DxO

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.advanced,rec.photo (More info?)

www.dxo.com

Anyone used this program? "Better image" is rather subjective, so I'm
curious what others think.

Thanks!

--
Carl Miller
carl_miller23@hotmail.com
www.stellarphotos.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.advanced,rec.photo (More info?)

Reviews:

http/www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/optics-pro.shtml

http/www.dpreview.com/reviews/dxoopticspro/

Phil

Carl Miller wrote:
> www.dxo.com
>
> Anyone used this program? "Better image" is rather subjective, so I'm
> curious what others think.
>
> Thanks!
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.advanced,rec.photo (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:37:41 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Phil Wheeler
<w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Reviews:
>
>http/www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/optics-pro.shtml

I have only looked quickly, but this to be a review of a product which only
worked on JPGs, not raw files. I've been trying the raw converter, but am
having problem understanding the corrections available to the user.
Distortion and vignette correction have user controllable sliders. If they
have analyzed each lens, as you have to purchase a component for each of
your lenses, then why is this?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On January 23 2005, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
> I have only looked quickly, but this to be a review of a product which
> only worked on JPGs, not raw files. I've been trying the raw
> converter, but am having problem understanding the corrections
> available to the user. Distortion and vignette correction have user
> controllable sliders. If they have analyzed each lens, as you have to
> purchase a component for each of your lenses, then why is this?

Well... "better" is subjective (which is why I asked about the program
here, hoping to get more than the one or two opinions I found in the
reviews out there) so perhaps sometimes you might WANT your wide angle
lens to LOOK like a wide angle lens.

(That's one reason that comes to mind anyway.)

--
Carl Miller
carl_miller23@hotmail.com
www.stellarphotos.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:40:50 -0600, in rec.photo.digital
carl_miller23@hotmail.com (Carl Miller) wrote:

>On January 23 2005, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>> I have only looked quickly, but this to be a review of a product which
> > only worked on JPGs, not raw files. I've been trying the raw
>> converter, but am having problem understanding the corrections
>> available to the user. Distortion and vignette correction have user
>> controllable sliders. If they have analyzed each lens, as you have to
>> purchase a component for each of your lenses, then why is this?
>
>Well... "better" is subjective (which is why I asked about the program
>here, hoping to get more than the one or two opinions I found in the
>reviews out there) so perhaps sometimes you might WANT your wide angle
>lens to LOOK like a wide angle lens.
>
>(That's one reason that comes to mind anyway.)

Personally, I don't like sliders by themselves, as making repeatable inputs
is a PIA.I saw on the reviews that the distortion correction for the kit
lens was less than what was needed according to the reviewer's testing. If
so, it would be nice for the sliders to go to greater than 100%. I really
don't like the interface itself. But that's a personal issue.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http/edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On January 24 2005, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
> Personally, I don't like sliders by themselves, as making repeatable
> inputs is a PIA.I saw on the reviews that the distortion correction
> for the kit lens was less than what was needed according to the
> reviewer's testing. If so, it would be nice for the sliders to go to
> greater than 100%. I really don't like the interface itself. But
> that's a personal issue.

I agree it is a bit "overly simple" although I've seen some screen shots
of older versions and it looks like it's more "tweakable" than it used
to be. I need something like this program, and honestly I really like
Capture One, but I don't shoot everything RAW, so Capture One won't
really work for me. I was looking for something else and came across
DxO. It's not perfect either, but it's still in a fairly early version
(2.something) so I figure it'll only get better. (Yeah, I know, I'm
being naive.) I like the fact that it will batch correct both .jpg and
RAW files, and it definitely does better RAW to .jpg conversions than
Canon's software. (I converted a RAW file to .jpg using Canon's
software, Capture One, and DxO, and to my taste, DxO did the best job,
Capture One was second.)

I haven't even tried Photoshops RAW converter. From the reviews I've
read I didn't think I needed to bother.

--
Carl Miller
carl_miller23@hotmail.com
www.stellarphotos.com