mwsilvers
(Mark - New Jersey, USA, Win10, RTX 4060, PL9, FP8, VP5, Nikon Zf )
21
This is where we differ. I strongly believe that FilmPack in an integral part of the PhotoLab experience and every one should own a copy.
However, I have always been in favor of a single copy of PhotoLab with the embedded features from FilmPack and Viewpoint included and visible without the need of a separate license and without the standalone versions. It would have to be more expensive then PhotoLab Elite without the embedded features, but with no standalone software it could be priced more reasonably.
I was using Affinity to stitch panoramas - until I found Microsoft ICE (Image Composite Editor), which is a MUCH better tool for this purpose … tho, for PC only (and, be aware that it’s no longer supported by MS).
1 Like
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
23
I agree Joanna XD2 is definitely an improvement.
The image quality it can produce is absolutely stunning
I have already seen a substantial improvement over old XD.
I have reprocessed a few folders and it looks very good.
Just a shame that we didn´t get it a long time ago because it has been ready to ship a long time.
The first is exported with old XD.
Picture taken in Rindö Harbor Vaxholm Sweden (former old naval- and coastal artillery base) from my balcony when the super moon was to see.
(Look especially at the sky which is clearly mor blotchy than the one below
Yes, but … that enables us to view only one version followed by another … Not side by side.
I’m struggling to perceive any significant difference in the two versions (that would justify the longer export time - versus “good old” DeepPRIME) … But I’d be happy to be convinced otherwise.
My experience of DeepPRIME XD2s means that it will replace DeepPRIME in my default presets.
I originally tested out XD on some of my night shots from Singapore and it was prone to inventing textures in smooth areas. The Force Details slider could be backed off to eventually eliminate them, but I was never happy with the result.
In testing XD2s, I found simply clicking that button and changing nothing else produced near perfect results on all the same images. At ISO 25600 or below (my normal range) the default XD2s was all I needed. In some cases I was stunned by the detail it pulled from the file. I even sent a couple to DxO who concurred they were also impressed how it did.
I downloaded all 3 images and put them in a separate folder to then view them at 100 and 300% with my default viewer (FastPictureViewer → screen and viewer set here to sRGB).
The third one set aside, where I see grain, flat colors and most probably no sharpening …
the first pic has the best colors, contrast, sharpness and shows the smoothest sky as well the least artifacts on the road sign with the yellow background,
whereas in the second image the deep shadows are lighter and therefore the overall contrast and sharpness appear lower, I also see (well at 300%) blotches in the sky and on the yellow road sign.
That said, all three pics are JPEGs and they come with some compression.
cracking update I think - loupe tool is so useful and the luma curve I am using all the time. preview filmpack etc on picture is such a help as well. keep up the good work DXO
Are any other settings the same on both images ?
XD2s results are more “luminous” and 'contratsy".
But maybe less nuances in the dark areas (trees)
-EDIT (after better comparison) - : nuances seem better for all values. (maybe loss of colors on the frame of the window or maybe only sky casted colors less visible).
Indeed there is lot less haloing (I hope this is the right term) along lines of high contrast.
Could you post the same image with deeprime for a full comparison ?
