guess they work, but the big problem is
    > that each one tends to correct for what the other of the program considers
    > to be right and not the person that took the picture so unless you like
    > images that look like the author likes it will never do a good job for you.
    > Manual correction is the only way to fly.
    >
    > John


    Your description isn't true to what DxO was supposed to be. The idea
    of calibration is central to most instruments that attempt to record
    accurate data. DxO was supposed to be a calibration system. By
    characterizing a lens/body combination and comparing it against an
    ideal rendering, the software was supposed to correct for flaws in the
    image transfer, including lens distortion, vignetting, CA, AA-filter
    softening (impossible to do in a physically correct and complete
    manner, so this is the weakest claim of the software) and so forth.
    The rest of the postprocessing, including adjustments for exposure and
    all other aesthetic issues, was still left to the photographer.

    It looks like DxO isn't delivering on its limited claim as a
    calibration program, however. Indeed, I don't even understand how it
    could fail to properly correct for lens distortion when PTLens, a free
    package, does such a superb job.

    David
     
    DavidG, Sep 11, 2004
    #19
  20. Brian C. Baird

    Lourens Smak Guest

    In article <>,
    Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:

    > Brian C. Baird <> 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).


    I have the Olympus and the Studio software and it works quite well, (but
    a bit slow) It is simply a software-option when developing RAW files;
    the lens and zoom-setting used for the image are read from exif and
    distortion-correction is 100% perfect, automatically... It can be set by
    hand too, if for example you use an adapter and a "unknown" lens.
    ;-)
    Lourens
     
    Lourens Smak, Sep 11, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Georgette Preddy

    Canon 1Ds gets a 32% "thumbs down" rating from users.

    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    491
  2. NIST.org
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    840
  3. Philip Procter

    DxO Correction Program?

    Philip Procter, Nov 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    Philip Procter
    Nov 8, 2004
  4. Keith Cooper

    DxO raw file conversion

    Keith Cooper, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
    Keith Cooper
    Nov 16, 2004
  5. Carl Miller

    DxO

    Carl Miller, Jan 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    624
    Carl Miller
    Jan 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page