A revolution in Digital Photography ?

Here is a new software which may improve dramatically the quality of the results from

digital camera.

 

<http://www.dolabs.com/Photography/DXO_Optics_PRO.html>

 

Press release:

 

<http://www.dolabs.com/pressroom/release_dxo_opticspro.html>

 

And it seems that the current results need it.

 

Chasseur d'Images has just posted the result of test conducted with another of that

company product <http://www.dolabs.com/Photography/DxO_Analyzer.html>, of the

Canon 10D/300D versus Canon 1Ds both with the 16-35/2,8.

 

The 16-35/2,8 gives better results on the 10D/300D.

 

Chasseur d'Images' conclusion: the EOS 1Ds works well with only few Canon lenses.

 

Pdf is here:

 

http://www.photim.net/Acrobat/Ci-Lab.pdf

 

Other links:

 

http://www.dolabs.com/

 

http://www.photim.com/infos/UneInfo.asp?N=979

 

http://www.photim.com/infos/UneInfo.asp?N=968

This looks VERY promising to me!

I am sure with some trickery they can achieve something. But there is an old saying: "if it goes in like shit, it comes out like shit" Trying to recreate something that isn't there to begin with is asking for trouble. Kinda like "virtual surround sound"...

Thanks to this new software, in this month Chasseur d'Images, they will test several DSLR

with various lenses.

 

That will be interesting to read before buying new lenses for existing DSLR or new DSLR

for existing lenses...

...<div></div>

I read the press release, but the pricing portion reveals no pricing. It will be interesting to check this out.

<<I am sure with some trickery they can achieve something. But there is an old saying: "if it goes in like shit, it comes out like shit" Trying to recreate something that isn't there to begin with is asking for trouble.>>

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. At last someone else with the sense to recognize that digital cameras are a scam. Not one of them, not even the 1Ds, can produce a film-quality image without some phonying-up either in the camera or PS. No matter how slick these algorithms are, they're still making up for missing detail that film captures.

Another program that does something similar, and that won Best of Show at MacWorld, the <a href="http://www.camdynamics.de/en/">CamDynamics Lens &ampl light optimizer</a>

Dear Sir:

 

For the life of me, I cannot fathom your bitterness and animosity towards digital photography.

 

It's quite true that, "without some phonying-up either in the camera or PS," not one digital camera can produce the film-quality (graininess) of a 35mm image.

 

But how does that make digital cameras a scam?

Jon, Best not to feed the trolls.

<p><i>> Not one of them, not even the 1Ds, can produce a film-quality image without some phonying-up either in the camera or PS. No matter how slick these algorithms are, they're still making up for missing detail that film captures.</i>

 

<p>This is certainly not true even in the strictest technical sense.

 

<p>If by "slick algorithms" you refer to USM and such, they do not make up for any missing detail, they just reformat the information.

 

<p>If information was not there (e.g. high frequency spatial components missing or having low SNR), it would not be possible to enhance it (e.g. boost those components).

 

<p>You may as well consider raw capture to be in DCT or whatever other non-viewable format, for example, it does not matter; what matters is information contents included in it, that is the measure of image quality.

 

<p>Claude Shannon's spirit here.

As a photographer the whole concept rubs me the wrong way. I don't know why it just does. Kind of a major turn of to photography in general if this is the direction things are going. I agree "garbage in garbage out" and thats that!!!

Ummm, I dunno. I have to pay someone $10/25 frames to get results from film that I get with my dSLR. :)

 

The biggest element is the photographer, followed by the glass. The media (film, digital) is a distant third.

Don't mind Jay. He's trolling on the Leica forums about film, and over here about digital.

Just appreciate him for what he is - a bitter, unintentionally hilarious person.

 

In that light, Jay, film technology also requires phonying up to a much greater degree than

film! Think about all the people who dunk film into stinky chemicals just to get an image!

How phony!

Jim, well stated. I've said before, there are scads of photographers who could take a P&S and shoot circles around most of us with our EOS 3s or 10Ds (or whatever super SLR is in your bag).

Andrew,<p>

 

How can you speak that way about Jay? He has a "Hero" icon next to his name, which means:<p>

<i>"Members with hero icons have put an enormous effort into contributing to the site making it a better place for others to develop their photography expertise. Heroes are chosen on a case by case basis. Some of the heroes have put great effort into teaching other members by answering their question in a thoughtful way. Others have volunteered by moderating, writing articles or working regularly with the full time staff. We realize the selection process is not perfect, so there may be people who have been overlooked. If this is the case please let us know. The hero icon is designed to thank these individuals for all the time and effort they have put into making photo.net a better learning environment for others and to give them the credit and recognition they deserve."</i><p>

I urge you to click on Jay's name and see for yourself what an enormous contribution he has made to photo.net.

Its sad that these guys a fighting amoungst themselves, when we should be trashing the person who posted this in the first place.

 

"A Revolution in Digital Photography?"

 

How do we know this if there are no examples?

 

Has anyone here been asked to beta test this software? (A revolution is determined by the users not marketing hype.)

 

And no pricing???? It could be miracle software, but if the average user can't afford it, it is useless.

 

So all we have here so far is vaporware, until someone here beta tests it and tells us what it is going to cost.

 

This kind of announcement is much worse than the format wars it seems to have ignited.....

Tongue in cheek, Alan?

I actually think he got the 'Hero' icon by accidentally taking a bullet for Phil.

Jay uses digital images at his work; on a daily basis. I wonder how many others on this thread actually use digital imaging; with an investment/real equipment cost equal to a nice luxury car. <BR><BR>I find it abit odd that some folks are so gung ho about digital; when turn out alot of crap images. <BR><BR>Here they are using digitally submitted images from the funeral homes; for the newspapers obituary columns. Some images are really poor; the worse I have ever seen in my entire life. Today one poor chaps column width image/photo was only 16 pixels per inch. There have been three images this past week; that are between 12 to 20 pixels per inch; for a persons obituary..Users of digital need to develop better skills; and reduce turning out garbage images. Because it is quick; dosent mean one show drop ones standards to lowly levels.

Kelly, I think the final outcome has more to do with the photographer than the camera

used. To turn your statement around on you - I have seen thousands of crappy

snapshots, which makes me wonder why people are so gung-ho about film.

Oh, and Kelly, assuming you have nothing to start with, not even a computer, a DSLR kit,

with lenses, and a computer, and memory cards, can be had for less than $5000. A far cry

from a luxury car, unless a used LeCar is your idea of luxury.

Jay, I was mainly talking lenses, not sensors... Sorry. Truth of the matter is that the moment you scan that perfect little piece of film of yours, you'll need just as much, or more, trickery as a digital capture on a modern DSLR to make it look good enough for print.

Trickery vs. Photography. I want the real deal. This kind of stuff just delays the real issues with digital like completely new sensor designs that deliver more exposure latitude and that deal with light in a less linear fashion. Be prepared for "new and improved" hype every year now while Canon delays having to re-tool for new hardware for the next 3-4 years. I think the new 1D II as far as raw capture and functionality is going to be as good as it gets for a long while in "reality". Sure we will see full frame and more pixels but nothing really substantial as far as real image quality impovements. Let's face it consumers are eating it up.

Jay, do you mean "phonying-up" like what Ansel Adams did in his darkroom?