Expired Freebies

[DxO] Free Copy Of DxO OpticsPro 9

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 6th, 2017 9:53 am
Tags:
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 18, 2008
8063 posts
1897 upvotes
Mont-Royal
When you are out mean lenses, Dslr? So smartphones pictures are useless to this app?
"Every marathon you run, your heart scars and you will die faster. If you think running a marathon is fitness, then you know NOTHING ABOUT HEALTH & FITNESS."
- Training 101
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 13, 2002
19334 posts
991 upvotes
barrensky wrote: I saw on the website that this software is only for certain cameras, and mine (a Canon T2i Rebel) isn't listed. Can the software somehow tell what camera you're using by analyzing your photo files?
I thought T2i is 550D ... and it's on the support list ?
Member
Aug 22, 2006
323 posts
66 upvotes
Unfortunately does not work with my Fuji X-E1 or anything w an X-Trans sensor.

Great deal for those who can use it. Hopefully CaptureOne will be free soon :)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6181 upvotes
L4cky wrote: When you are out mean lenses, Dslr? So smartphones pictures are useless to this app?
Some smartphones like the LG G4 and G5 can shoot RAW files. So they will work with this app.
I am a Zoomer customer.
Member
User avatar
Feb 2, 2013
445 posts
387 upvotes
Salmon Arm, BC
willy wrote: I thought T2i is 550D ... and it's on the support list ?
News to me, but you're right, it's the same model with a different name. I downloaded it and gave it a shot. It made a significant difference on a few shots with weird lighting. Other than that it seems to stretch out the edges of the frame of some photos which I assume is that lens distortion correction feature. I'm obviously not a pro, but this will be cool to experiment with. Thanks for the help, gang.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6181 upvotes
barrensky wrote: News to me, but you're right, it's the same model with a different name. I downloaded it and gave it a shot. It made a significant difference on a few shots with weird lighting. Other than that it seems to stretch out the edges of the frame of some photos which I assume is that lens distortion correction feature. I'm obviously not a pro, but this will be cool to experiment with. Thanks for the help, gang.
Try boosting up the lighting feature. It's really cool. It makes the photos look really nice. At the default setting it makes a difference but if you crank it up the difference is night and day.
I am a Zoomer customer.
Deal Fanatic
Mar 5, 2007
7081 posts
6969 upvotes
SickBeast wrote: RAW files are pretty universal.
Unless you are talking about DNG RAW files (an Adobe standard meant to universalize RAW files, produced by very few non smartphone cameras), no, they aren't, not even close.

RAW files are proprietary in every way. Even if the filename extension is the same (say .CR2 which is a Canon RAW file) it doesn't mean that your specific RAW file is supported.

This happens ALL the time when new cameras are released. The first thing you'll read in most reviews of brand new cameras is that they weren't able to process the raw files because their software (usually Lightroom, or the software the camera manu delivers) doesn't yet support that particular camera. It has NOTHING to do with lens profiles (in the DSLR world new lenses are a generally rare thing, most people are using lenses that have been around for years, even decades).

If you're software doesn't support the RAW file from your camera, you are SOL for RAW support (actually, there is a way, you can use ANOTHER RAW converter to transform your RAW file to DNG, and then import it, but that's an extra step most people prefer avoiding). You'll either have to get different software, or process the JPG files (which has nowhere near the latitude of adjustments available compared to RAW files).

In fact, this is the MAIN issue with older software such as this, newer cameras won't be supported, and future cameras most certainly won't be supported. That's the trap, if you get a new unsupported camera you'll have to upgrade to a later version of the software.
SickBeast wrote: I'm talking about the lens correction. Even if DXO doesn't support your lens, all of the other features of the software will work. It's just one of the corrections that it does. Have you even actually used this software? If not, perhaps you should not be arguing with someone who has a lot of experience with it.
Lens corrections are only a very small part of what makes software like this so useful. In fact, lens corrections generally become less and less important as you go up the scale of lenses (better lenses generally have few distortions and aberrations that need correction).

FAR more useful in my opinion, and what differentiates one piece of software from another is speed of processing (importing of RAW files, processing the image, writing out the result), noise reduction (both luminance and color noise), and GUI. Those are the areas where this kind of software is able to differentiate from other options.

Hell, MOST better cameras these days do lens corrections right in the camera, and bake those adjustments in the meta data in the RAW file (sony does this), or write out the JPG with those adjustments implemented.

Have I used this particular version of software? No, I haven't, but after many years in this business I've tried my share (lots of versions of LR, some other options) so I am well aware of what I find most important in software such as this. I do plan to try this software and see how it performs, but the RAW file support isssue is VERY important, and you can't just gloss over it.
Last edited by repatch on Feb 4th, 2017 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6181 upvotes
repatch wrote: Unless you are talking about DNG RAW files (an Adobe standard meant to universalize RAW files, produced by very few non smartphone cameras), no, they aren't, not even close.

RAW files are proprietary in every way. Even if the filename extension is the same (say .CR2 which is a Canon RAW file) it doesn't mean that your specific RAW file is supported.

This happens ALL the time when new cameras are released. The first thing you'll read in most reviews of brand new cameras is that they weren't able to process the raw files because their software (usually Lightroom, or the software the camera manu delivers) doesn't yet support that particular camera. It has NOTHING to do with lens profiles (in the DSLR world new lenses are a generally rare thing, most people are using lenses that have been around for years, even decades).

If you're software doesn't support the RAW file from your camera, you are SOL for RAW support. You'll either have to get different software, or process the JPG files (which has nowhere near the latitude of adjustments available compared to RAW files).

In fact, this is the MAIN issue with older software such as this, newer cameras won't be supported, and future cameras most certainly won't be supported. That's the trap, if you get a new unsupported camera you'll have to upgrade to a later version of the software.



Lens corrections are only a very small part of what makes software like this so useful. In fact, lens corrections generally become less and less important as you go up the scale of lenses (better lenses generally have few distortions and aberrations that need correction).

FAR more useful in my opinion, and what differentiates one piece of software from another is speed of processing (importing of RAW files, processing the image, writing out the result), noise reduction (both luminance and color noise), and GUI. Those are the areas where this kind of software is able to differentiate from other options.

Hell, MOST better cameras these days do lens corrections right in the camera, and bake those adjustments in the meta data in the RAW file (sony does this), or write out the JPG with those adjustments implemented.

Have I used this particular version of software? No, I haven't, but after many years in this business I've tried my share (lots of versions of LR, some other options) so I am well aware of what I find most important in software such as this. I do plan to try this software and see how it performs, but the RAW file support isssue is VERY important, and you can't just gloss over it.
Please show me a brand or a format of RAW files that will not work with DXO. You should not be commenting without actually using the software first. Now you say that the lens correction is only a small part of the process (which I said to begin with) but you argued saying that if your lens is not supported then the software is pointless.

I know this software works with my own Sony camera and I have a friend with a Pentax camera who also uses it. I highly doubt that the publishers would limit their market by not supporting major camera manufacturers. Please share some actual facts with us with evidence rather than your own conjecture without actually having even tried the software first.

It would be like you going into your doctor's office and arguing with them when you didn't even go to medical school. If you're going to quote me and disagree with me, please at least know what you're talking about first.

By the way, here are the camera brands and RAW file formats that are supported by DXO:

Apple
Canon
DJI
Fujifilm
GoPro
Kodak
Konica Minolta
Leica
Nikon
Nokia
Olympus
Panasonic
Pentax
Ricoh
Samsung
Sigma
Sony

Please share with us a brand that the software does not support. It looks to me like they have pretty much everything covered! So like I said your FUD was completely useless to the thread.

By the way, I see you have 66 downvotes given but only 16 upvotes. That's pretty negative IMO. You're going to get a lot more out of positivity on here. Your posts in this thread have just been baseless negativity for no reason.
I am a Zoomer customer.
Deal Fanatic
Mar 5, 2007
7081 posts
6969 upvotes
SickBeast wrote: Please show me a brand or a format of RAW files that will not work with DXO.
According to:
http://media.dxo.com/commun/Cameras-sup ... -Pro-9.pdf

The following cameras are NOT on the list, cameras that I'm most familiar with, obviously there are likely to be others:

Canon 5D Mark IV
Canon 5DS/R
Canon M3
Canon M5
Canon 7D Mark II
Canon 80D
Sony a5100
Apple iPhone SE
Apple iPhone 7/7Plus

Note that while the first few cameras are pretty high up there, the 80D is probably the best selling Canon DSLR at the moment. The a5100 is a very capable and relatively affordable entry level MLC, and I don't have to mention the popularity of iPhones.
SickBeast wrote: You should not be commenting without actually using the software first.
Why? RAW file support is not a new issue, and is crucial to whether a piece of this kind of software is useful to a person. Granted the cost of this software not working for you is pretty much only the time to download and install it, it's still something to be aware of.
SickBeast wrote: I highly doubt that the publishers would limit their market by not supporting major camera manufacturers.
Actually, this is the MAIN reason many people end up having to upgrade software like this: they get a new camera and the version of software they have isn't supported.

It is something publishers have to do, since integrating support for every new camera can be a fair amount of work, and adding support for new cameras to old software wouldn't make them any money.
SickBeast wrote: By the way, I see you have 66 downvotes given but only 16 upvotes. That's pretty negative IMO. You're going to get a lot more out of positivity on here. Your posts in this thread have just been baseless negativity for no reason.
Seriously? That's a criteria for the validity of someones statements, how popular they are? Is this grade school all of a sudden?

I've supplied some facts, and some of my opinion which is based on a fair amount of experience. If you'd don't agree that's fine, but "downvotes" shouldn't help you decide this sort of stuff.

I understand passion, and you obviously are very passionate about a piece of software you have found extremely useful. That's fine, and I'm happy you are enjoying the photography experience beyond the "point and shoot" space. That said, I try not to let passion cloud my judgement (not always easy), it might one day lead one down the wrong path.
Last edited by repatch on Feb 4th, 2017 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6181 upvotes
repatch wrote: According to:
http://media.dxo.com/commun/Cameras-sup ... -Pro-9.pdf

The following cameras are NOT on the list, cameras that I'm most familiar with, obviously there are likely to be others:

Canon 5D Mark IV
Canon 5DS/R
Canon M3
Canon M5
Canon 7D Mark II
Canon 80D
Sony a5100
Apple iPhone SE
Apple iPhone 7/7Plus

Note that while the first few cameras are pretty high up there, the 80D is probably the best selling Canon DSLR at the moment. The a5100 is a very capable and relatively affordable entry level MLC, and I don't have to mention the popularity of iPhones.



Why? RAW file support is not a new issue, and is crucial to whether a piece of this kind of software is useful to a person. Granted the cost of this software not working for you is pretty much only the time to download and install it, it's still something to be aware of.



Actually, this is the MAIN reason many people end up having to upgrade software like this: they get a new camera and the version of software they have isn't supported.

It is something publishers have to do, since integrating support for every new camera can be a fair amount of work, and adding support for new cameras to old software wouldn't make them any money.



Seriously? That's a criteria for the validity of someones statements, how popular they are? Is this grade school all of a sudden?

I've supplied some facts, and some of my opinion which is based on a fair amount of experience. If you'd don't agree that's fine, but "downvotes" shouldn't help you decide this sort of stuff.

I understand passion, and you obviously are very passionate about of piece of software you have found extremely useful for you. That's fine, and I'm happy you are enjoying the photography experience beyond the "point and shoot" space. That said, don't let you're passion cloud your judgement, it might one day lead you down the wrong path.
So for those cameras that you list...the lenses are not supported but the RAW files are. It's not as though Sony or Canon is going to suddenly change their RAW file format. So the software will still be 90% effective.

By the way I was not talking about your own popularity or lack thereof. I was talking about the upvotes and downvotes that you have personally given others. The vast majority of your votes have been downvotes. And I have seen a trend with users with such a voting pattern.
I am a Zoomer customer.
Deal Fanatic
Mar 5, 2007
7081 posts
6969 upvotes
SickBeast wrote: So for those cameras that you list...the lenses are not supported but the RAW files are. It's not as though Sony or Canon is going to suddenly change their RAW file format. So the software will still be 90% effective.
Aside from the iPhones, none of those cameras are fixed lens.

I think there is a misunderstanding here about lens support, and camera RAW file support, they are NOT the same.

Lens profiles are either supported by the software, or baked into the meta data of the RAW file itself, meaning software such as this doesn't NEED specific support for your lens.

Canon generally does NOT embed lens profile information into their RAW files, to support corrections your software will need to have a profile for your specific lens.

Samsung and Sony cameras embed those correction profiles into the RAW files, so your software doesn't need it's own profile (although it can have one if it feels it's profile is better suited to what the lens manu has included, this can be very beneficial with "extreme" lenses like fish eye lenses).

Now, that aside, time for RAW file support. This support is completely separate from lens profile support.

As for your statement, actually Sony recently DID change their RAW files. Up until the latest cameras there was a minor form of lossy compression applied to the RAW files of Sony cameras. This reduced file size, but in very specific circumstances aberrations could be seen. For reference, have a read here:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/28340 ... ompression

So, yes, RAW files DO change, often with zero notice given to anybody since these are proprietary formats, and there is zero reason for manus to broadcast those changes.

Software makers had to basically reverse engineer these formats to enable support in the beginning! These days I'd assume there is SOME sharing of info, but I can't state that as fact.

Again, for MANY people this won't be an issue, since it's likely they are going to use a camera that was present when this software was last supported. But going forward, it will become more and more of an issue. It's how this space works.
Deal Fanatic
Mar 5, 2007
7081 posts
6969 upvotes
SickBeast wrote: By the way I was not talking about your own popularity or lack thereof. I was talking about the upvotes and downvotes that you have personally given others. The vast majority of your votes have been downvotes. And I have seen a trend with users with such a voting pattern.
Ahh, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

In general I pay very little attention to the "votes" in a thread. Over my many years I've (obviously) given very few votes, either up or down.

For upvotes, I restrict that to posts that have personally helped me, i.e. most recently the public mobile $38/month for 4GB thread OP, I'm pretty sure I gave an upvote for that.

For downvotes, I restrict those to posts that are abusive/mean/cruel or simply just out of line, but aren't "bad" enough to warrant my submitting a report. As a result, unfortunately, an asymmetry in my up/down count is to be expected.

Sorry for the confusion.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 14, 2009
15168 posts
6181 upvotes
repatch wrote: Ahh, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

In general I pay very little attention to the "votes" in a thread. Over my many years I've (obviously) given very few votes, either up or down.

For upvotes, I restrict that to posts that have personally helped me, i.e. most recently the public mobile $38/month for 4GB thread OP, I'm pretty sure I gave an upvote for that.

For downvotes, I restrict those to posts that are abusive/mean/cruel or simply just out of line, but aren't "bad" enough to warrant my submitting a report. As a result, unfortunately, an asymmetry in my up/down count is to be expected.

Sorry for the confusion.
Fair enough, and you do actually seem quite knowledgeable, helpful, and kind. I have experienced downvote abuse on here personally and it's really not nice. So perhaps my own feelings about that got in the way. Thank you for your detailed replies in this thread! And I'm sorry I went there re: the downvotes!
I am a Zoomer customer.
Newbie
May 30, 2016
16 posts
12 upvotes
Anyone else enter their email and not get anything? I haven't gotten anything on my Gmail and I entered it yesterday.. :(
Deal Fanatic
Mar 5, 2007
7081 posts
6969 upvotes
UncleRico. wrote: But... https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articl ... 0-cameras-

This specifically states I can't use dxo with my Fuji.
Yes, x-trans is a "dilly of a pickle":
https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-tran ... e-problem/

Engineering is always a game of compromise. In the case of X-Trans, basically, they were trying to battle the AA filter that WAS in front of almost every CMOS sensor at the time. The purpose of the AA filter was to reduce moire, especially in video. By having a larger "repeating pattern" then bayer (what almost everybody else uses) the instances where moire were obvious were lessened.

Then technology progressed, pixel counts shot way up, and software methods for dealing with moire were within reach of the processors of cameras. As a result, a good portion of the newest top end cameras have removed the AA filter, and software has been doing a great job of keeping the moire at bay.

The result is the main benfit of X-Trans has in many cases been lessened, and in some cases disappeared. This has exposed those with that sensor to a big issue: lack of research on how to de-mosaic X-Trans colour patterns.

Bayers filter pattern has been with us for quite a while (1976 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter). As a result, there has been a TON of research into algorithms to minimize the artifacts of de-mosaicing a bayer colour filter pattern. X-Trans is much newer (looks like 2012 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor) and there simply hasn't been as much research into how to de-mosaic an image captured behind an X-Trans sensor without the artifacts that are liable to appear.

The research is being done, and the results have been improving, but at the moment there are definitive situations where the artifacts can be quite apparent.

DXO's position, while unfortunate, isn't too surprising.

I personally LOVE the X-Trans idea, increasing luminance resolution while giving up colour. Almost every single thing you've ever seen on your TV has made a similar tradeoff (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling), and it's a good one since the human vision system is much better at seeing detail vs colour.

Bayer has served us very well (imagine still having three CMOS sensors in every imaging device, along with the prisms to split the incoming image three ways!), but improvements can always be made!

Anybody have experience with how well LR does with X-Trans sensor cameras?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 28, 2013
19886 posts
9319 upvotes
Oakville
SickBeast wrote: So for those cameras that you list...the lenses are not supported but the RAW files are. It's not as though Sony or Canon is going to suddenly change their RAW file format. So the software will still be 90% effective.
I don't know if they're changing RAW file formats specifically (though, as mentioned, manufacturers DO change raw formats from time to time), but I know that raw processors won't be able to even OPEN raw files for cameras released after the software was released. That's why Adobe has to release updated versions of Camera Raw whenever new cameras get released.

Top