… which is consequently advocating for the LR/ACR/C1/etc. + PureRAW solution (although, like platypus, I still think that the DXO processing, notwithstanding some bugs and the still-to-be-reworked UI, is really superior. Well, I’m now mainly using Fuji X-Trans APNs, and I’ll wait for DeepPrime XD2 to support X-Trans files to make a decision.
Please remember that PureRAW suffers the same as other DxO apps:
- Supported gear only!
Yes, that’s what I mean : use PureRAW when needed and possible. Otherwise, LR/C1/… This is to answer the questions about the cost/usefulness ratio.
Complete lack of support for a camera is far worse than providing a possibly sub-optimal use case that preserves workflow until (if) full support is released.
Apple’s Aperture did this with DNGs, and it was amazing. You could view and edit any DNG, whether or not Aperture supported it. Once support was released, the images might change slightly, but that was easy enough to check.
This is also important for older cameras: there are digital cameras that pre-date PhotoLab’s raw support, and I presume will never get supported.
@Mark2 @platypus @Pat91 @ATL_Flaneur
You do realise that one of the core things that makes DxO PhotoLab special, is the manual measurements done with actual cameras and lenses in their laboratories don’t you?
Otherwise: “Dear Esteemed Client. We are sorry our Ferrari did not meet your requirements for ploughing your fields.”
I export my files from older cameras as 16-bit tiff using freely available tools and edit those in PhotoLab. For more flexible noise reduction on those images, I use Nik Dfine. (There usually is some way of getting an unsupported format into 16-bit tiff for better compatibility… in 2024).
1 Like
Not by coincidence, this tradition has been continued and improved upon by RAW Power and now Nitro, apps from Gentlemen Coders.
1 Like
Uh, yes, I think they do.
Sure, I’ve been using DxO products since 2007. And while DxO core functionality relies on said analyses, the remaining general functionality could be made available by a few changes the mere thought of which would need to be allowed in the first place.
Anyways, you don’t take cancer medication for a simple headache and DxO has taken their path. But let’s not forget that going through a door has three problems and one solution (one door, two door posts and last, but not certainly the least: opening the door)
So basically you want to not have to export the file to a 16-bit tiff first, but rather have such a functionality added to the image browser? (you do know how the image browser works don’t you?).
Good for you that you think for them.
It’s what I think OF them that’s important to me. That they know what this thread is about is beyond obvious. And next time please be more careful to align my comments to the quote I actually responded to. Thanks.
Perhaps you should try and understand the nature of a comment before making assumptions and intervening. And sorry, I do not care about what is important to you personally. I forgot there’s no age restriction on most forums.
From the people I addressed in the post, I do not get the impression that they are taking how DxO profiles cameras and lenses into consideration.
Your impression is yours and so be it.
My point is, that whatever DxO does, if it acts like a ball and chain against running away to a brighter future, it seems to be a poor decision imo. DxO might consider to embrace more than the (small) world of supported gear. It’s about 80/20 too.
Over the last many years, I’ve seen recurring posts about PhotoLab’s reservations against “unsupported gear” and formats. Take an example of DNG: For many iterations, PhotoLab was unable to show DNG files that were exported by PhotoLab. We were literally pushed away from PhotoLab if we wanted to check its output. How weird a decision was that! Felt like a stuck-up attitude of DxO towards its own clients.
Quote from the page linked above:
The process of creating a DxO lens module is complex and requires extreme precision.
Yes, but what about the real world of sample variations?
Jpg already can do what most are asking for DNG use editing of of the imige but not get lense or camera corrections as ususlly they will be in most DNG esp from phones.
In what magnitude do these variations affect how PhotoLab does its processing and can you confirm if DxO takes such variations into consideration?
I have a lens that PhotoLab used to be unable to fully correct. A few years ago, a new module was released and from there on, the corrections were perfect. I assume that the difference was due to sample variation, DxO seemed to have based the module on measurements of a not adequately well manufactured lens.
I’ve not seen any reference to how many lenses (and bodies) are measured by DxO. If we assume that one would show off such doings, the absence of any reference seems to indicate that DxO does not test several samples of each lens or body.
Being able to measure quality precisely is nice, but a somewhat lost cause if there is a) no target to measure against and b) no idea about variation, be it from samples or of the measurement routine itself.
Point a) can be circumvented by building one’s own test targets, which is what DxO seems to to, and point b) can be acquired with QA data from manufacturers (not probable imo) or by measuring lots of samples (not mentioned by DxO)
Out of how many thousand combinations?
Exceptions prove the rule. (Also applies to practice makes perfect.)
You appear know a lot, but by your own admission apparently not enough about DxO or how PhotoLab actually work to combine that with your knowledge (that can be accessed freely on the Internet) to arrive at an informed conclusion.
As a long term user as you claim you be, you could check yourself by going to (it literally took me 2 minutes find this just now):
(over) 84,000
then go to
https://www.dxo.com/news/category/hardware-support/
and you can learn that since then another around 8,000 have been added.
So it is safe to say, more than 92,000.
select count(*) from module;
in CAFlist7.db is even quicker (with PL7.5 - 107898 modules, 561 bodies).
The following was platypus’s full quote:
I’ve not seen any reference to how many lenses (and bodies) are measured by DxO. If we assume that one would show off such doings, the absence of any reference seems to indicate that DxO does not test several samples of each lens or body.
This was a precise answer to the question that you proposed. Platypus was clearly speaking about how many copies of a particular camera/lens combo were tested by DxO. Please stop cherry-picking incomplete or unrelated quotes (in my case) just to invent some new straw-man controversy where none exists. Just four days in from your first appearance on the forum, is this your modus operandi?
Even easier and you get exact numbers - thanks for this. In my case I opened the file in DB Browser… and looked at the number of entries under “Body” and “Module”
???
The imprecise answer to my question is what I found online and the precise answers lies in the information provided by @Wlodek
So DxO themselves provide information about exactly this on their website:
And the exact information is available in the database.
OK, I see your game now, out for clicks, content, not so much. Bye.