It could be that they were, and DxO released the product as-is with the intention of fixing the problems later. That’s happened before. Of course, it would be nice if DxO would list known bugs in the release notes and save their customers some trouble.
I look forward to seeing your example images. Thanks for working on that. Just to be sure: you also tried the moire correction setting at full strength?
full comparison will come. And yes I had, with moire 100% there’s still moire (less but still) and worse overall result.
It’s very probable than you can find examples “proving” that PL7 demosaicking deals better with moire than PL8 and you can find examples to “prove” the opposite. Hence you can be certain only that they are different, but it would be nice if we could find some rules when PL7/PL8 is better than the other. My initial opinion was based on only 3 photos with moire (all on birds feathers), so it’s almost baseless. Hopefully you have some obvious moire examples, rather than iridescent. My another initial opinion is that Moire tool in PL8 brings less artifacts than in PL7, so certainly there’s difference here too.
For maze I tried only one example coming from this forum. PL7 left huge areas with grid-like maze, while PL8 dealt with it really good. In this particular case, PL7 HighQuality noise reduction removed the artifact with suitable Maze setting, even with Luminance=0. DeepPRIME does not have the Maze slider in both versions. I’ll have yet to find and test those few examples with maze that I have.
There are dpreview studio scene raw photos available, some of which expose heavy moire and maze artifacts, but for some of them moire is probably impossible to remove by any software. I would prefer to see real life examples anyway.
I’ve been racking my brain trying out different examples. I’m not looking for a patsy, but some things are proving to be general with my images and my gear.
Still testing.
This should really be a priority to fix soon. I find it much more important to have a complete overview of the image, than to pixelpeep the details.
I did not yet have time to try PL8, but I got a feeling, it’s too little to be worth an upgrade. They really could have included the new masking options from Nik. However, I appreciate that they listened to some user feedback (tone curve and comparison mode).
Still missing in PL8.0: ‘Constrain to image’ checkbox in the Crop Tool.
Forgot to mention it because it’s so basic and obvious. It is VERY important to me (astigmatism problem even with viewfinder grid enabled in the camera, always framing a bit wider for possible distortion and perspective corrections). The ‘Auto based on keystoning/horizon’ mode is only a partial solution, as I often decide to change aspect ratio and/or resize and reposition the proposed crop.
I whole-heartedly concur with this.
I’ve been pouring into learning the DxO ecosystem.
I truly do miss that there isn’t an elliptical masking tool and the polygonal masking tool. Both of which are in Nik 7.
Hopefully they’ll be added to PL8 soon.
Tom
Just use the brush and eraser tools to make whatever shape you desire
As a general rule, DxO only adds major new features to PhotoLab with their annual releases. Interim point releases contain bug fixes, minor feature updates, camera support and lens profiles. Adjustable elliptical control point and polygon masks would undoubtedly be considered major new features by them. The likelihood of seeing those types of masks before the release of PhotoLab 9, which is a whole year away, is very small
Mark
Not without precedent (as I recall, back when U-Point tech was first introduced into PhotoLab), but I agree - very small likelihood. Nevertheless, as many of us know, this feature has been requested for a very long time, and so it was exciting to see it introduced in Nik this year. While some new Nik Collection features were also added to PhotoLab fairly quickly, a few other additions to Nik haven’t made it over - so PL8’s lack of new features from Nik is disappointing.
That was just about the only exception to the rule when additions were made to the LA equalizer in point releases of PhotoLab 1. We have to go back seven years for that.
Mark
I’m also very disappointed that:
luminosity mask and fine contrast are only in FP.
I know, but from a functionality point of view it has nothing to do with “film simulations” and therefore belongs to Photolab. It’s a shame that they want to push FP sales in this way.
yep and totally agree with you.
I’m guessing the reason for Luminosity Masking’s link to FP is that it’s based on the “zone system” as pioneered by Ansell Adams for B&W printing, back in pre-digital days.
It is not.
It has nothing to do with EV neither exposure, does not take into account camera dynamic range, etc … It is only a luminosity mask with 10 visual presets.
It was a very requested feature for photolab and they put it in FP.
which always been in nik collection, and looking the other way… FP film simulation are now part of Nik.