[robgo2]

DxO's current roadmap shows both the K200D & the K2000/K-m. Their turnaround time on their published road map has been approximately 1 month of late so I would expect K200D/K-m modules in June.

Best,
John

John, I had never seen this roadmap. Thanks for posting it. It is very encouraging.

Rob

[robgo2]

Given the announced processing power of the K-7 what would you need DxO for?

What is this "announced processing power" of which you speak, and how would it replace a RAW conversion program?

Rob

[thibs]

What is this "announced processing power" of which you speak, and how would it replace a RAW conversion program?

Rob

Rumoured distortion, CA corrections in body.

[robgo2]

Rumoured distortion, CA corrections in body.

That would be great and would mean that I would then disable the CA and distortion modules in DxO. However, the vignetting and lens softness modules would still be necessary as would the camera-specific noise reduction module that removes noise before demosaicising and the geometry correction module. Perhaps more importantly, DxO's basic RAW conversion process is the best that I have seen, independent of individual lens correction modules, and I would want to continue using it.

Perhaps the day will come when all of this processing will take place within the camera, including basic RAW conversion (to a RAW or DNG file, not a jpeg). That day is not yet here.

Rob

[thibs]

That would be great and would mean that I would then disable the CA and distortion modules in DxO. However, the vignetting and lens softness modules would still be necessary as would the camera-specific noise reduction module that removes noise before demosaicising and the geometry correction module. Perhaps more importantly, DxO's basic RAW conversion process is the best that I have seen, independent of individual lens correction modules, and I would want to continue using it.

Perhaps the day will come when all of this processing will take place within the camera, including basic RAW conversion (to a RAW or DNG file, not a jpeg). That day is not yet here.

Rob

Agreed but I suppose it was the point behind the comment about the "announced processing power" of the K-7.

[falconeye]

Given the announced processing power of the K-7 what would you need DxO for?

DxO deconvolves missing resolution from a lens. Something in camera correction will lack horsepower for. For some time to come, still ...

[robgo2]

DxO deconvolves missing resolution from a lens. Something in camera correction will lack horsepower for. For some time to come, still ...

They talk about the lens softness module performing a de-blurring function, which is distinct from sharpening and is tailored to the specific softness characteristics of a particular lens.. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Whatever it is, it works.

Rob

[falconeye]

Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Whatever it is, it works.

Funny that you quote my text when asking the question. Because it was the answer Deconvolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[robgo2]

Funny that you quote my text when asking the question. Because it was the answer Deconvolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gee, thanks for the reference. The explanation could not be more convolved, at least to a non-technical sort, such as me.

Rob

[MrApollinax]

Think of it this way. You have to people holding a long piece of rope at the same level. This is the "perfect" state. Say that one person starts to move his end of the rope up and down creating waves in the rope or distorting the level of the rope. The other person can move his side of the rope so that the rope remains straight and level so long as he counters the movements of the other person as long as he knows what the other person is doing.

Now take that and apply it to light. Imagine light travels in a straight line. As it passes through things the light bends and is distorted so that it can hit the sensor of your camera to capture the image you are lining up. DxO's modules are able to mathematically derrive what types of distortions each tested lens creates and is able to cancel out those distortions thus bringing the image back to it's "perfect" state.

[causey]

Jem and Rob, thanks for your answers to my question.

I have another one: can DxO do anything about cornes softness. In particular, has anyone noticed improvements in this respect after DxO processing of pictures taken with Pentax 18-250mm (a nice lens, however, with some bothering corner softness). Thank you in advance.

[falconeye]

In particular, has anyone noticed improvements in this respect after DxO processing of pictures taken with Pentax 18-250mm

It improves the corners, as it does the center, for this lens. Nevertheless, the corners still suck. However, just not that much anymore. I attached an example (forgive the photographic quality -- I normally don't keep both PEF and DNG ...)

The original is PEF developed with LR.
The DxO image is processed by DxO with lens corrections only (distortion, vignetting, lens softness), saved as DNG, and then treated by LR like the original.

The efficiency of DxO is lower at high ISO. But nevertheless, DxO brings the quality of the 18-250 on par with standard zooms.

A comment regarding the sample shown below:

You can increase sharpness in the original using an UnsharpMask filter (USM). For the border crop, a radius of 4px and intensity of 200% must be used in an attempt to approximate the DxO quality. Still, the DxO crop has lots more detail. Moreover, if you apply an USM (radius 1px, intensity 100%) to the DxO crop, then you obtain a perceived sharpness not feasible with the original crop. And more detail. So, the effect cannot be reproduced in Photoshop...

[causey]

Falconeye, thank you very much for your effort of posting the before/ after DxO developments. Indeed, the difference is noticeable (and more). If DxO can have this effect for shots taken at 250mm, I suppose it can produce wonders for shots taken below 100mm. (Although I think I'm still going to add the 16-45mm to my 18-250mm for superior quality.) I'll keep in mind your suggestion about applying the UnsharpMask filter to DNG's from DxO! I can barely wait the addition of the K200D module.

[thibs]

Falconeye, thank you very much for your effort of posting the before/ after DxO developments. Indeed, the difference is noticeable (and more). If DxO can have this effect for shots taken at 250mm, I suppose it can produce wonders for shots taken below 100mm. (Although I think I'm still going to add the 16-45mm to my 18-250mm for superior quality.) I'll keep in mind your suggestion about applying the UnsharpMask filter to DNG's from DxO! I can barely wait the addition of the K200D module.

Yes this result is very interesting. I don't trust the website examples (nor do I for any others). Too easy to chose ideal examples. Mmm may they hurry K-7 and 16-45 support.

[Canada_Rockies]

DxO can be used for lenses other than those supported and improve the base raw provided the body is supported. It is not as miraculous as when the combination is supported, but it does work on the sensor/AA filter "flaws".

I agree that it is slower than molasses in January in Iqualuit, but I find it quite easy to upload the photos from my card when I get back from a day's shooting, and then go to bed or have a suitable beverage and something to eat while it chugs away. The time it saves me in LR and PS E 6 is well worth the wait. DxO is stand alone and doesn't even need me for anything except horizon correction (no problem in LR) and keystone correction. I seldom take photos that need keystone correction, and tilts can be fixed in LR, although it does not have the nice option to automatically make the maximum crop.