Please enlighten me… what clicks / content?
well, sample variation is not caught by measuring umpty thousend different lens models, but by measuring a load of the same model each. I can imagine manufacturers lending bathtubs full of lenses, but that is most probably not the case, specially with Leica lenses, but they don’t need any correction anyways ;-).
As you might have noticed, I used a lot of “seems”, “might” and other softeners in the last few posts. Due to the fact that I’m not an employee of DxO, I have to take information from things DxO and others publish or not.
Nevertheless, the effort going into these measurements and assessments must be a big part of what DxO puts into its software. Results make that effort worthwhile for now too.
As for lens models tested: The number of distinct lens models as judged by their “name” header in the “modules” table is about 1900 as of DPL 7.5.1 (Mac). This number also reflects the versions of a module for jpeg and raw, roughly 700 each. While modules for jpeg and raw are distinct, most cameras can save both jpeg and raw from a single shot.
Yes, completely agreed. And you can measure one (or perhaps more) and then apply variables corresponding to sample variation for whatever you are doing with the measurements.
Don’t forget that camera sensors are also measured for colour accuracy and then modules created for camera/lens combination.
I am guessing that these resulting modules are the foundation of working with raw files in PL.
On the other hand PL is able to handle simple JPG and TIF files so should be able to handle any file for which there is no module - if they choose to!
1 Like
That is because Ferrrari focuses more on Vineyards, Orchards and Greenhouses.
Sorry to turn your joke against you as another joke, but are you aware a lot of sportscars at least in Europe come from companies with foundation in agricultural machines? Are you happy with this „do you know… don‘t you“ attitude? Just asking… 
Here in Europe are still Porsches, Maseratis, Lamborghinis and Ferraris working on the fields…
2 Likes
This voluntary restriction is the reason DxO is better than the others. Using generic lens profiles would just downgrade the product to the same quality as anything else that uses generic lens profiles and lose their advantage in quality and being smaller, eventually lose out to other, larger, companies or the next social media darling that comes along and builds enough of a community to sell out to a larger company which laces marketing over quality even further.
Trying to maintain both the DxO profiles and a set of second-rate lens profiles will take time away from work on the DxO profiles and other first-tier features.
There’s no reason for DxO to do that as there are already open source and cheap alternative editors that you can use if you want lower quality lens profiles faster.
2 Likes
That fails to take the point why do users have to process in different programs when using phone DNG when they can process with lower quality jpg from the same phone. For phones lenses correction is built into most DNGs and all jpg and while the latter can be improved in PL but the former are blocked even though they usually up to 12 or 14 bit rather than jpg 8bit.
It’s a bad point. Re-architecting the raw developer to deal with raw images from a phone is a giant waste of time.
But I can process jpg from any camera or phone why block DNG just as they are from a phone?
No idea but my (cynical) guess is bad coding. As in, PL’s code is so poorly written it can’t be tweaked to figure which DNG files are genuine raw, i.e. unprocessed, files and which are processed files within a DNG container.
Which phone you have in mind? I would be interested to see some relevant DNGs, maybe downloadable from dpreview.
It’s very, very naive to think that way, I think. They are professionals and surely they have read DNG specs:
The following values are supported for the raw IFD,
and are assumed to be the camera’s native color space:
- 32803 = CFA (Color Filter Array).
- 34892 = LinearRaw.
Just my 5 cents. The problem is probably in some deeply buried technical details (e.g. DNG opcodes?), perhaps NDAs on “open standard” details interpretation. Maybe there’s a smartphone DNGs expert here to elaborate, as I’m certainly not the one.
I use a samsung 22ultra which is I think 14bit. I can use Affinity but it’d slow as I am more used to PL.
Umm, I think it was very, very, naive to think my comment was serious.
I see recurring requests for wider support of files by DxO’s software. This thread is one of these requests…but judging from its low number of votes, the need seems to be less than acute.
Therefore and for all who wish to get generic DNG support by DxO apps:
- Go to the top of the thread and add your vote!
Thanks
Maybe it was over-cynical and I’m often over-simplistic 
Sorry for that.
@John7 : Unfortunately no useful input from me.
I had a look at one DNG from Samsung mobile SM-S908B, said to be S22 Ultra.
To put it short - it looked like a normal RAW. It contained thumbnail and a full image, with PhotometricInterpretation=CFA(32803) and Bayer GR/BG uncompressed 16-bit data. WhiteLevel=1023, so only 10-bits per channel (not a big advantage over JPG, but still…), BlackLevel=0 and sensor readout noise=0 in NoiseProfile, hence probably preprocessed. There are GainMaps in OpcodeList2, but they are ignorable. Nothing else looking strange, but PL7.5 refused to load it. RGB TIFF produced by RawTherapee
was readable by PL, but with all RGB limitations (e.g. no DeepPRIME).
Searched support and found https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/9797950043293-Support-for-RAW-generated-by-smartphones , seems very well known:
In the case of current smartphones, it must be understood that to compensate for the technical limitations linked in particular to the extremely small size of the sensors and their photosites, the RAW files produced are not the raw data of a single shot, but an accumulation of ten to a hundred shots, taken in bursts, and undergoing a whole series of operations and treatments.
This is why, for smartphones, it is currently impossible for us to access the raw information before processing, which unfortunately prevents us from applying our advanced algorithms and guaranteeing unparalleled image quality.
It looks like DxO tries to be more perfect than it should.
However many votes something has DXO will ignore it unless its somthing they already are doing.
Because .dng could be an extension not related to the original content or simply a DNG wrapper for JPEG or something else. DNG may or may not contain the information that DXO needs, while Jpeg is not as ambiguous about what it is. DXO is primarelly a Raw processing app, hence its designed to work with raw and not just any raw but specifically supported ones, because that is the core aspect of differentiation between DXO raw processing and one done in other RAW apps who are not context sensitive about what lens and or camera combination was used for more accurate interpretation of the data. This becaomes obvious when one compares RAW from DXO and raw developed form some generic app. What DXO is selling is more than demoseicing or raw data, it also is selling correction of lenses used with the camera body and that is the key difference.
1 Like
The old red herring of why DXO ignores DNG makes you wonder how/why other processors mage to do it or why. As Wlodek points out DNG from a u22 ultra is a RAW as indeed are most phones DNGs and the number of times its been said here that phone DNGs can’t be RAW files is amazing. What it is is DXO is fixated in ignoring the growth side of photography weather you or I like it, phones. Cameras are in decline and I fear firms that ignore reality can face problems as not many of us using both cameras and phones are willing to mess about with more than one program to process RAWs that happen to be saved as DNGs
I’m curious. Tell me. Although other software may “cope” with phone DNG files, how many of them do targeted optical corrections and denoising at the demosaïcing stage? How many of them expect to convert from the “RAW” or “DNG” format to a TIFF before you get to touch the image at all?
2 Likes
No one is saying that phone DNGs need the DXO lense camera corrections they have that built in. Thats yet another old red herring that isnt what is being asked for. Allow DNG it work as jpg the corrections that pl RAW dos are built into most of them.