This is why I told generally.
And anyway, I like to get what I buy. And I bought it. So it should work.
I don’t know if they sample this by distance.
I generally need to play with sharpness slider which is generally too high with new 1 default value.
So it anyway seems to have some subjective appreciation in how this tool operate. Don’t know if an objective “make my lens better” tool is fully realistic.
this was about Sony ARW raw files that do carry known tags and DxO PL6 not using that information … what .CR2/.CR3 files have to do with this discussion about Sony .ARW files ? if there are no known tags with focusing distance like in Fuji RAF raw files than nobody blames DxO for not getting that info ( nobody does ) … but if tag is present, known - then go and fetch it, instead sitting for years w/o any progress … and this is even more stupid given the claim about the effort allegedly invested in lens testing ( not that sane people believe that all combos are really physically tested, not to mention that proper test like LensRentals does involves many samples of lenses and not just one )
I do not know either, but what if ? chromatic aberrations certainly can be affected by changing the way optical elements of the focusing group are positioned inside the lens , again that might be less noticeable vs geometric distortions ( and of course lateral CA are just how RGGB,CMYE, whatever other sensel arrangements we have, are geometrically distorted vs each other )
This thread is about PhotoLab differences on Win vs. Mac and if we think of such differences as of issues, we might as well widen our field of view in order to make eventual improvements act in a more general way.
Hang on guys, if this feature is Sony specific it would mean creating completely different profiles for their lenses and cameras. It also means the profiles we know and love for all our other cameras and lenses are effectively crippled.
I’d like to see some examples of the benefits of this feature before complaining so ardently about its absence. This feature would seem to be more important the worse the lens. Ideally lenses shouldn’t vary all that much at different focus distances and should not need an enormous amount of correction.
Photographers who care about distortion should probably avoid camera manufacturers who primarily rely on electronic correction (hint: Sony). Low-end Canon lenses are also awful but is the low-end lens crowd really using tools like PhotoLab?
Can someone show some examples of the benefits of this focal length correction, even using other software?
Here’s the example for PhotoLab:
Thanks Platypus. Note:
Distortions between FD set to 60m (DPL max.) and 4m (shooting distance) almost the same (nil).
Extreme close distances with wide angle lenses seems a good case for ViewPoint manual correction. Even what seems technically correct could look wrong. If DxO can automate such corrections for focal length across all manufacturers so much the better. Not sure why Sony should get special treatment, as reconciling the manufacturer corrections with DxO corrections would involve redoing the corrections for all focal lengths. And in that case DxO could make the same additional measurements for all camera and lens combinations, including focal length distortion.
Distortion depends on distance and focal length settings of a lens. We can see that in the example I linked to above. Nevertheless, DxO will only be able to correct distortion (and other properties of a real lens) if metadata provide enough information to clearly establish at what FL and FD a photo was taken. Alas, not all camera models do this, depending on (age of) model, (version of) camera firmware, (version of) lens firmware and more. And if something has gone off in the sensors for FL and FD settings, we might also get info that is simply wrong. A kingdom for manual overrides! (Also in module selection, but we’re not dealing with this here.)
The raw information on focal distance appears to be present in Nikon NEF files when used with autofocus. It’s probably true of Canon as well. So there is no Sony innovation here, just clattering of cymbals as usual.
Making the lens database focal distance aware – that’s a huge project. Taking the manufacturers’ word on the right corrections would go against the whole original point of the OpticsPro/PhotoLab project (better lens corrections).
Quite a conundrum.
Actually, PhotoLab already is…in many (but not all) cases. If metadata are conclusive, the sliders for focal length and -distance are greyed out on Mac and the tools are hidden in Win. As soon as metadata is inconclusive, the sliders will activate. I had checked my 60 (Canon) test images and found active sliders with photos taken with old bodies and zooms mostly. Photos taken with newer bodies and prime lenses all had the necessary data to disable the sliders.
DxO already using the distance info for some camera models w/o letting people any option to correct the distance in UI 
…
I’m okay with that. If the focal distance is recorded then that’s where the photographer was aiming so correcting for that distance is just fine.
Dear @Franky
maybe this Are dop files the same on pc and mac - DxO PhotoLab - DxO Forums will be a point for your list.
best regards
Guenter
Hi,
What if we helped DxO identify the differences between Win and Mac ?
After a long time without activity on this post, I will continue, please help me update if there have been changes with the last versions.
Not present in Win
Not present in Mac
Different between Win and Mac
Please tell me what you found as a difference, I will update the list, thanks
- DOP files aren’t the same in Mac and Win
Does this mean that when I change from Win to Mac, my Win dops will not work/render in Mac when I navigate to an image folder?
Related aside … I don’t know Mac architecture at all. In Win I have a drive d:\ and put all my images in an image folder thus:
d:\images\camera make\camera model\reverse-date description
so a typical structure might be:
d:\images\Nikon\D800\20190101 London Trip
On the Mac, there is only one disk so what is the best place and structure to adopt please?
Clive
Not at all. The DOP files are readable, it’s just that their internal layout is different.
The default is the Pictures (in English) folder under your user folder…
But you are free to place your images wherever you want. There is no concept of drive letters, just volume names. I use an external SSD through a high speed USB-C connection and can’t tell I am not working from an internal drive…
Ejecting and reconnecting always uses the same volume name.
Thank you Joanna (I’m sorry but I have not yet mastered links and quotes).
In anticipation of moving, I copied my images to a Sandisk external SSD (formatted such that both Win and Mac can read it) though whether that is up to Mac speeds I don’t know, but it performs well enough on a Windows USB 3 port. Initially I was planning just to plug that in to the Mac and access the files to see what happened! I will, of course, update my backup copy before going that far. Then, I need to decide whether to continue using this method or to copy the files to the Mac and in doing so, move the ‘master’ set (and the SSD becomes a backup resource).
The disk is a Sandisk Extreme Portable SSD Model SDSSDE61-2T00
Well, I would say just keep your files on the SSD and work on them from there. You’ve chosen a 2TB drive so that should give you more space than the internal drive.
Personally, I would only use DOP files and ignore the database, as it could get confused if you accessed the files from both Windows and Mac. That way, you can always scrap the database if necessary.
You could also do what I have done and bought an ordinary external disk (costs less) and use SuperDuper to clone the SSD onto that every so often
Due to differences in what DPL does on Win vs. what it does on Mac, DPL will only be able to understand and display the things they have in common (the green slice in the image below…but differences are not as huge as the image suggests, phew!)
…and loose sensible search in the process - unless you re-index the lot afterwards.
