Your software is needlessly handicapped without lens modules yet you don’t publish them in a timely manner or often not at all. Meanwhile, Rawtherapee does things like de-convolution sharpening (lens sharpness) without a module. You missed my $$$ for the last 3 versions because you didn’t have modules for any of my lenses. You may find more buyers by moving your development efforts to camera and lens support. Or, just let users crowd-source it and concentrate on other features rather than chasing an ever expanding list of hardware.
And if you make your own preset?
It’s a prime so only object distance aka focus distance is variable.
The distortion is manual correctable so you could make a profile which give you a startingpoint.
Non the less i understand your point of view of lensprofiles.
On behave of DxO, they can’t buy every lens inorder to make a lensprofile. So voigtlander need to offer them one or two to use those for testing.
And a body.
DxOPL and DxOMark arn’t the same company anymore so a test of DxOMark isn’t automatic a lensprofile for PL.
Yes, that’s DxO’s problem exactly. When they were connected to DxOMark and had regular access to hardware, the business model of tying upgrades to new hardware modules made sense. Now, it doesn’t. The modules are not the secret sauce they make them out to be. They intentionally lock-out hardware just to support the business model. For example, you can get perfectly good results in DxO just by renaming EXIF in a file from unsupported to supported hardware. DxO should open files without hardware restriction. Then they should either publish the recipe to crowdsource modules or accept modules from other databases like Lensfun. Then, offering new versions tied to desirable features makes sense.
I would be quite cautious about doing this; The corrections applied by PL are specific to the combination of {body + lens} used to capture the image - - - Fooling/tricking PL into working on a image captured with unsupported hardware is unlikely to achieve valid results (unless they are virtually exact equivalents).
What is a “valid” result? It produces an image. I’ve done it hundreds of times and had no trouble other than the inconvenience of batch processing the EXIF data.
DxO does not open a RAW file because there is no available camera body module. I edit the EXIF to reflect a camera with the same sensor that has a body module available. The lenses are supported but don’t have EXIF because they were used with an adapter that has no electrical contacts. I edit the EXIF to reflect this also. The file now opens, processes and works perfectly.
This is not luck. All it shows is that DxO’s refusal to open a file is a business decision rather than a technical limitation.
OK - so now you’re clarifying that your lens is supported (but, not recognised by PL when used with an adapter) … That’s why I added the caveat to my original post: that you would be “unlikely to achieve valid results (unless they are virtually exact equivalents)”
Have you submitted a suggestion/request to DxO to include provision for this adapter with your lens ?
If not then see here.
Jacques, instead of name-calling, you could just go to DxO’s list of supported cameras to see for yourself:
Do you notice that camera modules are tied to a version of software? Customers need to buy the new version to get a module for the latest cameras. This business model works fine if a potential customer’s module is available. If there is no module for your new camera, will you buy PhotoLab? There has always been a delay between release of new hardware and availability of supporting modules from DxO. Sometimes a very long one. You need only to read this forum to see all the requests. There are also many popular hardware combinations that may never get modules as well as adapted lenses where metadata for an otherwise supported lens is not available in the file.
My assertion is that DxO could acquire more new customers and sell more upgrades if they address this issue. I demonstrated that this is a business decision rather than technical. One solution (as has been suggested here on this forum) is that DxO crowd-source some of the module work. They could also allow more flexibility in how modules can be used with a file.
“Customers need to buy the new version to get a module for the latest cameras.”
Ohmigosh! And NOBODY else does that.
Here’s some hard news about capitalism you might not have heard before. EVERY BUSINESS operates in a manner that supports its business model. Some are smart about it, some less so. But, DxO is not deceiving anyone, and if you don’t like the model, nobody’s holding a gun to your head.