I think the title speaks for itself. I’m very surprised at the almost complete lack of support for HB cameras. This is somewhat confusing. I look at the FilmPack Time Machine and see a setting called 1967. Is that David Hemmings with a Hasselblad? I look at the next setting and it’s literally called “On the Moon - The Hasselblad”. The insane thing is that despite this software saying how “Hasselblad becomes the stuff of legend” it’s not the stuff of legend you can use with DXO Photolab.
I’m simply astonished that a piece of software would lionise cameras in such a way and yet not support the range of Hasselblad digital backs for these analogue cameras like the CFV II 50C or others in the series. What are you guys thinking??!?!?!?!?!
guys doing some math and finding that few people from already mini-miniscule H market share who will bother to buy DxO PL6 are not their first priority
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
Of just that reason DXO has to offer a path for all those who have cameras that don’t have a DXO camera profile YET. So I wonder if you really have done the “math” at all.
You see this is not at all about Hasselblad. It’s about every camera brand there is on the market since DXO has been notoriously slow to make new profiles for new models regardless manufacturer.
I waited 6 months for a profile for my Sony A7IV-files. The same happened some Nikon and Canon-users last year when their new flagship models were launched even they got their profiles a little quicker.
There is no reason at all that prevents DXO from making it possible to open any file and letting the users choosing any profile of their liking in Photolab or just doing the job without any orofile at all.
The nex time you will buy a new camera @noname you will understand the hard way what I am trying to say to you. You will very promptly realize you will be no exception.
In my experience both of you are right, @noname and @Stenis : There are cameras which are wider spread than the Hasselblad types and also waiting for support of DxO. When I changed the system from Nikon to Lumix two years ago, the cameras were not supported by Capture One at that time. Shortly after they were and with the choice between manufacturer or Capture One lens-profiles for each lens separately, DxO is left behind. So, you just don’t know @Stenis if or what camera @noname will buy and if it will be or not supported by DxO. And of course, if or if not DxO will still be around then…
But I wonder @gothicform: what has the simulation of an old film camera to do with support of new digital cameras and their rather expensive lenses? Especially since filmpack is included in DxO PL but needs an extra license?
Yes. I am not sure about all the reasons, but two that I’ve noticed are that the DXOLabs and DXOMark part their ways and there was a period of slow releases at some point , and in recent times it has speed up. Not sure if there was internal issues during this period. This is just my speculation , Idon’t know for sure.
And I think DXO does all the stuff they do for testing lenses and cameras manually with a lot of work, so they must have the cameras and lenses on hand in the lab to do the correction. There could be a problem of resources. Again, This is just my speculation , I don’t know for sure.
I often wonder about that. I have not been able to find clear explanation. Clearly DXO prides itself as a company that offers best lens corrections without with they don’t support lot of the features. I’ve had situation where I could open a raw file but lose much of the great functions because its only partly supported. Nikon Df was latest example of that. At that point, I see virtually no advantage of DXO over Lr or C1. But with lens corrections and optical corrections and all that, its a big difference.
If I’m not mistaken DXO labs started as a company that specializes in all the measurements and corrections and analysis not color grading. Unlike for example Adobe. It could be that code for DXO PhotoLab is based on those measurements , hard coded into the program and it would take rewriting of the code. Again, just a speculation.
But its a reasonable speculation based on what I’ve read about company and their website.
They pride themselves on the image quality achieved because of their testing. I can respect that. After all if you ever worked as a freelancer you know what I mean.
The easiest way to destroy your brand is to put its name on everything.
Have you ever looked at C1 or even Lr crop? They cut a lot of the image information because they use pretty basic or generic lens profiles. Quick but not very high quality. One of the reasons why I personally choose to first convert to linear DNG before working in C1 and Lr is because of the lens corrections found in DXO.
That said, I’m not trying to excuse DXO, they could probably work more efficiently and release more support for lenses and camera, but if that means losing their advantage than I would not want the compromise, or they would be like everyone else. The easiest way to destroy your brand is to put its name on everything.
DXO states their main goal is overall image quality. Not support for most lenses and cameras. But image quality. And that comes with a price. Same as buying a super expensive Hasselblad. You don’t buy it to take birthday photos you but is because of prioritization of image quality. And you pay the price for that. I am personally, ok supporting DXO in their goal for prioritization of image quality. And as long as they don’t compromise that, as long as they don’t water down the proverbial whisky. I also support more releases sooner. Why wouldn’t I. But I’m wiling to give them a benefit of a doubt on this one.
DxO Lens Modules
Unlike the generic profiles used in other RAW converters, DxO’s lens modules are designed in the laboratory using a rigorous and extremely precise process which is specific to each lens and camera combination. The result is all the information needed to correct vignetting, distortions, chromatic aberrations, or lack of sharpness to the best possible standard.
The assumption here is that corrections are the same in C1 and DXO. Often there is a pretty big difference. C1 notoriously crops off a large portion of the image for speedy lens correction profile, DXO does not do that and offers many ways to choose what you want to prioritize. I didn’t realize this myself, until I try to compare, but the difference can be quite staggering between generic profile correction with a major crop vs DXO version. Its like a different lens.
Support of lens profile and quality of profile are not always the same thing.
I was flabbergasted when I saw C1 lens corrections and how much they crop in. Here is a screenshot of a typical lens correction in C1.
Not only do you lose much of the frame for no reason than lazy color profile but you also don’t always get proper barrel and pincushion distortion correction either.
DXO does offer database of supported lenses and roadmap for future releases. And they do have interest in supporting as much as they can, but you are right. Future is uncertain. As it is for France as a country these days.
when I am buying my next camera I am doing my home work as to what is the support for it in the tools I am using … so that I am not ending up in a stupid situation … because the whole workflow matters for the end result, not just a camera (and/or lenses) and I am not buying anything ( including GPUs like from Intel ) that is not fully supported, that simple …
That’s maybe your assumption, but definitely not mine and I never said anything in that direction.
I even don’t assume the manufacturer’s profile is the best although in theory it should be - if lens and body come from the same manufacturer. These people should know best, but RAW converter people (again, at best) don’t need to be too careful with lens flaws as they are not responsible for them.
However, on average I get the best results using Sigma’s own profile sin C1. In DxO I’ve seen some rather poor results including confusing Sigma and Leica lenses.
That’s only a part of the truth. The cropping/expanded MP is very much depending on the body. Some bodies appear to record more pixels, others show (although correction is applied) the nominal MP count.
roadmap… that was a good one. First, the as Leica confused Sigma lenses were in the database and still not applied correctly. Depending which body in the L-mount alliance world is used, the EXIF entry varies (which is not DxO’s fault, but a problem they should be able to deal with).
Maybe you haven’t said it, but impression I got was if C1 and Lr support lens profiles DXO does not, it means that they are failing behind. I pointed out that there is a difference in the methodology of measurement and resulting correction, often in substantial favor of DXO. I don’t have C1 installed at the moment to illustrate this, but because of lens sharpness and optical corrections, there is pretty big difference in many lenses I’ve compared in the past. Probably people can do that and it they were so inclined.
I agree. They should be the best, but for some reason they do not always appear to be. I mean they do decent job, but not great job, especially with some lenses.
Well, I see it as a value proposition. If a software can correct for lens flaws better than another software, especially if there is a lot of correction done well, its like buying a new lens.
I can’t speak for that particular case, since I don’t know enough about lens and don’t have C1 installed at the moment. It is true though that there are sometimes confusing metadata written in the file that can confuse DXO which optical module to apply. But often it offers multiple options that are available and offers to remember the choices as well as offering manual download of optical modules. Granted its not perfect all the time, but in most cases it works as indented.
If I’m not mistaken, most manufacturer to avoid lawsuits often list “effective mega pixel” count for their camera. Are you talking about that or that its even smaller than they officially say?
Effective vs actual pixel is not a flaw its just the way most cameras work.
This is not the same as cropping a part of the image in post after pixels have been recorded to avoid better lens correction profiling. DXO offers a wide set of options to address this in many different ways, depending on the compromises willing to take when combined with other corrections, like straight horizon, perspective corrections etc.
Laugh all you want. DXO does list future support for lenses and cameras and last time they published a road map for three months in advance here on forums.
They do deal with it, but offering multiple choices in situations like these.
From DXO manual:
“Detected and suggested modules are displayed with a box (checked by default). You can also select or deselect all items by clicking on Select/Deselect all. If there are ambiguities (DxO PhotoLab cannot establish which equipment was used with certainty due to incomplete or missing metrics) you can opt to deselect any unnecessary modules. Status of the DxO Optics Module: indicates, according to the icon, whether a module is available, downloaded or ambiguous. When the module is installed and functional, there is no indication.”
I can’t fault DXO here if the EXIF data record is ambiguous or missing, but they offer options, you can’t fault them for that. You can only fault them for missing support if you like.
Capture one actually has a checkbox called Hide Distorted Areas. In other words its not a bug, its feature. Or as one person said: " The answer is probably more profane than you think: Instead of developing a real sophisticated algorithm to get the best resolution out of the source image, the software developers went the “safe” way: add enough crop that will always and under all circumstances deliver an image that is “properly cropped” (whatever that means).
I’m saying this as a professional programmer. You would not believe how such stupidities usually come together in software development."
DXO is different. they offer more options and better correction, minus the unsupported lenses and camera bodies.
If they do indeed spend so much time measuring it all manually for every lens and camera body combination than that would explain why does it take so long. And while that is a bummer, to wait, or sometimes worse not even offer support, when they do deliver more often than not its superior to the competion and its one of their main value propositions.
Also included in the measuring process is lens sharpness compensation. Another unique value proposition. Also Chromatic Aberration and vignetting corrections along with optical distortions.
When combined with other technologies they offer it does make a substantial difference to overall image quality, but support is not as rapid or widespread as with C1 or Lr. Ideally it would be, but I hope they don’t sacrifice the quality in the process like C1 or Lr , because its the main reason why I choose DXO in the first place. That’s all.
Another unique feature that I prefer DXO for, is volume deformation option where as they put it: All of the drama, none of the distortion - Wide-angle lenses are vital for tight spaces, getting close to subjects, and showing the dramatic scale scene. But that doesn’t come for free. A wide-angle will also stretch and distort anything close to the edge of the frame. DxO ViewPoint’s Volume Deformation tool can return a subject’s natural proportions in just a few clicks."
If you used wide angle lenses for portraits or group portraits, you know the value of this.
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
Take my case Milan. If DXO would have let me open an ARW from my new A7IV without any profile at all I could easily have selected the profile of Sony A7III instead or even better the one for Sony A1 because A7IV, A1 and A7r V are of the same generation and has the same profile in Photolab now and after that I would have had access to all the support users of those cameras have.
In fact before we got A7IV support I changed the model code in my A7IV-files to the code for A7III by a hexeditorx and honestly I didn’t feel I miseed out on any of Photolabs magics at all.
The profile is just giving you a starting point that I in my case couldn’t see any difference in when using the ones from the previous model. So just open it!
I have an old copy of Adobe Photoshop CS5. It can process the RAW images from Hasselblad cameras, albeit with minimal functions but at least it can… DXO cannot so I have the same problem as Stenis.
This is not simply about lens support, but about the fact I cannot even use DXO to get the images off the camera but a piece of software from another company has been able to do so since 2010, long before this camera existed! This seems to be an enormous oversight to me. Meanwhile DXO continues to offer the ability to other users to copy a cameras output it doesn’t actually support from the real thing.
Just a question: You’re aware of Iridient developer? It supports all Hasselblads. It’s not the world’s best looking RAW converter, but when it comes to less popular or also very new cameras, in Iridient they are often supported and nowhere else.
This is true. I don’t know all the reasons why DXO does it, but some that were mentioned are, licensing issues, DXO as a small team need to get a loan from dealer or manufacturer to thoroughly test every lens and camera body. So that could be additional reason for it not being priority. I’m guessing here, I don’t know the real reason why, but I’m sure one exists.
Yes, this is also true. But there is a compromise usually involved. DXO Labs if I’m not mistaken was a company that offered lens analysis and corrections etc. So they build an app like PhotoLab to put the data into practice. They usually pride themselves for their accurate measures and unique corrections. When one does it by themselves, technically PhotoLab reads the file, but I wonder what you give up in the process. Compared to what DXO team officially releases I mean.
I remember when did occurred because it closely coincided with the release of PhotoLab 1 which was the first version I owned. I had only briefly become familiar with the existence of OpticsPro 11 a few months earlier.