Probably yes. Sounds like the key question, also for some other file formats. My guess is that DxO uses a modified libraw library to read/decode the metadata and the raw image (but NOT demosaick), at least for some cameras (look at license files). Libraw currently supports Leica Q2 monochrome, but DxO doesn’t (afaik). Note that DxO DeepPRIME works only for standard Bayer and (partially) for X-Trans CFAs, not monos, so you may see now some business reason why DxO has choosen not to support raw mono. I’m not sure about chromatic corrections or lens sharpness optimizations for mono sensors, but on the other hand geometric corrections would add some DxO value. Whether this DxO decission was “right” is up to them to figure out. Maybe we are all too naive to discuss it.
Poorly. I’m also a C1 user for certain low ISO raws or high ISO rgb tiffs exported from PhotoLab. Capture One is focused on low ISO photography and it implements only “classic” denoising, so it works on noisy photos quite poorly. I don’t think it does any better than RawTherapee or Darktable freeware in that respect. C1 has its strong points elsewhere, like face retouching.
Monochrome sensors have better quantum efficiency and hence lower photon noise on photosite input, so they have an advantage in higher ISO, shorter shutter times, not to mention sentimental or style points. However, good denoising algorithms were researched mostly for Bayer CFA, so higher ISO efficiency for mono takes a hit here, not mentioned by “mono-marketing”. Probably there are better solutions for military, surveillance, or medical use, but they wouldn’t be practical for standard photography, e.g. because of processing time (which is a key factor for software like PL, C1, LR, Topaz, etc.). Does anyone know how well do the new LR or Topaz denoising algorithms deal with monochrome sensors?
Note that most of denoising research was done for sensors with Bayer filter array (CFA), including that made by Jean-Michel Morel and his students, some of which work(ed) for DxO.
Good point. Big companies can afford making claims that sound good for many, most importantly software reviewers, but are then used in practice only by a few. DxO is not big enough for that. If it’s not useful for you, then just don’t use it. What is worrying, is that small companies seem to have financial problems due to diminishing incomes – few young people care about classic photo editing. Or am I wrong?
Hopefully DxO gets some money from other sources, like royalties from smartphone or medical equipment makers (?).