gus6464 wrote:
They release a new one every year and they always charge to upgrade from last version?
That is how they achieve their annual revenue. No different than PL, C1 Pro, ON1 and all the others that are on an annual cycle. DXO is pretty smart to do this March to March. They can avoid the BF sales.
Zenon Char wrote:
That is how they achieve their annual revenue. No different than PL, C1 Pro, ON1 and all the others that are on an annual cycle. DXO is pretty smart to do this March to March. They can avoid the BF sales.
If that's the case why not just charge a subscription fee like adobe?
gus6464 wrote:
If that's the case why not just charge a subscription fee like adobe?
It is good to have a choice. That is the choice to upgrade or not. With DxO, one is an owner, whereas with Adobe one is a renter, like it or not. Ultimately, this may or may not make a difference for those who regularly update their software. However, modern DxO software products are mature apps and I can think of some users on a tight budget who may want to keep using their older versions and upgrade once in every few years rather than every year.
ruthenium wrote:
It is good to have a choice. That is the choice to upgrade or not. With DxO, one is an owner, whereas with Adobe one is a renter, like it or not. Ultimately, this may or may not make a difference for those who regularly update their software. However, modern DxO software products are mature apps and I can think of some users on a tight budget who may want to keep using their older versions and upgrade once in every few years rather than every year.
I own it for life except I have PL3 and didn't get even a full year out of it. Whenever DXO feels like getting around to adding RAW support for a new camera (if they ever do) does not work for me. These days Adobe has RAW support when a new camera is released. Major releases mid year.
Zenon Char wrote:
I own it for life except I have PL3 and didn't get even a full year out of it. Whenever DXO feels like getting around to adding RAW support for a new camera (if they ever do) does not work for me. These days Adobe has RAW support when a new camera is released. Major releases mid year.
Each to theor own. I much prefer subscription.
Adobe doesn't always have launch day support either, but they are reasonably quick. It took them a while just to get High Efficiency RAW support going for Nikon, and the conversion is still quite poor even to this day, though it technically works.
DXO is reasonably fast with mainstream items. ~1-3 months for cameras, ~2-4 months for lenses, but it can be longer if they can't get the product themselves (like with the exotic lenses - a couple were around one year). If you're shooting with some of the more niche products then DXO will probably be frustrating.
The reason it takes them so long is also the reason why their correction is so much better than others, so it's a trade off. It is annoying if you like to buy things on launch day though, and if that is your primary RAW converter.
I am an early adopter, so I usually just deal with Adobe for a couple months then switch to DXO whenever possible, but I wish they were a bit faster as well.
CanadaMark wrote:
Adobe doesn't always have launch day support either, but they are reasonably quick. It took them a while just to get High Efficiency RAW support going for Nikon, and the conversion is still quite poor even to this day, though it technically works.
DXO is reasonably fast with mainstream items. ~1-3 months for cameras, ~2-4 months for lenses, but it can be longer if they can't get the product themselves (like with the exotic lenses - a couple were around one year). If you're shooting with some of the more niche products then DXO will probably be frustrating.
The reason it takes them so long is also the reason why their correction is so much better than others, so it's a trade off. It is annoying if you like to buy things on launch day though, and if that is your primary RAW converter.
I am an early adopter, so I usually just deal with Adobe for a couple months then switch to DXO whenever possible, but I wish they were a bit faster as well....Show more →
Still not a good enough excuse for me with my R5 experience. They just let it ride out and wanted more money so I could use it again. Most DXO users try to convince me that is perfectly fine. I’ll never accept it and I don’t care how good it is.
I only posted to say PR4 was released and not intend this to turn into another you have a choice, no choice scenario. Each has their own system/business model and you pick which one you works best for you.
"This latest iteration of the software also offers improved lens softness correction. It is a process enabled by DxO Optics Modules where mathematical models are developed from observing each lens’ performance across the entire field of view and focal range.
This modeling ensures that precise, incremental, levels of sharpening are applied across the image in direct response to the lens’ measured performance. This is why DxO claims software that uses global sharpening cannot compete with DxO’s laboratory-based lens testing."
ruthenium wrote:
However, modern DxO software products are mature apps
full of bugs in basic things like raw conversion... as of v7.5 DxO code still destroys >= 1/3 stops of raw data close to clipping point during their "raw conversion"
gus6464 wrote:
If that's the case why not just charge a subscription fee like adobe?
because they treat users like i$$$ts ... you want a "fine" contrast sliders ? buy FilmPack ... that is the way to gouge the money otherwise absent w/o subscription model
exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
full of bugs in basic things like raw conversion... as of v7.5 DxO code still destroys >= 1/3 stops of raw data close to clipping point during their "raw conversion"
once I test that a raw file is not exposed so that DxO PhotoLab destroys __UNCLIPPED__ raw data through its demosaick stage I use DxO PL to generate a linear DNG ( noise reduction and optics correction only ) and then I can use a normal software like ACR or C1 ... if I find that it destroys I use my code to compress the raw data that otherwise will be destroyed below the DxO point of destruction before feeding to DxO PL ( or not use DxO at all in this case ) ...
"This latest iteration of the software also offers improved lens softness correction. It is a process enabled by DxO Optics Modules where mathematical models are developed from observing each lens’ performance across the entire field of view and focal range.
This modeling ensures that precise, incremental, levels of sharpening are applied across the image in direct response to the lens’ measured performance. This is why DxO claims software that uses global sharpening cannot compete with DxO’s laboratory-based lens testing."
DXO has been doing that for as long as I can remember and they have put the work into that. They were doing that with DXO
Optics before it turned into PhotoLab. The only thing that comes close, matches or exceeds it is Canon's DLO. Other camera manufacturers may have something similar but I don't know anything about those.
Competition is so great for us. Jan Wegener favoured Adobe Denoise AI over DXO in a video he put out two months ago. In his latest video he now states DeepPrime XD2 edges out Adobe.
Zenon Char wrote:
Jan Wegener favoured Adobe Denoise AI over DXO in a video he put out two months ago. In his latest video he now states DeepPrime DX2 edges out Adobe.
