On 7/11/2014 8:50 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
FSM writes:
In my long ago test, DxO's deconvolution specifically developed foreach lens couldn't beat Focus Magic on the lens
I tried, and a couple of my most used lenses didn't have DxO profiles.
That test was interesting but not exactly what might determine DXO Optics Pro (DOP) utility in your workflow, IMO
anyway. Several versions ago they recognized the elephant in the room and instead of having to save a 16 bit tiff to
disk then open it in PS, you can just do what you need to do in DOP and export directly--quick.
Yes, I've just done that. BUT, it must demonstrate superiority to alternative
Raw conversion to justify buying/using it.
Also you used the default slider positions--asking alot of defaults.
I have just done my first comparison. One of my biggest interests is in shots taken with the 75-300 @ 300 mm.
Traditionally, the long end of long zooms is the softest and I use that a lot.
I chose a shot at quite a distance, at least a mile, without too much depth, so everything should be in focus, and lots
of complex, subtle detail, rather the antithesis of test charts.
DxO applied much more linear distortion correction than ACR. As ACR is supposed to use the correction data from the lens
itself, I'm a little at a loss as to why the DxO correction should be so different. Visually, it seems overdone, and I
only shot this a month ago. If I turn off Distortion Correction, the result is almost identical to ACR.
With lenses that have weaker areas, the deconvolution used gently can even up the performance and then use FM in PS in
a layer(s) as you do for fine tuning---FM and DOP are not mutually exclusive.
No, of course not. However, in this example, that's not an effective option. The default "DxO Lens Softness" control
settings are, at first glance, a nice improvement over unsharpened ACR output. It's pretty clearly a combination of
detail enhancement through deconvolution and/or USM and LCE.
When compared to ACR with no sharpening and FM with a little added LCE, the DxO version clearly is slightly inferior,
i.e. slightly more subtle detail is clearly visible in the adjusted ACR version. This is true center, partway out and
edge, with no variation I can see.
I tried going further with the DxO version, as you suggest, but even a one pixel application of FM leads to obvious
artifacts that make things worse. That led me to look closer, and FM is simply making very subtle artifacts more
visible. The unmodified DxO conversion has artifacts that aren't in the default ACR, nor in the adjusted versions.
These artifacts are pretty subtle stuff. I'm not sure the unobsessive would notice what the Eagle Eye sees at 100% on a
24" monitor.
Adjustments of the DxO Lens Softness control don't help, either reducing detail
or increasing artifacts.
In any case, with this particular lens, on an E-M5, at this focal length, ACR, FM radius 3 and a little LCE clearly show
more true image detail than I can get out of DxO (DOP). FM with radius 4 is even better, but right on the edge of
overdone. I'd probably use 3 with a partially opaque layer of 4 above for my best result.
Also you are not bound by the geometric correction metadata and can pick how much to torture pixels and change FOV.
In this first case, as above, I think the default lens correction is probably right on. It should be, at the long end of
a tele zoom. Perhaps I'll see what happens at the short end and close focus of the 12-32.
I had meant to do several different conversions with a few of Marnie's Catalonia images last weekend with ACR/DOP with
comparisons but the limited image processing time was inadvertently consumed by the B'fly shots.
That seems a worthwhile diversion of resources. :-)
I still don't have the color handling figured totally with GM-1 shots and DOP.
I did nothing with color. The test shot of complex granite is close to B&W. AG finds Capture One better for the
subtleties of portraiture, but I do so little of that that it's a non issue. DPR saw no meaningful difference in color
between ACR and CO, which doesn't prove much.
Oh, the highlight treatment improved with the 9 version ago as well, but not quite up to ACR.
Nor did I look into this. The test shot, intentionally, is one of limited DR, reaching neither end of the histogram. I
wanted no other effects interacting with what I was looking at.
...
I truly do think it time to reevaluate--perhaps a couple images that need the corners sharp with a lens that also has
a bunch of aberrations.
Well, I'm not looking for lenses to torture test anything, just the lenses I use most. I don't think they mostly qualify
as particularly soft in the corners nor full of aberrations. They may or may not "Draw" as some might prefer, but are
good in measurable IQ.
Would just use DOP or ACR as the front end and do your skillful final processing in PS for both.
Well, that was the idea, but so far, there is less than no point. FM and LCE are Actions in PS for me, so application is
no extra time/effort and the results are superior.
No mad rush really--the sales seem to be more frequent than the Canyon lens rebate times. One can be guaranteed there
will be another in just a bit.
Good to know. I may manage one or two more tests before we are on the road, but can't see buying just now, based on what
I've seen so far.
Critical Edges Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|