"Save settings in sidecar" is checked in DXO.
I guess I'm not the only person who doesn't 'grok' what you are asking...care to give it another shot?
DXO outputs it's data as a .dng file. If this converted file and then through another converter, what would you expect to see? Like double lens profiling, it would seem to be double conversion. I've asked DXO, and the answer they give is not simple but what I see is not what they say I should see. I didn't want to bias this question here by telling what I see, so I asked a more open question.
Due to the fact that more than one RAW converter exists, if the output from any of them is a .dng, ACR would likely open it, or not? The DXO file does open in ACR
It's notable that DXO, while opening a .dng from a camera, will not open it's own .dng output, leading me to believe doing such is detrimental, therefore the question.
It's notable that DXO, while opening a .dng from a camera, will not open it's own .dng output, leading me to believe doing such is detrimental, therefore the question.
DxO outputs a "linear DNG" which is a hybrid DNG in that the demosiacing is done and you have true RGB files but in a linear gamma. It's mildly better opening a Linear DNG than a TIFF or JPEG in that the gamma is still linear (gamma 1.0) but the colors are indeed backed in and you'll have less white balance capability compared to a true raw.
And yes, DxO does this to actually apply lens corrections to the image. And yes, if you open the resulting DNG in Camera Raw you could apply yet a second round of lens corrections which would be suboptimal. The DxO DNG is not a "raw DNG"...do you understand the difference?
Yes, I understand the difference, and I know DXO outputs a Linear DNG. I've known that for some time now.
I also know that DXO "actually" applies the lens correction to the image. What do you think I have been concerned about over in the Lens correction Forum and here as well?
I've known that for some time now and have made extensive tests on their output. I started well over a year ago, when lens corrections were only a gleam in Adobe's eye. This has been the thrust of my concerns; that no auto correction be applied in any part of the application w/o notification and the ability to say no. ACR is good in that aspect. In any event, the question posed here is about color correction, not lens. The DXO support person has covered these concerns quite well. He is an engineer, not a sales person. No, he is a physicist, with a PhD. who has explained their typical correction tests as each lens/body combination is characterized.
The question here is based in trying to understand the entire process. Is the demosaicing done as part of their lens correction process? The answer appears to be: No.
Is demosaicing done as part of the color correction? I would expect the answer to be yes, which posed the question, which I will state again:
What would you expect to see if you open a color corrected RAW file saved as a DNG which ACR opens? I see three possibilities:
1) The file in ACR looks like the file which DXO saved as a DNG as shown in their viewer. ACR and DXO Look the same
2)The file looks like the nef file, that is, the DXO correction is stripped. ACR and DXO look different
3) The file looks weird! DXO looks ok, ACR ???
What would you expect to see? Forget lens corrections.
FYI, Jeff, I am a long time engineer, starting my professional life in 1958 at Argonne National Labs working on Linac instrumentation.. I became a full time Photo Pro in 1974, and in 1998, returned to engineering as a contractor and consultant. My major career work was with Tektronix, which included test and evaluation of lenses for oscilloscope cameras. If I don't understand, I ask. Which brings me to a question from your post: What do you mean by "colors backed in"? I can make a SWAG, but I would rather not.
Which brings me to a question from your post: What do you mean by "colors backed in"? I can make a SWAG, but I would rather not.
Change "backed in" to BAKED IN...once a linear DNG process is applied (demosiacing–and yes the lens correction is also baked in assuming you call for it in DxO) Camera Raw/Lightroom will open the image and apply the correct (based on metadata) color and tone curve adjustments based on Camera Raw's defaults for the image as outlined in the metadata. You can prolly create your own DNG profile using DNG Profile Creator for the Linear DNG that DxO puts out which will prolly be different than the native raw out of the camera. As for the differences between 1, 2 and 3 for YOUR camera through DxO, I don't know. I do know that for the most part DxO DNGs seem to act "similar" to the raw files but your milage may vary based on camera and manufacturer...
Baked in! I'm glad I didn't guess, although baked in also makes me wince a bit! Eric has used the term. Hopefully, he might step in and do into more detail.
I assume you mean the DNG Editor when you said creator. Making a custom profile for the DXO linear dng might be an option except that for color, I find ACR to be more to my taste, although DXO has improved greatly. They also offer the user profiles for many cameras and their outputs so that, ostensibly, I can make the Nikon look like a Canon. Further editing of their DNG output in the editor would involve at least a 2850K and a 6500K test of a color chart. I'm not quite that anal! (Yet!)
I'm asking this question because I can sense a trap in the making, so better to be safe than sorry.
I find that the DXO file still looks like a DXO file whether it is viewed in DXO or ACR. It still puzzles me because I would assume the demosaicing has already been done. I expected weird output. But it's not.
While I have been involved with complex engineering tasks in my lifetime, I really don't like doing that here. But if I do, my mentoring over the years has conditioned me to "kick butt" so to speak, where I see inconsistencies and outright errors which are unacknowledged by the people making them.
Some times, I have to deliver a kick to my own back end!
Excuse me for butting in here, please, however I’m asking myself similar questions regarding Canon’s Digital Professional Processing which can make adjustments and corrections for Canon body and lens-specific issues (the latter, I suppose, is similar to the Lens Correction profiles in LR3/ACR) and wants to write it back to the .CR2 file, a .DNG or a .TIFF.
LR3 opens them without problems and the adjustments appear to have been read, but I’m not sure - my visual memory for fine details isn’t what it was and I have no means of doing an a:b comparison.
You should be able to do an a-b comparison with what you have.
Open a CR2 file in bridge without running it through the Canon software. Make a copy. Run either the copy or the original through the Canon corrections. Open both in ACR and switch between them. You can do this also in PS if you save both as a tiff. For best illustration, set the zoom at the wide end where distortion is usually more prominent.
Ooops! I see you are on Lightroom. I wold suspect the same procedure would work, howver, I don't have LR.
Message was edited by: Hudechrome
I am not sure why do you want to do twice correction and RAW conversion?
I use DxO for optical corrections and global adjustments. Supported cameras+lenses give the best results around. PS CS4 for local adjustments and optimalisation. There is no need for more RAW converters. I don't understand why DxO provides LR plugin at all. What is the point to do optical corrections, global adjustments and then open it again in LR? What do you gain? There used to be a plugin for PS so that you could use output adjustments straight into PS. Plugin officially disappeared.
Only let down of this brilliant program is output (or my present incompetence to do so properly).
I cannot match what I see in DxO with what I see in PS.
DxO DNG is basically TIFF pretending to be RAW file. Interpolated/de-mosaicked RGB file. DxO DNG files usually have triple size of original RAW file.
If you open DxO DNG in ACR it pretends to have same level of controls as RAW files. Unfortunately, DxO DNG or TIFF never matches between DxO and PS. I wonder if I do something wrong with color rendering and output color profile or so. According to DxO, their DNG is without any color space or profile. What I expect is to see same output in ACR as I have seen in DxO.
I asked DxO why I cannot output TIFF 16b ProPhoto RGB (ACR is able to output any color space you want to avoid posterization/banding). I have been told that DxO can output only AdobeRGB at the moment (if I understood right). That possibly kills, otherwise brilliant program, professional use of this program. I understand that DxO Optics Pro Standard is designed for "auto" processing of casual snapper pictures and will suit most of photographers.
But I don't understand Optics Pro Elite (which is for pros), why it doesn't have capability to output as many tones as possible. Internal processing is based on "color space" of camera sensor anyway (hopefuly).
Which is why I use it only (about 95%) of the time for optical and basic sensor corrections such as noise. DXO 6.5 has an interesting control,sportingly called HDR, which tweaks the image according to someone's idea about what has to happen, which isn't necessarily my idea. However, as a clock that is stopped is right twice a day, DXO HDR sometimes comes to the rescue and produces a surprise I can use so every once and a while I go click it, which I did twice today.
Stick with .dng. It is a linear dng, and Jeff explained it well. There are some fancy stuff thar DXO says they do to prevent the color and tone from being seen by another RAW editor, but so far, I manage to escape that penalty!
I don't know about the "pro" version.
You are correct in noting that the tiff output does not resemble even the dng in their viewer. It's screwy, so don't use it. Their newest version seems to be better, but I avoid it anyway. Use dng, open it in ACR and you should be fine.
Is your monitor profiled, and do PS and DXO see that profile?
whole HDR idea of DxO is just marketing trash for idiots who cannot take pictures correctly and love to screw up pictures in HDR SW like photomatix. i prefer to spend time in the field and do it right at first time.
DxO pretends to do HDR. They have done it from very beginning anyway. That is why DxO is only one SW able to preserve shadows well and also to recover about 2 EV in highlights in case of Canon 5D.2
I have calibrated my LCD (1920x1280@32b) with Spyder Pro probe. I suppose to be able to view almost whole sensor color space. Which is theoretically 4x14b per pixel (if there is such a data captured in first place) in case of Canon 5D.2. PS can "see" in ProPhoto and I have set PS to warn me in case conflicting color spaces.
Whole problem is DxO Optics Pro. As I have been told by their support. All outputs are in AdobeRGB anyway, no matter what you do. they told me that there is no benefit in 16b TIFF with ProPhotoRGB.icc. still it is AbobeRGb anyway. You can easily see it by size of exported files.
Little test I have done is most likely proof of this cause. Photomatix (yes, I have this SW for pimps as well when I started and couldn't take pictures properly :-) ) output TIFF 16b is about 120MB. DxO TIFF 16b ProPhoto is just 99MB, DxO DNG is 68MB.
Like DxO says, it is not possible at this time. I would understand AdobeRGB (which is not different from sRGB) in Standart version, but I don't understand 8b output in Elite version which cost twice much and is designed for pros.
I have been avoiding DxO DNG because when I opened any file in ACR. I had to start all over again 9except corrections fo course). Default ACR setting (CS4) has different output from DxO. That is why I used TIFF because it looked as I wanted and could finish local adjustments which leads to posterization/banding due scrapped valuable data thanks to DxO.
Perhaps further version will be fully 16b compatible and utilise full potential of digital tech.
little off-topic. do you have any stability issues with DxO? My copy of Optics Pro is literally hanging out a lot. You move few sliders, bang...app hangs. Sometimes I get even an error I can report (it happened only once though :-D ). All I got from DxO support were excuses about my corrupted OS, hw faults, faulty HDD and so on.
I am not sure whether is that just issue with optics Pro running under Vista 64b/Win 7 64.
I have found some forums with ppl claiming same issues. I wonder if you have same problems or it is just my "luck" for perfect HW and SW.
Yes, even in Win7 64 with the latest version of DXO, I have problems. DXO does not play nice with PS and Bridge and DXO open at the same time.
Some of the problems were "unfortunate" that is, they were created because of a less than perfect understanding of the requirements. I'm not going into it here.
The rest are with my particular machine/software setup, and appears to be not enough RAM (4G, 4G on the way!) and possibly, video card. I say that because I can see certain problems on FF, for instance, as well and other problems with peripherals. I ultimately have to rule out my hardware and configuration.
I stay with DXO becuse they have the best setup going for optical corrections. That is their core business. Adobe may catch up, but hey! DXO core business is not photo editing and it shows. I don't sense that Adobe wants to make optics theirs as well.
Time will tell.
One important thing I learned in the entanglement between PS and DXO. You may think your installation is correct but it may be corrupted and worse, the configuration of the OS has to be correct as well. A corruption in a MS Hotfix can nail you. It did me.
I went from XP to Win7 without a stop at Vista, so I'm not much of a help here. Also, I did not buy DXO until I was certain that it would run well.
In their defense, I say that with some of the versions of Photoshop, people were having loads of difficulties. I see that with CS5 as well in some instances.
No one's perfect.
I thought that Adobe Bridge and PS were cause of some issues because both programs t
ried to access same file. No matter what you switch off in windows. Even "safe" system with switched fo all useless services. DxO still crashing by. There might also be an issue with Kaspersky
Internet Security. As I said, no matter what you switch off. DxO still crash.
If you have some issue with HW or drivers, you would have problems with all applications you use. PS uses same libraries as DxO. I have never seen crash of PS :-) I also use Solidworks CAD SW. I don't have problem with anything in Win except DxO. So DxO claim about corrupted OS and faulty HW seems to me more like excuse.
I sometime get issue with graphic driver. But I doubt it is any issue with computer especially with 2 weeks old fresh install of Win 7/Vista 64b on new SSD drive with all prerequisities they ask for.
I would say, it is more like an issue with bugs in DxO program (at least 64b compatibility issues). It seems to be core feature of DxO from very beginning. DxO has got very good idea and they are most likely good scientists, but looks like very bad programers.
I have got 4GB of RAM and it is not enough :-D 4GB is mandatory minimum for 64b systems. In case of image editing is 8GB optimum. Unless you have SSD drive for OS, apps and swap. 1.5GB takes Win itself. 2.5GB+ Photoshop (few adjustment layers+layers). You are right on 4GB of RAM. Try to do 50x70cm print in PS :-D bang, 6GB of RAM you don't even notice unless your HDD is wildly storing data in swap.
My problem is not about crashing, but rather about Bridge freezing and requiring either Process stop in Task Manager or restart in Process Explorer.If I let the freeze go long enough, like having FF, Bridge, PS and DXO, the three editing programs all having the same file open, everything freezes. I cannot get any response, I cannot close anything. BUT, if I close Bridge in Processes, all of the programs close simultaneously! Now this was traceable to an upgrade to the OS: Windows6.1-KB947821-v8-x64.msu. It was apparently corrupted yet the installation was only about 10 days old. So it matters.
So no crashes, no Event logs. No "We're sorry but..." messages at all.
I know that driver problems or insufficient ram are not isolated to specific programs, and that is why I checked further. I found indications elsewhere.
Anyway, we are not about fixing DXO here, but destructive interactions between programs do need to be brought to the attention of all parties.
BTW, DXO 6.5 does not run as a 64 bit program. It's an x86 installation.
I have exactly opposite problem :-) Adobe runs, but DxO freezes and needs process kill.
You cannot have open all files at once due mutex anyway. I got crashes just by opened image in DxO and Bridge has got selected very same image and previewed. It sometimes crashed Bridge too.
Well, multitask is responsibility of each SW developers. As you can see they don't bother. PS runs, DxO runs. Together, they don't run. Who cares. Adobe is too big to bother and DxO is too small to waste resources on "unimportant" things.
You can see it from their attitude and every new version where DxO is heading. DxO is making an other Photomatix. HDR is popular now, add some extra futures as advanced calibration profiles for certain cameras+lenses. you have got perfect product for most people.
I am starting to understand why most pros shoot in JPEG :-D It looks like a time for change ;-)
DxO is 32b app, but claims compatibility with 64b systems, which seems to be sporadic. I got 64b PS, Bridge is most likely 32b too, but there is no reason to go 64b. DxO doesn't need 64b either. DxO uses hardly 1GB of RAM on Canon 5D.2 30MB RAW files.