Ok now this.
I thought I would open the image with PL2 and 3 at the same time to get a screen shot.
And discovered the following. Open the image, in PL3, that has been reset and only lens sharpness applied.
Expand to 100%. The photo looks soft (compared to PL2) as I have been saying.
Then if I grab the right side of the PL window and start dragging to the left as to shrink the window size, the photo snaps into clarity . It only takes a slight dragging movement.
2 Likes
That at least matches my observation. Rearranging the window may trigger a redraw. The âpreview softness bugâ is perhaps only triggered under very specific conditions related to zoom/window size or whatever.
3 Likes
DPL 2 displays previews definitely crisper than DPL 3. Looks like the preview-machine was changed.
On the other hand, output files are identical as far as I can see comparing the two in Photoshop (import as layers and do difference or divide one by the other) and ! looks closer to what I see in DPL 3 !.
I tested with the same image with no correction applied in order to see what differences the baseline development could show and with the DxO Standard preset - with the same results.
macOS Mojave on iMac 2019
2 Likes
I have not seen a preview difference of Lens Sharpness (+2.50, @ 100%) between PL2 vs. PL3 whether the window is resized or not. Five separate images in a variety of subject matter and lighting.
I am using a trial version of v3 (Build 3.0.0.21). Though I donât know why that would make a difference.
Mac High Sierra (10.13.4).
2 Likes
To all,
Ive not tested yet on a win10 os but is all this only mac tested?
Image rendering speed up by less acurate preview is not very useful if a 75% and higher donât bring the rendering back to âas accurate as possible.â.
For first look at full image some degradation isnât a problem but when you go to full screen look or start to zoom in to 50% 75%( seems to be a threshold in applying microcontrast/sharpening effects.) and 100%-400% then you need/want no shortcuts for speeding proccesing.
When i at home i try it in v1.2 v2 and v3 this weekend.
Any particulair steps to do?
2 Likes
The issue that I am reporting here is not the same a discussed in this thread.
It is a very subtle sharpening effect when Lens Sharpness has been applied.
Open an image in PL3 and expand to 1:1. For me the photo looks softer than the same photo, same setting, in PL2. If I slightly adjust/shrink the PL window on the screen the photo snaps into the expected clarity.
ok i did a v1.2 v2.3 v3.0 test from a old test chart test. video
and a second test
if you see any difference please let me know.
While this issue is not experienced by everyone, the test should include Lens Sharpness only and noise reduction turned off.
Ah ok so all pallets off and only lens sharpness on at default?
Yes. lens sharpness on at default
2 Likes
FWIW: I cannot see any difference between a (contrasty) image displayed by PL2 vs PL3 - - under the conditions you specify above - on Win10 environment.
John M
2 Likes
At least as important as how PL3 compares to PL2 is how it compares to, say, Photoshop Camera Raw, Capture One Pro, etc. I can tell you that the previews are soft in comparison. That is how I first noticed it.
There is no way I am starting with a soft image from my $7500 camera body and $4000 lens - if I didnât cause it. One of the reasons I upgraded to PL3 was that it finally included lens/body modules for my Leicas. That softness is there and, without a fix, PL3 is not worth messing withâŚ
2 Likes
That is what annoys me the most on DxO. The previews are not as sharp as they should be, and indeed it is the reason why I work mostly with Capture One and only occasionally with PL (noise reduction). So yes, DxO, get you act together and fix this mushiness of the previews! And as far as I am concerned this is/was not only a matter of PL3, it has always been the case: unsharp previews are the bane of all things DxO.
1 Like
Picman,
you are generalizing which does not help anyone. It looks like - based on the above - that only certain camera/lens combinations are concerned. So your remark does not help as it is stated right now. It would help if can let us know which camera/lens combination your are talking about.
4 Likes
I am not generalizing, I am stating a fact. Iâve used DxO software for many years with Nikon D3 and Nikon 24-70, with Sony A900 and a series of Zeiss lenses, with NEX7 and several Zeiss lenses and now with Sony A7R2 also with a series of Zeiss lenses both Sony-Zeiss and Batis. Even scans from my Contax fotos, jpgâs and tiffâs. The results are always the same. Capture one previews are a lot sharper than those of PhotoLab (Optics Pro for that matter). Also, I absolutely see no evidence that this mushiness of the previews in PL is a consequence of certain camera-lens combinations. It is entirely a consequence of DxO programming and has nothing to do with camera-lens combinations. You refer to âthe aboveâ. Have you read all messages? Then you will see that it mainly concerns the fact that PL3 appears to be even less sharp than PL2.
This thread is about a specific issue not about general sharpness comparisons between software.
It is a very subtle sharpening effect when Lens Sharpness has been applied.
Open an image in PL3 and expand to 1:1. For me the photo looks softer than the same photo, same setting, in PL2. If I slightly adjust/shrink the PL window on the screen the photo snaps into the expected clarity.
If you would like to complain about PL3 overall preview sharpness, please start a new topic.
6 Likes
Windows 10, no correction except the lens sharpness:
I see absolutely no difference between screen display PL2 and PL3, at 75%, 100%. And including below 75% (but itâs less defined, which is normal)
Checked with different raw images (Sony A7RIII and Sony FE lenses, including the 55mm âsharpâ)
2 Likes
On a recent Youtube tutorial the guy mentioned that Mac computers have a default resolution that is not the monitors native resolution and that they use pixel doubling.
His recommendation was to manually set the monitor resolution to the monitors native resolution. He was using a 5K monitor. The reason was that at 100% you want to have 1 image pixel for each monitor pixel. Could this be why there are differences in the perceived image quality. Window machines default to monitor native resolution.
If the people on this thread reported their actual monitor resolution being used maybe a pattern could be discerned?
3 Likes
My Macâs monitor was at native resâŚ