Unscript
Active member
Out of curiosity, could you share the link?
Question to DXO pure-raw users
- Thread starter thelordofthelight
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I purchased Photolab 8.0 during the Black Friday sales in November of last year. It was an upgrade from PL7, so I got both a discounted upgrade price as is DxO's custom, plus the Black Friday discount. I've not used Raw, but prefer Photolab Elite as it is a fully featured suite of processing tools.
Excellent software.
Cheers,
Alex
I’m using pureraw 4. Latest version.
Waiting for feadback from the members here before I pay for the upgrade.
Waiting for feadback from the members here before I pay for the upgrade.
I'm not at the computer but this message on my account for photolab 8 makes me think it is free:
You own the most recent version of this software, but you have not necessarily installed the latest free update on your computer. To make sure, please download and install from the link in the block opposite to this message.
You own the most recent version of this software, but you have not necessarily installed the latest free update on your computer. To make sure, please download and install from the link in the block opposite to this message.
Bill, looks like 8.5 will be a free upgrade. Let me know.
Also, will 8.5 with PureRaw 5 algorithms allow one to just process NEF files using the PureRaw 5 in PL 8.5? Same as if I only had PR5?
If so, I may upgrade to PL 8.5 for $30 more than just doing PR5.
I've sent a support request to DXO for this information.
Also, will 8.5 with PureRaw 5 algorithms allow one to just process NEF files using the PureRaw 5 in PL 8.5? Same as if I only had PR5?
If so, I may upgrade to PL 8.5 for $30 more than just doing PR5.
I've sent a support request to DXO for this information.
Last edited:
Bill, it is free. When I booted up my version of Photolab 8 this morning, a message came up that version 8.5.0 was available for updating. I clicked on download and update, and all was good - no charge. Since I don't own a Fujifilm camera with an X-trans sensor, the new beta version of Deep Prime3 is of no use to me, but that may change in the future as I've been considering a Fujifilm camera.
cheers,
Alex
Alex, DeepPrime3, on its own, has nothing to do with the FujiFilm X-trans sensor. PR5 is a complete re-write of PR4 and the new DeepPrime3 will work with your same files.
I am waiting to hear from others who upgrade to PR5, one way or another, just how much better it is than PR4.
Jon
Last edited:
Quite right, Jon, I should have said Deep Prime XD3 X-trans beta which is also included - at least in the free update that I installed today - in PL8.5.0.
Sorry for the confusion - I blame my clumsy, arthritic fingers!
Cheers
JP Onstwedder
Well-known member
First impressions from PR5 v PR4. Deep Prime 3 is faster but otherwise very very similar to Deep Prime 2, without the 'extra detail'. I tried it on a handful of high ISO images (over 8000) and the results are to me indistinguishable. But PR5 took on average 6 seconds per images and PR4, just over 10, so the speed improvement is very nice. The interface is similar, you now can rename files including the original raw image but it doesn't 'ingest' as such. you can paint a mask for local adjustments which are limited to different settings for denoise and sharpening - useful for a subject against a plain background I would think. Nice upgrade but not revolutionary.
Wort to wait until Black Friday…
Great 1st impression feedback!
The batch processing and re-naming are not important to me as PR4 works just fine in keeping my RAW file names as part of the DNG file name. I keep both.
I'm surprised about the interface as DXO claims it has been completely re-written/designed.
I'm going to check if I can d/l a trial of PR5 and compare some files to PR4.
Thanks again JP.
Jon
I have used pure raw since version one and have put 10’s of thousands of images through each version. Having said that, I am very impressed with the version 5 software. It’s Noticeably faster, has more options and the results are better IMO. I am very glad I purchased it and have zero regrets.
Regarding the lens correction slider:
Why would I want lens correction less then 100% ?
Let the correction be a yes/no checkbox, and the added sharpnenig should be on a slider with more control.
The entire idea of calling no added sharpening “Soft” is wrong IMO
Two things Joel..I may be confused....
I am pretty sure that PR5 adds more control regarding lens correction and sharpening. I have basically been using 'Standard' with PR4. As a Nikon Z lens user, DXO provides specific corrections for my lenses. Capture 1 uses the embedded lens correction from Nikon. I have heard that it is not as robust or good as DXO.
So, DXO does the Lens Correction first and then I import the file into CP1. It resides as a DNG with my RAW file in my Referenced Library.
I have just ready..Tod Lawton..that since DXO does the lens correction and sharpening-you should Turn Off the Sharpening (set to 0) for the DNG image in CP1. Otherwise, the file will be adversely over-sharpened. My CP1 Sharpening was at 120 default. I have yet to do a real comparison since I just read about this tonight.
It seems logical.
So Sharpening and Lens Corrections in DXO must be properly set and then imported into your PP program (CP1 for me..LR for many).
Work in progress.
Jon
This is exactly my point here.
The confusion is by design by DxO.
I have written about this on this forum, and complaint to DxO directly.
There are 2 different types of processings going on.
1) Lens correction profiles.
2) Adding additional sharpening.
Soft = Lens correction profiles only.
Standard, Strong, Hard = Lens correction profile, PLUS good old fashioned unsharp mask sharpening
Those 2 processes should not be married in one drop down.
The issue with Pure Raw performing image shapening before any editing is two fold: a) Sharpaning should be performed at a later stage in post processing. b) When using PureRaw sharpening, it can no longer be sharpened properly in Adobe ACR, LrC, etc, with additional sharpening because the image appears extremely unnatural over sharpened, which is unacceptable.
Last edited:
Unscript
Active member
Sorry if I missed something in the discussion, but isn't the point of DXO's denoising and lens correction technology that it's performed on the Bayer (or X-Trans) data to be more effective?
You can't do the denoising and lens corrections later in the post-processing anyway because you'll amplify the problems (I explained that in another thread), so you'll usually want to do that right after demosaicing. Here they do it before or at the same time.
And if you do it with DXO, you don't need to do it again later in the post-process with another tool anyway.
For the vignetting correction, some people want to correct less than 100% because they consider that artistic. But from what I see, PureRAW has a slider for the lens sharpening only. I suppose it's the same argument: some people prefer when the corners are softer because it gives a characteristic look; that's why they appreciate lenses with a dual character that are softer at the widest aperture and quite sharp after 1/3 or 2/3 stops. A complete correction doesn't please everyone.
I finally figured out you mean "C1", not "CP1" ;- ) because "capture", is the "C", and "One" is the "1". CP1 makes no sense unless you've come up with a new name for it like "capture processor one". ;- )
I also use C1 and have for over 20 years. I'm reading this thread because I'm about to start using DXO for some things.
JP Onstwedder
Well-known member
I think there are almost as many views on how to sharpen digital images as there are developers of image processors! Most, though, differentiate between at least two stages of sharpening: at the demosaicing stage, and at an output stage. The former is what all raw processors do when turning raw data at pixel level into RGB data for further processing and is an integral part of the algorithms that perform that function. For example, the blue filter in a camera lets through a range of wavelengths of light, and that range has to be mapped to a blue luminance value. For a range of pixels where that luminance value decreases or increases from very low (high) value to very high (low) values, the software has to make discrete steps and that is akin to sharpening: the transition from bright to dark can be softer or harder depending on the algorithm, and the specific settings.
After you process your image, and create an output file, a similar process has to happen and in that case (and sometimes in the first stage, too, depending on the colour space and depth you use for processing) the input has more details (levels) than the output so the discrete steps are even more important. If the input data is 100-95-90-85-...10-5-0 in 20 steps, and the output data only allows for 8 steps, then you have to choose how you map that input data. In an extreme case, that could be 100-100-100-100-0-0-0-0 so a single step - which would be oversharpened.
It's further complicated by the fact that our eyes are not linear either. Hence raw processors are complicated algorithms and why there are real (albeit small) differences.
I'm no expert so forgive any mistakes in the above and if anyone knows better how this works, please jump in and correct any errors!
You don’t have to use lens corrections at all. Once you put your settings in there, you can click on the image and select edit instantly in pure raw and those settings will be there from the last time which is what I do. So unless it’s a problematic image I never go into the program and tweak anything. I never use lens sharpening but do use lens corrections such as distortion and have never had any issues. I’ve not tried lens sharpening on this version but in my opinion it was too aggressive in the previous versions.
This video compares the new interface with the old, there are some differences. I especially like the addition of sliders in addition to drop down. Overall I think I'll stick to photolab for now. The lens correction and unsharp mask are separated into two different controls, I keep unsharp mask off as dxo recommends if a dxo module is available for that camera and lens combo, I keep lens correction on, though and there is a slider for that. Even so one can go overboard. A way to judge back in lightroom is to go the sharpening and set amount to 1 then hold alt while clicking radius. You see how crunchy it can get even with radius at minimum.
Last edited:
Bill, thanks for posting AM's review. It was an eye opener for me.
Most importantly I discovered that DeepPrime XDs/XD likely has not changed and is my choice. DeepPrime3, while new, does not meet my usual needs.
And more to Joel now...the Lens Correction slider merely gives one customization between the values for Soft, Standard, Strong, and Hard. No big deal for me.
And since there is no separation of sharpening from Lens Correction, I will consider turning off C1 import sharpening of the PR's DNG file.
It appears that this issue may be the same for LR as well (I do not use).
Yes, PR5 offers masking to further Denoise isolated sections. I am not sure that this will put this over the top for me yet.
And, I have no issues right now with the Lightbox organization and re-naming in PR4.
So, bottom line.....the reason I use PR4 is how great a Denoising job it does for my needs compared to C1. And, if PR5 has not improved DeepPrimeXDx, then what is the benefit to upgrade?
Am I missing something?
Most importantly I discovered that DeepPrime XDs/XD likely has not changed and is my choice. DeepPrime3, while new, does not meet my usual needs.
And more to Joel now...the Lens Correction slider merely gives one customization between the values for Soft, Standard, Strong, and Hard. No big deal for me.
And since there is no separation of sharpening from Lens Correction, I will consider turning off C1 import sharpening of the PR's DNG file.
It appears that this issue may be the same for LR as well (I do not use).
Yes, PR5 offers masking to further Denoise isolated sections. I am not sure that this will put this over the top for me yet.
And, I have no issues right now with the Lightbox organization and re-naming in PR4.
So, bottom line.....the reason I use PR4 is how great a Denoising job it does for my needs compared to C1. And, if PR5 has not improved DeepPrimeXDx, then what is the benefit to upgrade?
Am I missing something?
Looks like only DeepPrime 3 is new and the Fuji version of DeepPrime XD3/XTrans Beta. My camera/lenses are supported. I've reached out to DXO to confirm.
I need help! LOL! I'm very confused. I bought PR4 on sale last year. I have gotten great results from it.
BUT......I have NO adjustments, settings, etc. Just one automatic process. Below is the only screen that comes up when I open PR4.
I'm not seeing all the adjustments you guys seem to have. Any idea why?
BUT......I have NO adjustments, settings, etc. Just one automatic process. Below is the only screen that comes up when I open PR4.
I'm not seeing all the adjustments you guys seem to have. Any idea why?
These are only in pure raw 5