DxO Version 6 is Out

I'm not sure how many people here use DxO, but I just upgraded to from version 5.3.5 to version 6.0. For those that were bothered by the slow processing speed, the new version is much faster on my system. I just ran a trial of 12 pictures with full processing to jpeg and it took maybe a couple of minutes (it went by fast enough that I didn't realize it had finished actually, quite a change from the old version). Just passing the info. along.

How slow of a computer do you have? For LR2, 150 1d3 raws to 1800px jpgs took my laptop about 6-10 min, same thing on my desktop takes less than 3 min even when i'm still editing and watching a movie (talk about multitasking). I've always wondered how DxO compared to standard raw processors.

basroil wrote in post #8987362
How slow of a computer do you have? For LR2, 150 1d3 raws to 1800px jpgs took my laptop about 6-10 min, same thing on my desktop takes less than 3 min even when i'm still editing and watching a movie (talk about multitasking). I've always wondered how DxO compared to standard raw processors.

My computer is probably somewhere in the middle, Windows7 / Core 2 2.33GHz / 4GB RAM. DxO will use each core to process a single image at a time, so bumping up to a quad core would lessen my processing time by half if I were so inclined. DxO is much slower than LR (by at least an order of magnitude I would say) for sure but for me it does so much more and it requires almost no subjective input from me. I'm strictly an amateur, so having a "set and forget" solution works pretty well.

I too upgraded from 5.3.5 to 6 (trial version) on a system running Windows 7 with 2GB memory and a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo. DxO6 does seem much faster, but crashes after 25-35 images. Has anyone else had this problem on a 2gb machine?

DxO support suggested getting more RAM (I'm working on it.) They also suggested a long and complex procedure for collecting debug information. I will try that if the extra RAM doesn't help.

Edited by OP:

After adding 2gb to my Win/7 machine and doing other trickery with memory management, I was able to run 111 pictures through DxO6 without difficulty.

DxO6 seems to be faster than versions 5.xx, perhaps about 30%.

The trickery involved how Windows 7 uses the extra memory. After installing the RAM, my system showed only 2495mb memory, not 4096 (4gb). And DxO6 would run only about 90 images before crashing. After some Googling, I found that Windows XP, Vista, and 7 use memory above 2GB as resources for the operating system, leaving only part of the extra memory for applications such as DxO.

But when I turned on "Memory Mapping", the available memory dropped to 2gb, but DxO ran better, without crashing (111 images.) To turn memory mapping on, it is necessary to enter the computer BIOS, usually by pressing DEL while the computer is starting.

I don't fully understand the technical details, but interested users can Google "Windows 7 Usable Memory".

I have DxO but I hardly ever use it- on if there are some obvious distortion present.

It odes run slow on my computer, as well.

Rodney,

I ran a batch of 115 pictures last night with no problems, so perhaps the RAM suggestion is correct.

I do like the interface improvements that have been made to this version, and the project databases seem much easier to manage as well. The upgrade cost was surprisingly low as well at $44. Time to uninstall that LR trial I guess.

I tried to download the trial version for the Macintosh and it installed with errors and would not run.

DaveSt wrote in post #8995064
Rodney,

I ran a batch of 115 pictures last night with no problems, so perhaps the RAM suggestion is correct.

I do like the interface improvements that have been made to this version, and the project databases seem much easier to manage as well. The upgrade cost was surprisingly low as well at $44. Time to uninstall that LR trial I guess.

Lets just say LR2 never crashed due to low memory

Seems to be an interesting raw processor, but the comments on speed do tell me it's not for me (over the weekend, shot 1k in a sitting, so it would take hours to export that, compared to a few minutes even on my laptop).

basroil wrote in post #8996358
Lets just say LR2 never crashed due to low memory

Seems to be an interesting raw processor, but the comments on speed do tell me it's not for me (over the weekend, shot 1k in a sitting, so it would take hours to export that, compared to a few minutes even on my laptop).

Point taken.

I'm probably just too lazy to learn LR, although something about Adobe's interfaces in general makes me sick to my stomach. They must appeal to artists but I'm an engineer! But seriously, I always found that using programs like Photoshop and Lightroom is more of an art than a science. If I made a living from this I'm sure I would learn those programs, but your 1k session is probably half a year's worth of photos (well, maybe a couple of months) for me