DxO Optics Pro v4: The RAW standard?
Written: Nov 22 '06 (Updated Mar 09 '07)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Optical compensation (if lens/camera is supported), excellent RAW converter, adaptive sharpening, v4.1 bug fixes, FilmPack
Cons: Slow and unstable preview rendering (v4.0.2), of limited use without camera/lens support
The Bottom Line: OpticsPro v4 offers finally an agreeable cost structure -- just make sure to get v4.1 or higher for stability and speed.
|
|
|
| theuerkorn's Full Review: DxO Optics Pro V4 Standard |
With digital cameras booming, the initial expectation is often that a good camera delivers good pictures and all you have to do is printing. Should you ever be that lucky on a regular basis, please let me know how you did it. For mere mortals, the output typically requires some tweaking, we it to re-arrange composition, correct for exposure problems or simply compensate for design inherent optical problems. Whatever the problem, in many cases even a good picture can be improved.
DxO Labs recently released v4 of its highly regarded Optics Pro converter, and finally came to their senses regarding the pricing model. Now all lens modules are included depending on the supported camera. This is much more agreeable than buying the software and each module separately. Yet it's not cheap, and at $149 for the Standard version DxO Labs finally offers a tempting enough package for me to consider branching out from my typical use of Canon's Digital Photo Professional (fast and easy) and Adobe's Camera RAW (for more complicated cases).
This review is based on ...
- Canon EOS 20D (supported)
- Canon Digital Rebel* (supported)
- Canon Powershot SD800 IS (not supported)
- Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM DO (supported)
- Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM (supported)
- Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro (not supported)
- Sigma 70-300mm APO Super II* (supported)
* ... retired, used old pictures (RAW)
(Note: "Not supported" describes a lack of a optical module for this specific device. DxO functionality is reduced.)
DxO Optic Pro v4 can be purchased at
www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro
WHO NEEDS DxO OPTICS PRO?
It's easy to say that everybody might profit from the functionality that Optics Pro brings to the table. However, at $149.- it's really only worth the investment if your SLR and lens combination are supported.
For basic adjustment to JPG and RAW, most users will be fine with the included software by their camera manufacturer. They know the configuration best and such programs a typically designed for ease of use.
Optics Pro v4 is great for enthusiasts and professionals that simply "need" more, and even Photoshop's CameraRAW doesn't deliver all the goods. In that case the difference between the Standard version and the Elite is simply which camera you own, other functions are the same.
However, to a large degree DxO's Optics Pro is more valuable at solving problems associated with wide angle lenses and lens softness. Other than that, the difference to competitive programs is less significant than you might think. Further, there is also a Starter ($79) and an Elite ($299) edition. The only difference is in the included optics modules (supported cameras and lenses).
IN A NUTSHELL
I have to admit that I have been waiting with my purchase until an offer of some sort was offered since $149 is a steep price no matter how you look at it (especially when already owning CameraRAW 3.6 / Photoshop CS2). So it just happened that DxO Labs "celebrated" the Canon 400D and Nikon D80 release with a $20 discount. (It's still a good idea to download the fully functional 30-day trial first.)
The first contact can be daunting as the interface tries hard to streamline the process but also feels limited (for those that don't like to follow structured processes). The interface is pretty and there is a high degree of automation that may ease the pain. But painful it is for those that want to dive deep into each parameter as some naming convention and the palettes require an hour or two to get used to. (I typically pride myself in being a quick learner when it comes to software.)
The time invested in understanding each parameter pays off mostly in previously complicated geometry problems -- should your picture show distortion (especially in wide angle). Granted, every change that re-arranges pixels also reduces sharpness, but the results of DxO are quite respectable -- especially if you have pixels to spare (i.e. Eight MPx or higher). Lens softness is often mentioned in reference to Canon, as the standard rendition is typically "softer". Knowing the characteristics of a lens allows to compensate for this phenomena without creating the dreaded halos (over-sharpening). Another feature worth mentioning is the color balancing using up to 4 additional samples. (It's typically only three: white, midtone, black.) They can be applied directly in the picture by clicking on a pixel and adjusting the displayed color wheel. However, it sounds easier than it is in practical use. (Make sure your monitor is calibrated.)
The big surprise was that most of the Optics Pro's power is unusable if the recorded lens / camera combination is not supported. I had luck with 3/4 of my lenses being supported for the EOS 20D, but my favorite macro lens EF-S 60mm f2.8 wasn't. That means than none of the features that make DxO special are usable for those picture. Fortunatley, distortion is minimal by design (of this fixed lens). Nevertheless, this limitation is still annoying when it has to be "perfect". (--> almost complete: CameraRAW 3.6)
Once used to the workflow and aware of the limitations that stem from the lens support, the biggest remaining annoyance is two-fold. The preview rendering may be very accurate but it is also one of the slowest I have ever seen. Change a parameter and the program is going to redraw for several seconds. (A faster processor than my X2 4200 may help.) Even more so annoying is the instability that surfaces especially in the recent update v4.0.1 when refreshing the preview frequently. Ultimately the resulting crash can be very disruptive as there is no recovery function to resume an unsaved project. These two issues are currently severe enough to justify my overall rating! (See end of review for updates.)
WHY RAW?
Unlike typical acronyms, RAW really doesn't stand for anything other than the word implies - "Unprocessed". In the case of a digital camera, that means that the recorded image is more a faithful capture for each pixel without any modification. In the case of the popular Bayer sensor, that means each pixel is recorded in typically 12 bit (4,096 shades) of the respective primary color or 1/3 of the full color spectrum (Red, Green or Blue).
RAW offers great flexibility since the picture is recorded in a true 12 bit color depth per primary color while JPG for instance is limited to 24 bit for the whole spectrum (8bit per primary). When post-processing a RAW picture it's much easier to extract detail (i.e. dark portions), while JPG easily shows problems in form of banding or posterization. Further, JPG pictures are already baked (i.e. White Balance) and the actual picture is harder to correct since there is no known reference (unless you also placed a reference card like WhiBal in the picture). The popular picture modes in consumer cameras also alter the picture and processes like sharpening and saturation are not reversible. An extreme case might be shooting in B/W, where a JPG has no recoverable color information while RAW pretty much just holds a parameter in the EXIF data to instruct the viewer to consider this a B/W picture. The parameter can be reversed and color restored.
So if JPG is "bad", why not use TIFF? Despite this format being quite capable of recording the full depth of a typical DSLR, the output file is simply too large (typically 2x - 3x compared to RAW), since the 12bit information for each missing color component needs to be added to each pixel. And of course the picture would also be baked and harder to correct.
If all this doesn't convince you, keep in mind that DxO algorithms are based of the RAW recording and the related EXIF data. For any given picture without the proper EXIF data (camera model, shooting parameters etc.), Optics Pro v4 is reduced to basic white balance adjustment (with exposure, tone curve, HSL), chromatic aberration correction, sharpening via "Unsharp Mask" and contrast correction using DxO Lighting. All other features are pretty much disabled. --> An expensive tool.
DETAILS
Modules: [n/a] - Unlike most other RAW converters, DxO scales its product via available modules instead of reducing functionality. Depending on the camera body, you get to choose between 3 different software versions. The lenses are then matched to the body and don't need to be purchased separately anymore (as in v3.5 and below). Make sure to check www.dxo.com whether your particular camera is supported and if you need the Starter, Standard or Elite version. Also make sure that you get the most out of DxO Optics Pro by checking if your lens is included. This is typically no problem for lenses of the same manufacturer, but can be difficult if you use Tamron or Tokina lenses (or worse yet even less known third party brands).
Interface: [***--] - It's pretty, no doubt about that. However, it's also confusing in the "Enhance" step as the tools on the left top use the same icons as the palettes on the right. Similarity is alright due to their cross reference, but it is confusing to find the multipoint color balance palette disabled until you pick the same icon on top. Further, once in a mode one can open a different palette and forget what the active tool is, but some functions are miraculously disabled. This is mostly relevant for the white balance tool and the need to have the Select tool enabled for much of the geometry enhancements. So study the effect each tool has on the availability of parameters in the palettes to avoid long scavenger hunts for the right button to click.
Workflow: [****-] - First you open or create a project. This can be skipped but for conversion (the final step) you still need to do one of the two. That's a very professional approach and slightly hinders the ad hoc approach most home users may have developed. Then pictures (out of different folders) can be added to the stack and organized in the next step. (A flow diagram right underneath the menu bar keeps track of your process and allows to jump between steps.) In the organizer, one can assign a rating which is similar to Adobe's Bridge, but in this case also controls the priority and selection in the final conversion step (multi-threaded). But before you basically get to enhance your picture, which can be done fully automatically (based on settings in EXIF data and histogram) or partially automatic to fully manual. The latter can be frustrating for beginners while the first leaves me with the uneasy feeling that I may have to compromise. The general thought for the workflow is good (especially for structured professionals), but the frequent redraw (approx. 6 sec. of idle time) every time you make any change in a palette feels excessive.
Automation: [*****] - Optics Pro v4 basically allows three degrees of interaction: Full Auto, Guided, and Expert. The first profits greatly from DxO's expertise in measuring optical properties and applying adaptive correction algorithms. This is only advisable when you equipment is supported (and you don't use two lenses with the same zoom range which could be mixed up). The Guided setting is slightly more interactive with predefined settings for color, optics, sharpness and lighting. (I.e. you want it sharper and more saturated than normal.) The Expert mode allows full interaction with every single parameter (with exception of those predefined and fixed in the lens module). This is where most perfectionists will spend their time with DxO. The Full Auto delivers good enough results when the actual picture is fully described and of good quality to start with (and if you're not planning to send those out to a professional service).
Correction: [****-] - The one great feature that stands out in Optic Pro are the optical modules that allows unbelievable correction based on measured characteristics of a typical camera / lens combination. The achievable correction is more advanced than any competitor, though this is only really important for wide-angle lenses and/or related imperfections. A good standard or telephoto lens typically has no significant problem and may render this feature less significant. Nevertheless, go wide and DxO will be an invaluable helper, especially the incredible Volume Anamorphosis. (Related to distortion but different image geometry phenomena depending on lens design.) There are extensive tools to correct geometry issues, like drawing a line to level the horizon or forcing two known lines to be parallel. Unfortunately there is no grid overlay to judge the result.
Lighting is an interesting helper to help out with tricky situations by simply detecting typically underexposed portions of the picture and extract more detail. Nice, but use it carefully since it also increases the contrast and may cause banding. It appears to be turned on by default (medium) and may cause issues if your histogram is shifted intentionally to one side or the other (by trying to spread it across the whole spectrum). Color correction can be very easy using a reference card and apply the changes to a number of pictures.
Quality: [****-] - Even DxO Labs cannot perform miracles and the results are still greatly dependent on the quality of the raw data (photo). Yet, with the body / lens combination supported, the achievable quality is impressive. Distortion correction retains much of the original sharpness and adaptive sharpening as well as noise reduction (depending on lens properties and picture details) make it possible to create smooth dark areas and still retain or improve sharpness in the details. Best results are gained from RAW files due to the greater depth of color to work with and the availability of the full data directly from the sensor. JPEG has naturally slight limitations there since it's already limited to 24 bit and pushing exposure one or two stops can reveal noticeable banding. Using my Canon 20D as the best reference I have, pictures have never been sharper (despite my extensive use of CameraRAW and DPP), while color correction can be more difficult. Daylight appears to be a little yellowish at first, at least compared to the cooler default (AWB) in my Canon.
Performance: [***--] - Using Optics Pro v4 in the Expert mode for enhancing the picture is a true test of patience. Simply redrawing the preview takes 5 - 6 seconds on my system and a redraw is triggered very often (even by enabling a feature with changing a single parameter). This is even with giving DxO top priority on my computer. Using a color sample correction is innovative, but greatly limited by the program's intent to update real-time and dragging the adjustment slide becomes a drag (and ultimately harder to control). Granted, most of the slow performance results from DxO's drive to display the preview as accurately as possible (before conversion), but it still feels slooow in the Expert Enhance mode when comparing it to Adobe Lightroom 1.4, Lightcraft Lightzone 2.0, Canon DPP 2.2, Pixmantec Rawshooter or Adobe CameraRAW. Using Phase One LE as a reference, changing the Tone Curve with enabled overlay for over and under exposure is virtually instant there, while in DxO it's a far cry from real time.
The Full Auto conversion is roughly the same speed as mentioned competitors with a few seconds per picture (8 MPx) to apply settings and create a final picture (JPG). Preview and the interface don't utilize my dual core process to more than typically 50% (single threaded), but Conversion (process) generates up to 4 individual threads (one per picture) and manages to load my CPU to 100%. Not sure if that scales for quad core CPUs or more memory. On my system, the conversion of 106 pictures (8 MPx) to JPG took roughly 40 minutes. [See update section below for performance changes!]
Stability: [*----] - I mentioned before that especially v4.0.2 (build 1522) has stability issues, at least on my system. (WinXP SP2, Radeon x1900XT @ 1600x1200 32bit, Catalyst 6.11, AMD X2 4200 , 2GB RAM, WD Raptor) The issue seems to be closely related to the render routine as even moving other windows across DxO Optics Pro v4 can trigger a crash once DxO tries to redraw. Frequency is fairly high and you have a good chance to crash the program at least during small photo session (i.e. 5 - 10 pictures). This seems limited to the Expert Enhance step and I have not observed issues in the other 4 steps of the workflow (including the viewer -- step 5). In fact, I recently ran into enough trouble with DxO Optics Pro v4, that I simply switched back to Canon's DPP to actually finish the conversion of 10 pictures I needed quickly. Hence the rating! ... [See update section below for stability changes!]
© 2006, theuerkorn
UPDATES
[4-Dec-2006] - Optics Pro v4.1 has been released today to address the preview render speed. For example RAW image preview is claimed to be 2 to 4 times faster than in v4.0 and the remaining previews are roughly 2 - 3 times faster. That's certainly an improvement, but sounds a lot faster than it really is/feels. Hence it's still not the speediest editor around, but more agreeable. The other major issue wasn't mentioned in the release notes, but stability seems to have improved as well. At least I was not able to reproduce the typical crashes of version 4.0.2 within the first day. Until end of 2006, the new DxO FilmPack is free ($59 value) with DxO Optics Pro v4.1. It's an easy way to reproduce the style of many conventional films in digital pictures. (Colors and grain.) This is generally possible with "any" imaging software, but not easy and not consistent either. DxO makes it easy to hit the exact look of Kodachrome, Tri-X, Velvia and 17 other films -- everytime. A minor fix but worth mentioning is the interface, where the co-dependence between the palettes on the right and the tools on the top required redundant clicks. A slight improvement to reduce redundancy is claimed in the update, but less significant than I hoped for. Yet, overall improvements were significant enough to gain back another star. Revised Ratings for ...
Performance: [****-] (was ***--)
Stability: [****-] (was *----)
Overall: [****-] (was ***--)
[17-Dec-2006] - After completing a few projects with one being over 100 photos big, the stability has proven solid and the initial problems appear to be resolved. Further, the powerful functions of DxO Optics Pro v4.1 have become more and more an indispensable tool in preparing my RAW pictures. With mastering most options came the certainty that this is the best RAW editor I have used.
[28-Feb-2007] - An user issue surfaced when trying to convert a given project twice and pictures marked "already processed" (Green check mark) simply would not be processed again despite deleting files from the output folder, unless starting a new project. It turns out that the output format in the Process pane holds the key. Remove the current output format (i.e. JPEG) and the green check marks will go away. Adding the format again allows to process the previously locked images again.
[9-Mar-2007] - Version 4.2 has been made available simultaneously with the introduction at PMA2007. The update is free for all 4.x users and offers (smart) vibrancy adjustments as well as finally a grid overlay. Precision in adjustments has been improved too. For early adopters, the latest release now supports Windows Vista. The associated Filmpack has been updated to v1.1. The upgrade costs $49 according to the webstore (free if you purchased v1.0 after January 7th 2007), and the full price has been raised to $69. (A special offer note indicates that another price increase may be around the Only v1.1 owners can download a standalone application mid-March for free (no DxO Optics Pro required).
Caution: Optics Pro 4.2 installs FilmPack v1.1 until the evaluation period ends (after 21 days), then the FilmPack 1.1 will expire (unless activated) and the FilmPack v1.0 will remain active.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.