Photoclubalpha

Just taking a look at Kilpatricks post on how well DXO works on Sony RAW images makes me upset knowing that Sony isn't going hard on either buying DXO alltogether or buying the software directly into the Alpha Line! Sony, knowing that the number 1 complaint with there dslr's is noise should by far just solve the problem. Hell I'd buy a noiseless A700 over a noisey A900 all day. Just my thoughts that's all. Its just making me wonder if its a political reason why the noise has been addressed with Nikon but not Sony... is something holding Sony back from makeing dslrs with equal image quality to Nikon for sales reasons? Further more... could Sony address hi-iso noise with a serious Firmware fix? Its just strange.

I saw the noise from the Canon 7D... at 18megapixels it has less noise at ISO 3200 than some ISO 800 Sony images I've taken from what I see... and this is before processing. I mean damn, if DXO is the best converter and Sony's pockets are so deep... then why dont we have our solution yet? Is it the whole "we're only going for the coveted number two position in DSLR's" (after they're firmly number 3) Chime in with thoughts...

WHY ARE WE STILL, AFTER ALMOST 4 YEARS STILL BATTLING HI-ISO NOISE?

Deep pockets don't always mean you can buy what you want! and IF Sony bought them, would they still be the same? Sony may mess with them and then they'd just produce so-so software.

Maybe it would just be best if they worked with Sony to imbed DXO into the sensors or processing circuits. Perhaps they already have, as DK suggests.

Licensing DXO as an OEM version of RAW processor would be a good idea. Even if it ONLY worked with Sony cameras and lenses.

Dusty

I doubt Sony would shell out the cash for a DxO deal.
There are alternatives available..at the very least they could re-vamp IDC and fix some problems there.
I don't think it hurts to have decent software, look at Nikon, they have done ok with Nik software.

Given up on IDC myself, just too annoying to be useful in the long term. And it makes your raw files look like the in camera jpegs, which in Sony's case is the last thing you want to do! lol

it collapsed (Stable Win XP Machine) too many times (i'll say, at least one crash for three images), it had the tendency to produce sharpening artifacts even if I turned off sharpening altogether, and it seemed to apply NR when I wanted it not too. It has many strength, but I'm really not sure it's THE best RAW converter.

Yagil wrote:it collapsed (Stable Win XP Machine) too many times (i'll say, at least one crash for three images), it had the tendency to produce sharpening artifacts even if I turned off sharpening altogether, and it seemed to apply NR when I wanted it not too. It has many strength, but I'm really not sure it's THE best RAW converter.

I agree. I do not know how you can PP a picture if to see most adaptations you have to go to 100% view and just see a fragment. I know of no other software that requires this. Also the processing times are prohibitive, 10 times longer than C1! I do not know if there is a best RAW converter as you probably cannot order them linearly. Best compromise for me at the moment is Capture One but I wish that (1) they would incorporate a dust-tool and (2) make their geometry correction as good as the one in DxO, i.e. based on the lens used.

I have IDC, SilkyPix, Capture One, DxO, LR and CS4 and I still tend to use LR just cause it is so much easier to use other than the fact that it tends to mess with the exposure of the RAW files when imported.

Same here - got all the convertes, and always end up using LR or ACR, both of which are extremely fast and intuitive even if not the best for image quality.

David

Yagil wrote:it collapsed (Stable Win XP Machine) too many times (i'll say, at least one crash for three images), it had the tendency to produce sharpening artifacts even if I turned off sharpening altogether, and it seemed to apply NR when I wanted it not too. It has many strength, but I'm really not sure it's THE best RAW converter.

yer, The latest point release has been crashing on me has well. been working on a 1000 photo project (just holiday pics, nothing interesting ), seems after I've been working on the project for over 1hr and it's memory foot print grows to +1G then it's starts crashing. My PC has 3GB RAM Windows 7 RC.

I set DxO to do 215 A700 raws to 5120 pixel export earlier today. It finished them on an iMac 24 2.16gHz with other programs open, on medium memory hog setting, at a rate of 48 images per hour. Unfortunately it also prevented Photoshop from running after DxO had been quit, because (I assume) it did not clear either its memory or its disk use correctly - and left the Mac inoperable, forcing a hard emergency shutdown to get back working. No data damaged, but very unwelcome.

David

Been looking at DxO forums, the impression I get is that DxO place image quality above stability , speed and UI

stevecim wrote:Been looking at DxO forums, the impression I get is that DxO place image quality above stability , speed and UI

That must be why their results are so horrible at low-mid ISO...

It's only the high ISO where they have a clear edge over competition.
But then again, I get better results at high ISO with a simple Ufraw thingie... but then I get no automation...... but even without automation I get the results much faster......... hmmmm

Well I guess I must be very lucky, because I can use DxO and Photoshop CS3 at the same time in my Core2Duo 5500 - 3GB RAM - Windows Vista laptop, and also get fine results. I really like the automatic distortion-CA-vignetting correction, color rendering profiles and dxo lighting modules... I found them very easy to use and always can leave the computer working overnight so I don't find the processing speed that important really.
I agree that DxO is a memory hog, it's slow and heavy, but I prefer quality over speed anytime. And, of course, "quality" is totally subjective
I also like Capture One and Raw Therapee, but DxO gives me much better results and the workflow feels more natural to me.