I’ll never will get a Fuji, I’ll never will get a x-trans chip. Why I’ll be forced to download the DeepPrime XD3 x_Trans module?
My proposal is to provide an option before installing DxO9 to decide what module should be downloaded.
1 Like
Cost: A “modular” implementation of PhotoLab might be quite interesting…if the price would scale accordingly. Redesigning PL for modularity will probably cause a lot of effort…that will eat up the potential user cost benefit. Nevertheless (and on Mac) PL uses some kind of modular approach, but it’s not so granular as to allow hiding features of a tool. The one workaround is to unselect the unwanted tools and store the new config as a custom workspace. Again, this does not allow to hide a function of a tool, but only the complete tool (e.g. Denoising).
Space: As of PL 9.1, denoising takes about 1MB of the 3GB application size on Mac.
Simple UI: Set a custom workspace and consider the caveat mentioned above.
2 Likes
To be fair to DxO, I imagine several possible reasons - and they aren’t for your benefit, but for the benefit of other users. DxO has a motive to put all of its features into a product (particularly during the free trial period) as a form of marketing to anyone who sees it running. They might also want to reduce requests for customer support or dependence on the Internet: for example, if a user acquires an X-Trans camera and doesn’t know how to add support for it to PhotoLab or PureRAW or doesn’t have Internet access for a couple of weeks. And hard-disk storage tends to be abundant on media workstations. Personally, I’m in favor of what DxO is doing now.
That’s an interesting point, but I hadn’t even thought about the costs. Up to V8.7, we always had to download PL completely, which was about 1.3 GB. From V8.8 onwards, the installation file was about 340 MB. Everything else was downloaded during installation. So there is modularity, but without a selection option. In the case of the optical modules, we do have a selection option. I only download what I need. Perhaps DxO is working on offering modules such as DP X-Trans as optional extras, but perhaps that’s not possible because the software is too tightly integrated. An explanation from DxO would help us understand.
DxO can present new powerful features or unique selling points much better in marketing campaigns. Currently, I receive a daily newsletter highlighting the features of PL9. A feature that I don’t need but am forced to use is rather counterproductive.
Ist das wirklich ein Argument? Bei der Installation brauche ich so oder so das Internet. Und ich weiss bei der Installtion doch schon, ob ich Fotos habe, die mit einem X-Tans Chip aufgenommen wurden. Und man sollte natürlich die Option des Nachinstallierens anbieten, warum nicht?
That’s true, but what about unnecessary download time or wasted bandwidth? DxO could launch an additional marketing campaign with a green footprint, similar to what Microsoft is doing. Just an idea.
But as noted above, perhaps we are discussing things that are impossible. It may be that the SW is so interlinked that modules cannot be separated. An explanation from the development team would be helpful.
2 Likes
I think its may also has some licence agreement: user own the ‘whole’ package (as PL9). Also take over some issues, when user forgot (after a year) he/she not install the Xtrans, and compliant why its not there. At overall, i thing is more safer to install ‘whole’
Absolutely, yes. You’re only thinking about the decisions being made prior to installing the software. What about users’ changing needs after the software is installed? People don’t acquire new cameras or share their software with other users or potential users?
If you acquire a camera that requires XD3x_Trans or loan your system to someone who does, then let there be an option to download the additional components as an elective option.
Microsoft Office used to have this capability (not sure if it still does, I’ve not used it in a while) where you could download e.g. additional language packs as they’re required.
I dare say the vast majority of users will not find themselves loaning a system to someone who needs “X” often, nor changing their camera system often.
Plus - happily - we already only download what optical correction settings we need too, as PhotoLab detects images that need them. For that reason (as a Canon user) I haven’t got every Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, DJI, Tamron, Sigma, etc. etc optical correction burning up space on my hard drive.
If PL can detect what camera/lens combo I’m using by reading EXIF data, it can load Fuji functionality for Fuji users at that point too. For the rest of us it’d save hard drive space, download time, and they could re-jig the UI so that it’s more streamlined too.
2 Likes