# DxO OpticsPro 11



## AlanF (Jun 1, 2016)

DxO has just released DxO OpticsPro 11. It claims:
"With a newly-optimized algorithm, the DxO PRIME 2016 technology processes your RAW files up 4 times faster than before: in fact, the higher the sensitivity, the bigger the benefit of processing time."

Just downloaded and tested it. On a typical RAW file on MacPro: OpticsPro 10, 1 minute 25 seconds to process; OpticsPro 11; 1 minute 29 seconds.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 1, 2016)

AlanF said:


> DxO has just released DxO OpticsPro 11. It claims:
> "With a newly-optimized algorithm, the DxO PRIME 2016 technology processes your RAW files up 4 times faster than before: in fact, the higher the sensitivity, the bigger the benefit of processing time."
> 
> Just downloaded and tested it. On a typical RAW file on MacPro: OpticsPro 10, 1 minute 25 seconds to process; OpticsPro 11; 1 minute 29 seconds.



What does processing entail for the test?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 1, 2016)

Exporting 5DS R file from RAW with PRIME denoising to jpeg, and no other processing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2016)

I recall from an earlier version (not sure how far back) there was a settings tick box for GPU acceleration. 

Also, the stated improvement might be in threading behavior, have you tried processing a small batch of RAWs vs. one? Side note – many years ago I had a deconvolution microscopy system that came with an SGI Octane and took ~8 hours to process an image stack. While the Octane was a powerful workstation for in its pre-cluster day, we decided to try running the analysis on our Cray Y-MP...and it took ~8.5 hours to process a stack. The difference was that the Cray could process up to a hundred stacks at once, vs. one at a time on the Octane. 

Finally, I'll pedantically point out that 0.96x faster still fits the definition of "up to 4x faster."


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I recall from an earlier version (not sure how far back) there was a settings tick box for GPU acceleration.
> 
> Also, the stated improvement might be in threading behavior, have you tried processing a small batch of RAWs vs. one? Side note – many years ago I had a deconvolution microscopy system that came with an SGI Octane and took ~8 hours to process an image stack. While the Octane was a powerful workstation for in its pre-cluster day, we decided to try running the analysis on our Cray Y-MP...and it took ~8.5 hours to process a stack. The difference was that the Cray could process up to a hundred stacks at once, vs. one at a time on the Octane.
> 
> Finally, I'll pedantically point out that 0.96x faster still fits the definition of "up to 4x faster."



Batch processing makes a huge difference. In addition to the "use GPU" tick-box, you can select the number of concurrent images to process. On my Mac I can run 8 images in parallel and it takes the same amount of time to run 8 as it does one.

From the OP, it appears that version 11 was actually slower than version 10.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2016)

Dis another test, just converting RAW with PRIME from 5DS R: DxO 10, 1 min 37 sec; DxO 11, 1 min 42 sec.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

Alan, you omitted a key piece of information - at what ISO were those images captured?

My own results, image(s) from 1D X, 17" MacBook Pro:

Single image, ISO 3200
• v10, standard NR took 0:26, PRIME NR took 2:05
• v11, standard NR took 0:26, PRIME NR took 1:52

Single image, ISO 25600
• v10, standard NR took 0:23, PRIME NR took *2:25*
• v11, standard NR took 0:24, PRIME NR took *1:24*

3 images, ISO 3200
• v10, standard NR took 1:09, PRIME NR took 5:26
• v11, standard NR took 1:12, PRIME NR took 5:16

3 images, ISO 25600
• v10, standard NR took 1:03, PRIME NR took *6:56*
• v11, standard NR took 1:07, PRIME NR took *3:36*

So, at 'low' ISO (low for when I'd choose to use PRIME NR, usually at ISO 3200 and up on FF, ISO 800 and up on APS-C), v11 is not slower for me, but only very slightly faster. However, at high ISO v11 is _significantly_ faster.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2016)

iso 640. My camera goes up only to iso 6,400, so 25,600 doesn't come into it. Perhaps, you should get a Nikon D5 so you can use v11 at 3,280,000 and get the full benefit of up to 4x faster.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2016)

AlanF said:


> iso 640



Why would you use PRIME NR at ISO 640 on a FF body?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > iso 640
> ...



For my bird photography, the image is the same size on FF and crop, and the 5DS R has the same size pixels as the 7DII and similar, although slightly better, noise. I crop a lot and DxO PRIME does a fantastic job of removing noise. I am just disappointed that DxO 11 seems only incrementally better than v 10 as I do like the software.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Alan, you omitted a key piece of information - at what ISO were those images captured?
> 
> My own results, image(s) from 1D X, 17" MacBook Pro:
> 
> ...



Interesting results at the higher ISO values. How did they compare visually?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 3, 2016)

So the big question is how much better image quality does it deliver over v10?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2016)

I gave DXO a try several times, but when I think of trying to edit 2000-2500 images, I give up after a few. I've tried most of the raw processors, but having used LR now since V2, I am proficient enough to be able to process large numbers of images in a short time. If I have 100 images taken in the same light and general composition, I edit the first, and sync the edit settings to the others. Then, I sort thru them making minor adjustments, crops, etc. If I work hard at it, I can process 1000 images in 3 or 4 hours. By then, I am thru for the day! I have issues with tendons in my right wrist and arm, if I set that off, I can be slowed way down for weeks, I've had surgery and rehab, but resting that hand and arm works best.

I've considered just shooting jpg, but I usually still have to crop and straighten, and if lighting is off, raws edit much cleaner.


----------



## niels123 (Jun 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I gave DXO a try several times, but when I think of trying to edit 2000-2500 images, I give up after a few. I've tried most of the raw processors, but having used LR now since V2, I am proficient enough to be able to process large numbers of images in a short time. If I have 100 images taken in the same light and general composition, I edit the first, and sync the edit settings to the others. Then, I sort thru them making minor adjustments, crops, etc. If I work hard at it, I can process 1000 images in 3 or 4 hours. By then, I am thru for the day! I have issues with tendons in my right wrist and arm, if I set that off, I can be slowed way down for weeks, I've had surgery and rehab, but resting that hand and arm works best.
> 
> I've considered just shooting jpg, but I usually still have to crop and straighten, and if lighting is off, raws edit much cleaner.



I agree with you, but I think DxO can be wonderfull if used occasionally on the very best images only.


----------



## jwilbern (Jun 4, 2016)

I upgraded to v10 a few weeks ago so I could use my G5X, and I was able to upgrade to v11 for free. Worth checking out if you went to v10 recently. It was nice of them to do that, although on my old iMac I am not expecting a speed boost.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I gave DXO a try several times, but when I think of trying to edit 2000-2500 images, I give up after a few. I've tried most of the raw processors, but having used LR now since V2, I am proficient enough to be able to process large numbers of images in a short time. If I have 100 images taken in the same light and general composition, I edit the first, and sync the edit settings to the others. Then, I sort thru them making minor adjustments, crops, etc. If I work hard at it, I can process 1000 images in 3 or 4 hours. By then, I am thru for the day! I have issues with tendons in my right wrist and arm, if I set that off, I can be slowed way down for weeks, I've had surgery and rehab, but resting that hand and arm works best.
> 
> I've considered just shooting jpg, but I usually still have to crop and straighten, and if lighting is off, raws edit much cleaner.



You can, and I do, work in a similar manner with OP. I'll make initial adjustments on one image, copy them, and then apply those to a larger batch. Then I'll go through them individually to make final tweaks (crops and the occasional rotation). Often times I'll copy and paste the crop box if appropriate. 1000 photos in 3-4 hours is easily doable. In the end though it comes down to personal preference. If the High ISO Prime denoising is the same or better quality and a lot faster that will be sufficient reason for me to upgrade.

I just wished that OP could do integer math properly so that a crop with 1:1 aspect ratio always had the dimensions in pixels equal (the same goes for other ratios). I really want my images to be 3000x3000 (or whatever) instead of 3000x2999. This will be the first thing I test in the new version, and the first bit of feedback I give them if they have not fixed it.

I just did an inquiry on upgrade pricing from OP10 and will pass along that info when they respond.


----------



## Zv (Jun 4, 2016)

I got v10 during the Xmas sale in December. I checked to see how much the upgrade would be for me and it's around $60 (¥6800 or something like that). I think I'll pass seeing these comments. Thanks for the data, I don't shoot that high ISO that I would see much benefit from it. 

I've barely used OP10 since I got it. Feels like a waste of money for me as I can do just fine with LR. Takes flippin ages and creates extra DXO files all over the place. No thanks. 

Good for denoising one or two must salvage shots. For bulk just make a few NR presets on LR.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 4, 2016)

I gave up on LR ages ago. Not just because there were better products out there for what I needed, but I grew tired of their cloud model, didn't want to get stuck migrating to a subscription model in the future. I moved to OP for most of my editing. If you spend some time with it, you can get much better results than you can with LR. 

If I need speed and quick editing I usually just run them through DNG converter and use my old PS CS5 which is quicker at reviewing cropping rotating and few other minor tweaks but I rarely us it anymore. DXO OP is my go to tool for denoise and sharpening. Upgrade was 69.00 and worth it.

I assume 1dx mark ii support will only be added in v11. They did that before with the 7d mark ii. Needed to go to v10 to get the plugin.


----------



## CaiLeDao (Jun 4, 2016)

I am finding the performance on a Mac Pro much improved. The file window is refreshing more quickly and I don't find the wait time for images to appear too bad now, was quite frustrating before in larger folders.
Images to TIFF has speeded up a lot as well, never actually timed it before just waited, in V11 a typical 5D MarkIII file takes 10 Seconds and a 5D SR takes 23Seconds so I think the up to 4 times faster is probably correct - subjectively for me at least. Realise it will be different for JPEG's but thats not my workflow.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 12, 2016)

I upgraded to OP 11 and had a chance to check out the changes and improvements. I was particularly interested in the claimed speed increase of the Prime noise reduction. Wow! Using some photos from my 7D2, it processed photos in 12 seconds. So, I processed the same photos with OP 10 and those took 30 seconds. That is a nice improvement.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 12, 2016)

OK, I'm a sucker, so I installed it and loaded 1060 images, mostly from a shoot recently at a theater in low light.

The images loaded reasonably fast, faster than I could process them. Then when I selected a image, it only took about the same time as LR, 2-3 seconds to apply the prime NR and auto corrections.

The result, to me, was awful. All the images were over processed, detail was lots that was there in LR. The reason was primarily the heavy handed NR that was being applied. I prefer slightly noisy images in order to retain detail. When the NR blurs fine strands of hair, and does not need to, I think its over processed. Sure, the noise was removed from the black background, but it will print black in any event.

I did a export to LR, it seemed to process one image in a few seconds, so I did a 8.5 X 11 print to my color laser. It took close to 30 seconds to process! This is totally unacceptable to me, if I want to print even 50 photos, it could take forever. Those functions were so slow on the previous version that they were unusable. The print function is still the same, for my easy test.

I'd say that as others have said, for a few images, DXO can do a good job, but if you want to process large numbers, I am dubious, particularly for the automatic processing functions which need major tweaking after processing.

OK, I picked up the photo off my printer to see how good it looked.

Judge this quick snapshot for yourself. It defies explanation.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 12, 2016)

OK, to be fair, I restarted DXO, and was surprised that I had to wait a few seconds for the images to appear. I selected a different photo, and times the print process. 40 seconds to process and send to the printer. That does not include processing and printing time that the printer takes. 

The results were the same. Obviously, it does not like the Xerox printer driver. I'm not going to play with it any longer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Obviously, it does not like the Xerox printer driver.



Clearly.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, it does not like the Xerox printer driver.
> ...



I have no issues with either of my Canon printers....


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 13, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> OK, I'm a sucker, so I installed it and loaded 1060 images, mostly from a shoot recently at a theater in low light.
> 
> The images loaded reasonably fast, faster than I could process them. Then when I selected a image, it only took about the same time as LR, 2-3 seconds to apply the prime NR and auto corrections.
> 
> ...



I have no idea what caused the issues illustrated by your posted images.
I also know that DxO OP noise filtering does not like jpegs. It was not clear form your post whether or not you started with RAW images.
Like most things, there are lots of personal preferences and products that cater to those. If OP does not meet your personal desires there are other products that might. I'm happy with it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, it does not like the Xerox printer driver.
> ...



I've decided its a issue with the Xerox Global Print Driver for Windows 10. I use the PCL driver. The PS driver produces a nice image, but prints two extra pages, another known issue.

I may yet need to install Windows 7 on my new computer, or get a new printer. I have two Xerox phaser 6200's that are probably going to run forever, I generally do not use them to print photos, but when I printed a long color pdf file of photos last night, it printed beautifully. Since I use Adobe Acrobat, they obviously know how to send images to that printer, but light room images printed on it don't look right even though they do not have the same issue as DXO.

I tried printing to a pdf file, then printed it, and it came out fine.

Strange!


----------

