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