DxO PureRAW 4 - New Release Reviewed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- Today, DxO has released DxO PureRAW 4. I’ve secured an early beta release of PureRAW 4 to make this video. In it, I’ll walk you through the software's new features, comparing them to PureRAW 3.
Three new features of PureRAW 4 have particularly grabbed my attention are:
- DeepPRIME XD2
- Process with Preview
- Re-engineered Lens Softness Corrections
I’ll explore and demonstrate these in the video and a few other changes.
DXO PURERAW TRIAL
Download a DxO PureRAW trial: tidd.ly/3Forg5P (affiliate link)
PHOTOGRAPHY & PHOTO EDITING BOOKS
Make learning easy with my collection of books: lenscraft.co.uk/books-by-robi...
FREE BOOK
Don't forget to join my free monthly newsletter to get your free copy of my book "6 Steps to Shooting Brilliant Landscape Photography". bit.ly/3GbtmE9
PHOTOGRAPHY & PHOTO EDITING BOOKS
Make learning easy with my collection of books: lenscraft.co.uk/books-by-robi...
#robinwhalley #lenscraft #lenscraftphotography 
Хобби
Thanks Robin for creating and sharing this video. The information was very helpful.
Glad it was helpful. Thank you.
Awesome Robin, thanks! I'm currently 3 days from the end of my PR3 trial and was going to need to purchase, so I'll just go for the PR4 instead!
Glad you liked the video. Thanks
I've been using PR3 and love it. Tried the PR4 trial and uninstalled after trying it out. Took more than a minute to process a raw file that took around 20 seconds in PR3.
That seems odd. Version 4 seems slightly faster on my computer than version 3. The only real difference is when I choose between the different DeepPRIME/noise reduction methods. Even then DeepPRIME XD2 is only taking about 7 seconds with a 20Mpixel Micro 43 RAW file. Have you opened the preferences to check the settings for the DeepPRIME acceleration. Test out some of the options to see if it improves the performance.
@@RobinWhalleyCheers Robin. Will do.
Thank you for your very interesting and clear review.
I mainly shoot Landscapes with my G9 , Lumix 14-140 and Olympus 9-18 and edit with Affinity photo.
Do you think i could get a better sharpness and noise reduction with Pureraw 4, than with Affinity photo using the Live unsharp mask technique on your videos ?
I am prepared to spend the extra money IF i can see a good improvement with the DXO option.
I know that it’s more expensive but I prefer PhotoLab and I think it would be easier to use and give more control. PureRAW is better if you are using Lightroom. It would also make a great way to manage your photos. But if you only want to get the best out of individual RAW files then PureRAW would work well. I would suggest downloading the trial version and use it for a couple of weeks to see if it suits you.
@@RobinWhalley Thank you for your reply and plenty of food for thought. I will try the trial and hopefully i can tear myself away from Affinity, even though i have learn't alot from your videos over the years.
I have installed the trial version. I have come across two issues.
Firstly I found that some of the processed images were softer than the original. You video explains why this may be so I will continue to monitor this
Secondly, I have the new OM-1 mk2. Pure Raw copes OK with standard ORF Raw files but fails with Hi-Res 14 bit images. I presume this is work in progress
I just looked up the supported cameras/lenses on the DxO website (www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/) and it lists OM-1 mk2 without any notes. It's been supported since v3.1.1 of the software. If it didn't support the Hi-Res files, I would expect there to be a note. I don't have this camera, only a G9 and EM5 Mk3 and the high res versions of both worked with PureRAW 4 when I tried them. It may be worth raising a bug report with DxO.
@@RobinWhalley Its the 14 bit HD file that doesn't work. It comes out Magenta. Interestingly, when the camera was first released it wasn't supported in Lightroom but there was a fix that involved fooling LR that the file had come from an OM-1. That then behaved like PureRaw - ie all files were supported except 14 bit HD that came out magenta. I suspect they didn't make any changes apart from treating the files like OM-1 files but the 14 bit ones don't work and they may not have tested that.
I have reported it to DxO already
Good video, but as a recent purchaser of PR3 I'm dismayed by the "no upgrades" policy by DxO. I bought PR3 two months ago, and now they want another $80 to upgrade to PR4. I'm movin' on (ON1 is looking pretty good!)
Same here done the same
Feels like I've been cheated
I'm still using the original pure raw.
I like 4. I downloaded the trial but I don't think my photos are so noisy that I really need it. It's better but not night and day better.
I would upgrade but I'm not paying full whack for it.
Is it compatible with Sony a7IV and a7s Mark I ?
I'm sorry but I don't know. The best thing to do is use the compatibility checker on the DxO Website. That will tell you the latest position and if there are any limitations.
Man, PR4 really hammers my system. PR4 takes over 3x longer than PR3. 7.5 minutes for PR4 XD2 processing of a 20mb OM-1file.
Have you checked the acceleration settings in the software? There are several options and it may be the Automatic setting isn't picking the best one for your system.
My DXO PureRaw 3.9 no longer downloads optical modules no matter what I try.
You should raise a problem report on the DxO website.
@@RobinWhalley they do not respond. Looks like it's a kind of sanction plan, I'm from Russia.
@@grandeguloSorry to hear you can't get a response. This isn't a problem I've come across before. If you're on Windows, have you tried uninstalling, cleaning the Windows registry and then reinstalling? I've seen strange problems with the registry in the past.
@@RobinWhalley Yes, I'm very sorry too. I've used DXO for years. Recently I reinstalled my Windows, didn't help. :(
@@grandeguloprobably the Russian government. They are clamping down on the west's internet. They will probably start their own internal internet soon.
No support for there X100VI ?
Not yet but that's a very new camera. I checked the website (www.dxo.com/supported-cameras/) and they have it listed for release in May.
Who cares
😂 P r o m o S M
unstable as fuck, constantly crashes to desktop (DXO Pure RAW v2 works flawlessly on the very same laptop, with the very same problematic images) . Not all images cause the crash, it's random.
This version is buggy as hell - avoid at all costs.
I’ve been using the full version since launch and the beta for a couple of weeks before that without problems. Make sure you raise a bug report if you haven’t already.
@@RobinWhalley I'm not doing DXO's work for them. Problems like this should have been found and sorted in early alpha release...
Windows 11 fully up to date
DXO v4 fully up to date
Lightroom Classic fully up to date
Nvidia drivers fully up to date
I've set Windows 11 up to use GPU acceleration for Lightroom, Photoshop and DXO (v2 and v4). v2 operates without issue.
I've had this problem happen on 3 images now (Canon CR3 files, R3, ~24mp).
In software development there are so many variables that could be causing an issue. If you don’t report problems they might never find the issue. No software is bug free. If it was it would take years to release anything and you wouldn’t be able to afford it.
@@RobinWhalley Robin, with all due respect, 15 years in IT, including system/application testing - I already know what you are saying. You are missing my point. Elementary bugs like this shouldn't make it past alpha testing. It's no secret that companies skip alpha and beta testing these days and just ship shoddy software and let the end user/consumer do their alpha/beta testing for them - for FREE. I'm paying for the software, I expect the software developer to do their due diligence and proper testing before releasing to the public.
PS GNU software, for example, the GNU/Linux kernel has far less bugs per thousand lines of code that any competing kernel software. The economics of capitalism means it is expensive to do bug testing, and this eats into company products. Companies are more loyal to their board of directors and shareholders than they are their consumer customers. That much is very clear.
@@davepasternI accept some of what you are saying, but you can't claim this is an elementary bug unless you can show what is causing it or that multiple users are experiencing it. I would agree that it's a catastrophic bug for you in the results, but it could be caused by many things, not necessarily code. I've also done a quick search of the forums, and I'm not seeing people complaining about this.