I'm trying DxO version 6. Much tidier interface. Pleased to see the Sony A900 and Sigma 12-24mm combination is now supported (as I seem to have an excellent copy of the Sigma). Automatically loads the modules you need for supported cameras and lenses. Looks to be a worthwhile upgrade.
Anyone else using V.6?
Quentin
Full Version: DxO V.6
QUOTE (Quentin @ Nov 6 2009, 08:00 AM) 
I'm trying DxO version 6. Much tidier interface. Pleased to see the Sony A900 and Sigma 12-24mm combination is now supported (as I seem to have an excellent copy of the Sigma). Automatically loads the modules you need for supported cameras and lenses. Looks to be a worthwhile upgrade.
Anyone else using V.6?
Quentin
Anyone else using V.6?
Quentin
I have been using DXO for just over a year.
I like its workflow and the quality of images it produces, especially noise reduction. Been using the trial version of V6 for a few days, and while I don't get any more modules from the release that are of use to me, I do find it more intuitive, so I will be upgrading.
Funny that other sites like DP Review have not even acknowledged this release.
Have used and owned Capture One, and ACR and like this the best of the three.
I'm really hoping they will make a module for the new Panasonic GF1 with the 20/1.7, it's a fabulous little camera, but it's quite noisy when compared to a FF sensor. Think DXO will really make this camera shine.
QUOTE (Tom H. @ Nov 9 2009, 06:18 AM)
I'm really hoping they will make a module for the new Panasonic GF1 with the 20/1.7, it's a fabulous little camera, but it's quite noisy when compared to a FF sensor.
I guess that the combined release of DxO V6 and the Nikon D3s could really open new doors as well, ISO 12800 will get used on a daily basis by sports and concert shooters...
Cheers,
Bernard
Just installed DXO version 6... a bit disappointed by what will probably be a detail to many: They seem to have removed from the output options the possibility to direct output to a subdirectory of the original files:(. You're limited to sufffixed file names, or to specifying the full path - the previous version allowed you to specify a subdirectory of the original one.
Why would anyone choose to REMOVE features from a version..? Sigh.
Why would anyone choose to REMOVE features from a version..? Sigh.
I have only worked up a few images but so far I like it. They have added some features. The interface looks better.
I know that sales always rushes the product to market before production is through with it so many some of the features will be forth coming in a few weeks. The Photoshop plugin is not yet available for V6 but will be soon they say. It was the same for V5.
I still like final product in DXO better than any other RAW converter.
I know that sales always rushes the product to market before production is through with it so many some of the features will be forth coming in a few weeks. The Photoshop plugin is not yet available for V6 but will be soon they say. It was the same for V5.
I still like final product in DXO better than any other RAW converter.
QUOTE (Stephane Desnault @ Nov 11 2009, 02:43 PM)
Just installed DXO version 6... a bit disappointed by what will probably be a detail to many: They seem to have removed from the output options the possibility to direct output to a subdirectory of the original files:(. You're limited to sufffixed file names, or to specifying the full path - the previous version allowed you to specify a subdirectory of the original one.
Why would anyone choose to REMOVE features from a version..? Sigh.
Why would anyone choose to REMOVE features from a version..? Sigh.
I'm not sure where the choice of a subfolder for the output exists, but I do remember seeing it somewhere in the new version 6. I think the choice was to a subfolder marked "DXO," but I'm not sure whether there was also an option for choosing a different name for it.
I liked version 5's processing quality but not the interface. V. 6 seems to have a more intuitive and functional interface, more easily customizable.
I have a question about the relationship of DXO v6 and Lightroom. If I process a file in DXO and save it as a DNG, is it really a RAW file with a sidecar file associated with it? Would further processing in LR (or CS4's Camera Raw) still be on the RAW file with the adjustments made in DXO available? Or would I be overwriting the DXO adjustments? Or is the file really a "pseudo-DNG," and no longer a real RAW file?
QUOTE (walter.sk @ Nov 12 2009, 10:40 AM)
I'm not sure where the choice of a subfolder for the output exists, but I do remember seeing it somewhere in the new version 6. I think the choice was to a subfolder marked "DXO," but I'm not sure whether there was also an option for choosing a different name for it.
I liked version 5's processing quality but not the interface. V. 6 seems to have a more intuitive and functional interface, more easily customizable.
I have a question about the relationship of DXO v6 and Lightroom. If I process a file in DXO and save it as a DNG, is it really a RAW file with a sidecar file associated with it? Would further processing in LR (or CS4's Camera Raw) still be on the RAW file with the adjustments made in DXO available? Or would I be overwriting the DXO adjustments? Or is the file really a "pseudo-DNG," and no longer a real RAW file?
I liked version 5's processing quality but not the interface. V. 6 seems to have a more intuitive and functional interface, more easily customizable.
I have a question about the relationship of DXO v6 and Lightroom. If I process a file in DXO and save it as a DNG, is it really a RAW file with a sidecar file associated with it? Would further processing in LR (or CS4's Camera Raw) still be on the RAW file with the adjustments made in DXO available? Or would I be overwriting the DXO adjustments? Or is the file really a "pseudo-DNG," and no longer a real RAW file?
DxO will do demosaicing (and some NR) and lens corrections (ca, geometric distortions, vignetting, etc)... you will have linear DNG... so certain things you will not be able to undo in LR...
QUOTE (Arizona @ Nov 11 2009, 07:54 PM)
I have only worked up a few images but so far I like it. They have added some features. The interface looks better.
I know that sales always rushes the product to market before production is through with it so many some of the features will be forth coming in a few weeks. The Photoshop plugin is not yet available for V6 but will be soon they say. It was the same for V5.
I still like final product in DXO better than any other RAW converter.
I know that sales always rushes the product to market before production is through with it so many some of the features will be forth coming in a few weeks. The Photoshop plugin is not yet available for V6 but will be soon they say. It was the same for V5.
I still like final product in DXO better than any other RAW converter.
After having tried many different programs, I am convinced that DxO is the best RAW converter, especially when lens/camera correction modules are available. I gather that the actual RAW processing has not changed significantly with the latest upgrade. Heretofore, I have relied upon Lightroom for fine tuning and file management of DNGs that are outputted from DxO. I expect that I will continue in that fashion with v6, once it appears for Mac.
Rob
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.