A number of (reliable) sources indicate that Nikon High Efficiency (NHE) compression is a licensed application of intoPIX TICO. May this be reverse engineered without an intoPIX license? Most IP laws allow reverse engineering if the information is stored on owned media (not merely licensed, but actually owned, such as a CFexpress card). Or would it be less costly for DxO to license the technology from intoPIX? I now have well over 1k images using the Z9 (these are wildlife/nature/landscape – not promos, weddings, etc., or I probably would have many more images) and am using Fast Raw Viewer (FRV) for image evaluation at this point – but no PL5E backend. (FRV cannot handle NHE at this time.)
So still another four weeks minimum… still a little disappointing, I hope it’s great when it’s finally released! Curiously, is that both HE formats or is HE* going to be supported?
3 Likes
Maybe off topic, but for what purpose are you using Topaz?
Gigapixel AI, far better than what Adobe offers. I have used this mostly with 12 Mpix raw images; the enhanced detail is in some sense “not real”, but is pleasing to the client – note that I do not do what Art Wolfe does and simply add subjects (e.g., animals) to an image, nor do I add stock sunset, etc., sky images to make an extraordinary scenic. I use Sharpen AI and Denoise AI for situations in which PL5E does not support the body/lens or produce what I need. For example, the Nikon D850, Sigma TC-1401, Sigma 60-600 Sport is not fully supported, nor – at present – is there any Z9 support.
Based on another Z9 Raw file thread, I applied a workaround today - which is ok for a few photos or with a possibly with macro - see same thread - which I have not tried yet.
I used HxD and the replace function to replace the string “NIKON Z9” with “NIKON Z7”. There are two instances in each Z9 raw file which I changed. This allowed me to launch the raw file in Photolab 5 which treats it as a Z7 file. All good - editing works as normal and quality seems good. Photolab even prompted me to download profiles for Z7 and my lens combination.
I have only shot my Z9 with Full Lossless Compressed so far (in anticipation that this would be the easiest format for software providers to sort first). Indeed LR and C1 already have this ready. I have C1 on 30-day trial, but so far prefer the Photolab 5 outcomes and that is the workflow I am used to. Hopefully DXO get full support for Z9 soon! At least for Lossless Compressed as a first step as it seems to work fine based on the Z7 profile.
1 Like
Mid of March. If I would be a professional photographer I would be going out of my mind, so I am just very sad. And not a word of why, does this really take that long, always, for each camera, for each new sensor?
1 Like
Hi,
I can understand your frustration but if you search a bit on the forum I am sure you will find some answers to this question.
In a nutshell: quality needs time. And before all: DxO need a camera to start the job.
March is around the corner… and not all the pro has taken delivery of that one of a kind new camera yet.
I understand quality, but as a professional company that charges for its services, you should be able to get your hand on a Z9 before normal users. If you are not able to do so you are not professional in my opinon, Sorry that is a lame excuse.
1 Like
Maybe because Z9 are released slowly. In US it begins to be sold (Even there are still guys who preoredered it and are still waiting). In France they are still not avalaible (where I buy anyway - but I think this place have early delivery, because I took there my D850 before any Paris stores have it). Didn’t look at other places anyway.
NPS have priority I think. nikon wants its camera to be seen in events.
You are free to have your opinion.
I do not see how all the negativity and attacks toward DxO in this thread is helping all of us to go forward in mutual respect and understanding.
1 Like
Luminar Neo was just released last week with support for the Z9. It’s not clear whether ON1:Photo Raw 2022 supports the Z9 yet. It didn’t as of a few weeks ago. There are several other raw processors that either don’t currently support the z9 or have only implemented support very recently. Yes, I’m aware that both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom implemented support in December, as did Capture One.
One of the things that DxO is renowned for is the quality of its camera/lens support modules. While it may be a little frustrating to wait longer for DxO to implement those modules than some of its competition, I believe that it’s worth the wait. Support will be available in the next few weeks as indicated by @Marie .
Perhaps now is a good time to drop this topic as it no longer serves any useful purpose other than allowing posters to vent their frustration. But, of course, feel free to continue posting about support "delays"if you wish.
Mark
I am actually glad they they do not get their hands on a lens before normal users. DXO should test just a normal production lens which everyone can buy in a store and not a “special” lens supplied by the manufacturer where no one knows if it has the same specs as the mass produced lenses
Although the specifics of the Z9 support release can be dropped for now, several comments should be noted. For full support with full corrections, one needs to use a sample of production bodies and lenses, not just one sample due to manufacturing tolerances. However, once the raw (NEF) format/s are known (e.g., samples from a pre-production body), reverse engineering a raw intake converter becomes possible. Due to firmware changes, even the testing of a production model may yield different results (digital bodies are computers that take images, not traditional mechanical cameras). I assume that some of the correspondents on the DxO fora are working photographers, and thus in NPS, CPS, SPS, etc., depending upon system/s being used. I received my Z9 through NPS the day after Christmas 2021, and I am NOT an event photographer (wildlife and nature) and thus my equipment may not always be recognized. I have a backlog of images for which I am using the Nikon native application (very primitive by comparison to PL5E) and now Fast Raw Viewer – restricting my NEF format to one supported by the latter. What I had hoped for with the Z9 was that DxO would have raw conversion without all of the Elite features fully working for the Z9 soon after the production body was delivered (NPS) and later update Z9 support – but at least basic raw DxO workflow would be available as with several DxO competitors (including Adobe).
1 Like
This is just another way of ignorance, my posts waits for 11h or more to be approved, while other posts seems to be approved straight away.
The alternative is not preproduction or normal production, the alternative is, to sit back and relax, ignoring your costumers or making sure to get it as soon as possible, and that means taking up the responsibility for your customer. Is this a global company, with users all over the world, then start to act like one. It can not be, that I as a normal user get the camera over a month before DXO. Sorry, again, this is a lame excuse.
1 Like
Really, you mean DXO sitll doesn’t have it and we are waiting not because it needs three month to create the optical moduls, but because DXO was not able to get your hands on a cemera in time. Wow, that is even worse than I thought. I am not NPS and I am in Austria and yet I have mine since beginning of January. A company like DXO must have contacts to Nikon, and must make sure to be treated better or faster then normal users. You answers to only add to my disapointement in DXO. Sorry
1 Like
@Harald
It seems dxo needs several cameras to “average” results because there are difference between different cameras (as beetween lenses). This is how I understand dxo make them tests.
And it seems too that even NPS can’t yet get a second Z9 (saw this on us forums).
I’m not working for dxo so I just guess what it is, but seing what happens on several forums, it seems obvious that getting several Z9 is not easy now.
Lots of people wants Z9.
A vendor does not need to supply the final configuration for a specific body (eg, Nikon Z9) to enable those who have the body to be able to use the application of the vendor. Thus for the Z9, both Adobe and FastRawViewer have Z9 NEF (raw) support (for at least some of the Z9 NEF compression methods). As DxO obtains additional samples of the Z9 (or as Nikon releases firmware updates for any Nikon body that affects the DxO body “profile”), the relevant components of the application can be updated. I have licensed for fee FastRawViewer, but not being able to process Z9 NEF images in PL5E has adversely affected my productivity and workflow. Note that if the beta/provisional output of a workflow application produces an image that is satisfactory for use (eg, accepted by a client), such an outcome is sufficient in many situations. I have separately posted a different but related issue. As vendors such as Fringer produce full “automation” supporting adapters between the mounts of different camera marques (eg, mounting a Canon EF lens on a Nikon Z body), how much of PL Elite will still function – which settings, operations, or functions will not be enabled? (Marie – comments, please).
1 Like
Do you really think this is a good solution ?
From what I’ve heard it generally doesn’t give good results (I won’t try it).
Better use a native mount for your brand.
I think his point may be a potentially significant increase in the number of lenses made by various manufacturer that could be mounted on cameras by various manufacturers. This would certainly complicate the creation of DxO’s specific camera/lens modules. I think Sony cameras may have started this trend when they are used the metabones lens adapters.
Good quality lens support via an adapter means photographers could purchase a new primary camera from another manufacturer and potentially still be able to use their considerable investment in their current lenses.
I’ve been a Canon shooter for the last 20 years but recently purchased a Nikon Z body. There are two or three of my Canon lenses that I would love to be able to use on this new camera.
Mark
The concept is not new. One can find various references on the web to the Tamron Adaptall et al series of lenses; the Tamron SP lenses typically were competitive with most professional camera lenses of that epoch in terms of both optical performance and construction durability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamron or http://adaptall-2.com/ . There are numerous web sites that discuss the use of the full automation Fringer adapters. (Note: these only go from a SLR/DSLR lens to a mirrorless body as the adapter essentially provides the additional optical path of the mirror box of the SLR/DSLR along with electronic/digital logic/signal conversion, mechanical, and electrical requirements, without any other optical components.) If Mark (above) has a means to provide an off-list email address, I am most interested in discussing Canon EF lenses in terms of specific lenses and performance; in 35 mm and DSLR, I have been a Nikon user.