Author Topic: DxO Optics Pro v8.0  (Read 8679 times)

LaurentP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2012, 10:32:30 pm »
The only reason why I would HAVE TO get v8 is that DxO stops providing new modules for old versions.
Which is not true. DxO still provides modules for the older versions, provided that the camera was supported in that version, ofc.

It is true that only the latest version will support the newest cameras, but DxO is not different from its competitors on this point: Adobe does the same thing, Phase One does the same thing...

Fergs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2012, 11:25:47 pm »
Thank you Jim Scott for your thoughtful comments, I'm pleased to hear that you are enjoying your latest version. Upon further examination it seems that I paid for the upgrade from standard to elite at the beginning of August but didn't download it until the end of August when the camera finally arrived. So, unfortunately, well outside the free upgrade window.

I am afraid though that you may have misunderstood part of my motivation for complaint. Clearly as a professional photographer you will have no doubt been an elite user all along, able to put it down to the cost of doing business, but I was quite happy using the standard versions. Unlike Nikon, where there are real and actual physical differences between a lens covering an FX sensor and one covering a DX sensor, the difference between optics pro standard and optics pro elite is clearly an artificial one that amounts to, at best, a few lines of code and an arbitrary equipment list.
The elite edition does not offer any better results than the standard version it just provides "access" to the full complement of correction modules.

Dxo are free to choose their own pricing and feature model, and I am free to choose whether I remain a customer. In the past I have paid for each upgrade, but since upgrading an elite version costs more than upgrading a standard version I am reluctant to do continue to do so. I dislike the fact that purely based upon my choice of camera I have to pay more. I'm sure that dxo's shareholders are happy with this policy, but I'm not.

As I said earlier, 7.5 elite does what I need it to do and supports my current equipment, so I'm not upgrading this time.


causey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2012, 12:24:19 am »
Which is not true. DxO still provides modules for the older versions, provided that the camera was supported in that version, ofc.

Aren't modules combinations of cameras and lenses? Yes--then "module" can be understood in two ways...

Quote
It is true that only the latest version will support the newest cameras, but DxO is not different from its competitors on this point: Adobe does the same thing, Phase One does the same thing...

I was under the impression that v8 wasn't different from v7 in any significant way. But I played a bit more with the new lighting modes, and I think v8's lighting function is much improved... I actually think I'm going to upgrade. The new dust removal is useful too... So, I'll retract what I said about v8. There is improvement that justifies the cost of the upgrade (for the standard version).
« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 01:45:22 am by causey »

LaurentP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2012, 10:46:53 am »
Aren't modules combinations of cameras and lenses? Yes--then "module" can be understood in two ways...
There are two very different things:

- RAW support, which only concern a given camera (regardless of the lens you used), which lets you open and process your images in Optics Pro
- Correction modules, which concern a lens-body combination, and let you apply automatic lens correction on your images

To process your images, RAW support is enough, and the new modules are made available for the older versions, provided that the RAW format of the camera is supported in that previous version.

KonstRuctor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2012, 11:22:18 am »
Thanks for the announcement of ver.8, I downloaded a demo, now I study it.
That thing which I very much waited, didn't come with the new version of the program.
* * *
---- (Canon sRAW and mRAW format not supported) ----
* * *
It is the unique reason on which I can't use this program in the work.
Sad.

Sigi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
    • Gallery
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2012, 11:39:22 am »
Hello KonstRuctor,

why would you actually spend a lot of money on expensive camera bodies and even more expensive lenses and then shoot in SRaw? I try to get the maximum information possible into my raw files and archive them. Future software might be able to achieve adjustments with these files which we can only dream of now.

If I use a format like sRaw or mRaw I limit the quality of the file and hence what I can do in the future with it. As disk space is getting cheaper and cheaper the storage of all these large raw files is also not a cost issue anymore. So for me personally these two formats are not interesting at all.

Interested to read your thoughts on this

Sigi

Socrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2012, 04:52:16 pm »
Tonality improved a lot. Before, DOP used to block the shadows and the only way to avoid this was to "overexpose", and then try to play with the curves.

sacchini

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2012, 10:12:53 pm »
Hello KonstRuctor,

why would you actually spend a lot of money on expensive camera bodies and even more expensive lenses and then shoot in SRaw? I try to get the maximum information possible into my raw files and archive them. Future software might be able to achieve adjustments with these files which we can only dream of now.

If I use a format like sRaw or mRaw I limit the quality of the file and hence what I can do in the future with it. As disk space is getting cheaper and cheaper the storage of all these large raw files is also not a cost issue anymore. So for me personally these two formats are not interesting at all.

Interested to read your thoughts on this

Sigi

I don't know about KonstRuctor (obviously, he will eventually tell us about his motivations) but someone may prefer to use sRaw for speed during continuous shooting or for better noise performance during high iso shooting.
May be the answer?

Leon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2012, 12:10:11 am »
I've heard wedding photographers use the smaller RAW files as well...

Socrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2012, 12:40:58 am »
why would you actually spend a lot of money on expensive camera bodies and even more expensive lenses and then shoot in SRaw?

One reason to shoot mRAW is when shooting an event at high ISO. The noise limits the resolution, and there is no point of so many "pixels" in the RAW. Lower file sizes translate into lower preview and processing times, etc.

doc Rhod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2012, 08:15:00 pm »
why would you actually spend a lot of money on expensive camera bodies and even more expensive lenses and then shoot in SRaw?

One reason to shoot mRAW is when shooting an event at high ISO. The noise limits the resolution, and there is no point of so many "pixels" in the RAW.

But wouldn't downsampling afterwards from the full raw yield improvement in noise handling at high iso? Seem to recall that from high ISO comparisons between a downsampled D800 and a D700 - I know, Nikon and not Canon cameras, but wouldn't the same principle apply?

Agreed on the shorter preview/processing times - but does it assist when shooting, ie. does it improve buffer clearance or does the extra work/processing in camera make it a marginal improvement?

LaurentP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2012, 12:04:59 am »
One reason to shoot mRAW is when shooting an event at high ISO. The noise limits the resolution, and there is no point of so many "pixels" in the RAW. Lower file sizes translate into lower preview and processing times, etc.
It's still easier to reduce noise on a high resolution image, since there is always more info, even when the file is noisy.

Socrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2012, 02:37:48 am »
One reason to shoot mRAW is when shooting an event at high ISO. The noise limits the resolution, and there is no point of so many "pixels" in the RAW. Lower file sizes translate into lower preview and processing times, etc.
It's still easier to reduce noise on a high resolution image, since there is always more info, even when the file is noisy.

There is no much more "info" with high noise. There is more data though. The high frequency data is garbage with almost no useful information there.

Do not forget that mRAW is not really a lower resolution sample - it is an image generated from the same higher pixel RAW by some kind of interpolation. Very different from a lower pixel sensor image. You may think that having the RAW, you might be able to do better job. In principle, yes, because you have more options (but you do not have the mRAW option because Canon keeps it proprietary) but if the higher frequency data is mostly noise, you are not losing much.

Socrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2012, 02:45:54 am »
why would you actually spend a lot of money on expensive camera bodies and even more expensive lenses and then shoot in SRaw?

One reason to shoot mRAW is when shooting an event at high ISO. The noise limits the resolution, and there is no point of so many "pixels" in the RAW.

But wouldn't downsampling afterwards from the full raw yield improvement in noise handling at high iso? Seem to recall that from high ISO comparisons between a downsampled D800 and a D700 - I know, Nikon and not Canon cameras, but wouldn't the same principle apply?

Downsampling itself does not reduce noise. Display the same image before and after downsampling at the same size - you downsample again, and the noise will be similar.

Higher resolution vs. lower resoluton sensors is a very different thing. Current sensors can gain even more with ncreased density, IMO. There is a serious problem for fast lens shooters though - microlens vignetting.

Quote
Agreed on the shorter preview/processing times - but does it assist when shooting, ie. does it improve buffer clearance or does the extra work/processing in camera make it a marginal improvement?

I do not tnow. I guess the best way to find out is to test your camera. I personally do not shoot in burst mode often.

akayani

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: DxO Optics Pro v8.0
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2013, 06:22:18 pm »