Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Open discussion about everything and nothing

DMC-LX3 + DxO Optics Pro = Synergy

Postby Detail Man » Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:49 am

Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO = 400, F= 3.2, Ts = 1/15 :



Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO = 400, F= 3.2, Ts = 1/15 :



Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), Zoom Factor = 1.33, ISO = 200, F= 2.8, Ts = 1/13 :



Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO = 80, F= 5.6, Ts = 1/50 :

Last edited by Detail Man on Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

Re: DMC-LX3 + DxO Optics Pro = Synergy

Postby marc » Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:17 pm

Detail Man wrote:[b]Beautiful flowers of unknown name...]

must be of this family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalis_purpurea
Ancient medicine but poisonous, careful with it.
User avatar
marc
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:59 pm
Location: Asturias, Spain

Re: DMC-LX3 + DxO Optics Pro = Synergy

Postby Detail Man » Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:37 pm

marc wrote:Ancient medicine but poisonous, careful with it.

"The pollen contains up to 80% digitalis and this pollen can be found on neighboring plants stamens when they are in bloom."
"Uses section" at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalis_purpurea

It's a good thing that I typically do not "take time to smell the flowers" (as they say) - other than this favorite rose-bush each Spring:
download/file.php?id=7173

These digitalis purpurea flowers are widespread in local yards and gardens. They flower at a plant-height that is typically higher than that easily reached by domestic dogs/cats, etc. - but at an ideal height at which an adult/child might "take a wiff". The curve of the "theraputic index" of digitalis is so steep (the ratio of it's efficacy/toxicity) that I don't believe that it is used at all in modern medical treatments. Thanks for the "heads-up"!
Last edited by Detail Man on Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

Re: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Postby Detail Man » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:00 pm

thelps wrote: :?: :?: :?: Not sure which I am more amazed at the photo or the actual subject - aint nature grand?! :shock:

I take it you are referring to the "fungal armada"? I returned to it quite a few times lately to catch it just after the rains, and when (briefly) in sufficient light under the evergreen canopy to be able to even auto-focus on them. They grow on fallen "nurse-logs" in the Spring and Fall - then disappear rapidly when conditions are not just right. Their colors and reflection of light can be beautiful when these little creatures are in their prime.

Hey, Tim, DxO has extended their offer of DxO Optics Pro 6.x Standard Edition for a mere $99 USD (or a mere $99 Euros, as well, it appears) through June 30, 2010. That's only 40% of the cost of Silkypix Pro, and only 33% of the cost of Lightroom 3. An incredible value considering what it can do for your DMC-LX3 RW2 image-files!

I know that you lost your hard-disk drive during your 30-day trial period, thus cutting short your time to familiarize yourself with it ... but I can assure you that it would be money well-spent! Neither Silkypix Pro or Lightroom 3 come even close to what DxO Optics Pro 6.x can do for (supported) compact cameras such as your DMC-LX3. And, you could (also) use it in conjunction with Lightroom 3 (as a post-editor) ... :P ... See:
http://www.dxo.com/var/dxo/storage/fcke ... csPro6.pdf
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

Re: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Postby odklizec » Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:58 pm

Jeremy, it's nice to hear about all DxO advantages over the SP or LR3. But I'm afraid, this all does not really matter as long as the DxO folks are unable (or willing) to add support for all RAW formats and cameras. And this is where the DxO really struggles. It's nice to have RAW editor carefully optimized for given cameras and lenses, but it's good only for people with supported cameras. DxO still does not support any of the recent mirror-less cameras, like GF1, Pen1/2 or NX10! And this is a real shame!

No matter how good are the results from DxO, it does not support majority of the recent cameras and lenses and DxO Lab is generally very slow in adding support for new cameras. Silkypix, on the other hand, is updated every few weeks with support for recent cameras! If there is no way to use DxO with recent cameras, there is very thin chance it will ever become popular amongst the majority of photographers using this or that unsupported camera. I don't know like others, but I'm not really interested in converting every DNG to TIFF, just to be able to process it in DxO. Not to mention that DxO NR (and probably some other settings) does not work with TIFF from unsupported cameras!

I doubt DxO will add support for Ricoh cameras anytime soon (if ever). There are not supported many recent and widely used cameras (like the very actual mirror-less cameras) so why there should be support for relative minor Ricoh market? Therefore, DxO is not an alternative for Ricoh users, and I'm afraid, it's not an alternative for many non-Ricoh users as well. Just my two cents... ;)
Pavel Kudrys
---
Flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/odklizec/
User avatar
odklizec
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 5:10 pm
Location: Today in Slovakia

Re: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Postby Detail Man » Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:54 pm

odklizec wrote:Jeremy, it's nice to hear about all DxO advantages over the SP or LR3. But I'm afraid, this all does not really matter as long as the DxO folks are unable (or willing) to add support for all RAW formats and cameras. And this is where the DxO really struggles. It's nice to have RAW editor carefully optimized for given cameras and lenses, but it's good only for people with supported cameras. DxO still does not support any of the recent mirror-less cameras, like GF1, Pen1/2 or NX10! And this is a real shame!

Agreed. Here we have the software (as it stands) "driving" the camera market - rather than the other way around. Problematic from both "ends" (for the customer as well as the manufacturer). DxO has already collaborated with Sony on project(s). It would surprise no-one (I would think) if DxO were to exclusively license some/all of it's technologies to a single large camera manufacturer in the future.

For customers who have/will choose a DxO-supported camera/lens combination, it matters, however. While perhaps somewhat esoteric, the Panasonic DMC-LX3 and the Canon G11 (for a relatively low cost) can be transformed in very positive ways. Everybody seem frustrated by DxO ... but it is because of a desire to implement their technologies - and not out of a desire to reject their technologies.

And if one (always) had to purchase an (i.e., Sony) camera model to acquire the technologies, I doubt if people will feel any less frustrated ... :P

No matter how good are the results from DxO, it does not support majority of the recent cameras and lenses and DxO Lab is generally very slow in adding support for new cameras. Silkypix, on the other hand, is updated every few weeks with support for recent cameras! If there is no way to use DxO with recent cameras, there is very thin chance it will ever become popular amongst the majority of photographers using this or that unsupported camera.

True. Yes, it's great how other "raw" processors add support more reliably and rapidly. The "bottom line" is what the hardware/software combination can do for the user in terms of image quality. Ricoh cameras are (themselves) a tiny niche of the camera market. Are we not all a bit "esoteric" in our choices (for understandable reasons, and in search of image quality)? Neither of these corporations hold (or are very likely in the future to hold) a major market-share of their respective technologies ... But this does not stop us from admiring and seeking out their products ... :P

I don't know like others, but I'm not really interested in converting every DNG to TIFF, just to be able to process it in DxO. Not to mention that DxO NR (and probably some other settings) does not work with TIFF from unsupported cameras!

(Perhaps because Dxo very likely performs deconvolution deblurring prior to noise reduction and prior to demosaicing), the "Lens Softness" corrections, as well as the Noise Reduction, as well as true White Balance control (as is the case with all processors), are not operable in the case of TIFF or JPEG image-file input. I have not suggested that 16-TIFF input represented an equivalent implementation of DxO.

The same can definitely be said for Silkypix (we know for sure of functional limitations in the TIFF and JPEG input case), and it is not clear that Lightroom 3 implements it's functions in the same way for TIFF and JPEG input (as compared to "raw" input), either.

I doubt DxO will add support for Ricoh cameras anytime soon (if ever). There are not supported many recent and widely used cameras (like the very actual mirror-less cameras) so why there should be support for relative minor Ricoh market? Therefore, DxO is not an alternative for Ricoh users, and I'm afraid, it's not an alternative for many non-Ricoh users as well. Just my two cents... ;)

These things are known and have been discussed in detail. I share the same frustrations (in the case of my never to be supported DMC-FZ50). I guess that good things (in general) do not come easily, do not last forever, and often exact some kind of price/limitation upon the customer. That's why I have (largely) restricted my (DMC-LX3 + DxO) example images and in-depth discussions regarding this implementation of DxO Optics Pro 6.x (unless directly relevant to a particular thread) to a forum-thread named "Panasonic DMC-LX3". Demonstrating what is possible with various alternatives (however esoteric they may appear from the standpoint of a commercial marketing environment) seems (to me) to hold some value (aesthetic if not technical, as well).
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

DMC-LX3 + DxO Optics Pro = Synergy

Postby Detail Man » Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:27 pm

Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO=200, F=4.0, Ts=1/15. All output TIF post-processing of this 5.40 Mpixel crop of the full 10 Mpixel
image-frame (Lanczos re-sampling followed by very light USM) prior to JPG conversion was performed using all-16-bit arithmetic:


P1050705_DMC-LX3_ISO-200_DxO-6.2_Artizen-2.86_Sagelight-3.102.jpg
P1050705_DMC-LX3_ISO-200_DxO-6.2_Artizen-2.86_Sagelight-3.102.jpg (876.48 KiB) Viewed 935 times
Last edited by Detail Man on Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

Panasonic DMC-LX3 Comparisons with DMC-GF1 + Pancake

Postby Detail Man » Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:46 pm

I've made some performance comparisons between the 12 Mpixel DMC-GF1 and the 10 Mpixel DMC-LX3 on this (and another) thread:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1556&start=120#p21433
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=4938&start=10#p22811

Have been delving further into the very interesting and compelling thoughts of a fellow named Daniel Browning. Browning maintains that when comparing two different cameras with image-sensors having different pixel-pitches, ratings of such metrics as dynamic-range should be increased in the smaller pixel-pitch camera by an amount proportional to the ratio of the larger pixel-pitch of the compared camera divided by the smaller pixel-pitch:

"Spatial Frequency.
Performance scales with spatial frequency. In other words, the many important performance characteristics of a digital image are all a function of spatial frequency, including noise, dynamic range, color depth, diffraction, aberrations, and motion blur ...
... 100% crop is the most common way to compare image sensors, but it is very misleading when the sensors have different pixel sizes. The reason is that 100% means the maximum spatial frequency. But different pixel sizes sample different spatial frequencies. So 100% crop means higher spatial frequencies for small pixel sensors than it does for big pixel sensors. This results in comparisons of completely different portions of the image. A 100% crop of a small pixel image would show a single leaf, whereas a 100% crop in a large pixel image would show the entire shrub. It's a nonsensical comparison. Failing to account for that important and fundamental difference is one of the most common flaws in such comparisons ...
... The spatial frequency mistakes error may have roots in the fact that the standard engineering measurements for sensor characteristics such as noise is necessarily at the level of the pixel. Sensitivity is measured in photoelectrons per lux second per pixel. Read noise is measured in RMS e- or ADU per pixel. Dynamic range is measured in stops or dB per pixel. There is nothing wrong with per-pixel measurements per se, but it should be understood how that relates to the image as a whole. The scale, or level of detail, should be accounted for correctly to understand the performance of the image sensor, not just a single pixel of that image sensor. Image sensor performance, like MTF, cannot be quantified without understanding the effect of spatial frequency."

Browning ends his post with an example of the comparison of the Panasonic DMC-LX3 with a Canon 5D2 (having around three times as large pixels as the DMC-LX3), and increases the DxOMark specified dynamic-range by a (linear) multiplying factor equal to the ratio of the larger pixel-pitch of the compared camera divided by the smaller pixel-pitch of the DMC-LX3:

"Math Example.
Here is the math on a comparison of dynamic range between the LX3 and 5D2. Compare the 2-micron pixels of the LX3 (10.7 stops DR) with the immensely larger 6.4 micron pixels of the 5D2 (11.1 stops DR). Going by the per-pixel numbers, it seems that the smaller LX3 pixels have less dynamic range. But remember that the LX3-sized pixel samples a much, much higher spatial frequency. At the same spatial frequency, the scaled LX3 pixels have 12.3 stops of dynamic range, 1.2 stops greater."

See: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... p?t=706255

Browning is saying that the spatial-frequency response of an image sensor's Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) increases with decreasing pixel-pitch (pixel-size). As MTFs of lens-systems and image-sensors can be multiplied together to determine maximum resolution (in line-pairs per Millimeter), a higher image-sensor spatial-frequency response can be thought of as having a similar net effect as does extending the 50% amplitude spatial-frequency of the MTF of the lens-system to increase the total possible maximum resolution (in line-pairs / mm when shooting test-targets).
A nice (fairly informative, but not highly technical) web-page that discusses a bit about "Modulation Transfer Functions" (MTFs) is at:
http://worldcat.org/arcviewer/2/OCC/200 ... file2.html

Applying his approach using closely matched DxOMark ("raw"-referenced) ISO levels (which are different than the JPG-referenced measured ISO levels on the camera controls and in the camera specifications), I get the following results when comparing the (DxOMark specified 2.15 Micron pixel-pitch) DMC-LX3 image-sensor (adjusted) dynamic-range with that of the (DxOMark specified 4.31 Micron pixel-pitch) DMC-GF1 image-sensor. Note: The ISO Sensitivities listed below are the JPG-referenced values that appear on the controls and the interface displays of both cameras.

The DMC-LX3 at ISO=400 has a 9.44 EV (adjusted) dynamic-range that slightly exceeds the 9.38 EV dynamic-range of the DMC-GF1 at ISO=200 (where the "raw"-referenced ISO Sensitivities are nearly equivalent) by 0.06 EV; and

The DMC-LX3 at ISO=200 has a 10.37 EV (adjusted) dynamic-range that exceeds the 9.98 EV dynamic-range of the DMC-GF1 at ISO=100 (where the "raw"-referenced ISO Sensitivities are nearly equivalent) by 0.39 EV.


In addition to the lack of Optical Image Stabilization when the DMC-GF1 is equipped with the Panasonic 20 mm F/1.7 ASPH LUMIX G lens, as well as the unfortunate lack of DxO Optics Pro support (the DMC-GH1 is supported), the (DxOMark specified) 2.15 Micron pixel-pitch of the DMC-LX3 image-sensor (as compared with the 4.31 Micron pixel-pitch of the DMC-GF1 image-sensor) offers higher spatial-frequency resolution (at the image-sensor level). Thus, the DMC-LX3 features:

(1) Much better Depth of Field performance than the DMC-GF1 with the Panasonic 20 mm F/1.7 ASPH LUMIX G lens; and

(2) Much lower Shutter-Speeds possible at the same ISO Sensitivities using it's in-camera Optical Image Stabilization; and

(3) A superior (when adjusted via Brown's thesis) "raw" dynamic-range metric (due to it's increased higher spatial-frequency resolution); and

(4) One-half the cost of the DMC-GF1 ($400 USD for the DMC-LX3 as opposed to $800 USD for the DMC-GF1 with 20 mm pancake lens); and

(5) DxO Optics Pro 6.x "raw" processing support (for an extra $169 USD, or, perhaps, once again to be offered at the promotional $99 USD price).


The (also DxO Optics Pro 6.x supported) 10 Mpixel Canon Power Shot G11 and the 12 Mpixel Panasonic DMC-GH1 are both larger, heavier, more expensive, and not pocket-able cameras.
An inveterate DMC-LX3 "fan-boy" I (might, indeed) be - but not without quite a few of the above listed and very specific reasons and rationales ...
:P
Last edited by Detail Man on Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

Re: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

Postby thelps » Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:19 pm

While I won't argue with your math in relation to the LX3 vs GF1+20mm,there are some "tricks" that the GF1 can do that the LX3 can't, hence its "Raison d'être" - at least in my bag. First is the options of lenses, via adapters is enormous - has there ever been a bigger system? The main reason the GF1 is in my stable is because of a simple horizontal shift adapter -- http://www.fotodiox.com/catalog/product ... cts_id=461 -- I have some projects in mind using this.

Truth is I could sell the 20mm and I'd still keep the GF1 body to use the above adapter with one of my Zuiko OM lenses but I keep the 20mm to make the camera more versatile and complete. I guess it also clashes with the same effective focal length on the DP2 but there was the lure of f1.7

The LX3 is a compelling camera, it has generated a lot of wonderful images for me and will remain a milestone/cult camera IMO - I am a fellow fanboi. I suspect I will keep my LX3 (I've grown accustomed to it) even if I buy a LX4/5 or whatever is next.
Tim
__________________________________________________________________________________________

| Ricoh GRD I Limited | Ricoh GRD II | Ricoh GRD III | Ricoh GRD IV | Ricoh GR | and some inspiration
User avatar
thelps
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:12 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

DMC-LX3 + DxO Optics Pro

Postby Detail Man » Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:21 pm

DxO Optics Pro 6.2 RW2 processing, Lanczos-3 downward re-sampling, and light USM (Pixel Radius = 0.5) prior to HQ JPG conversion on all images.

Both Montbretia shots have been re-processed (relative to the previously posted version) for a bit more contrast, and more vivid color.

Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO=200, F=4.0, Ts=1/15, 6.95 Mpixel crop. Post-processed using all 16-bit arithmetic:



A Lily nearing dusk graces the way winding back to the ancient Lady of the Creek ...

Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO=80, F=4.0, Ts=1/50, 6.17 Mpixel crop. Post-processed using all 16-bit arithmetic:

P1060069_DMC-LX3_ISO-80_DxO-6.2_Artizen-2.86_Sagelight-3.102.jpg
P1060069_DMC-LX3_ISO-80_DxO-6.2_Artizen-2.86_Sagelight-3.102.jpg (790.82 KiB) Viewed 899 times


that a blink of the eye of time ago nurtured what were among the world's tallest trees ...

Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO=200, F=2.8, Ts=1/13. 6.68 Mpixel crop. Post-processed using all 16-bit arithmetic:



where a friendly Mountain Lioness spirit finds me (at least once) every Summer
sitting on a favorite log in a secret garden, traveling back in place and time
.

Hand-held with OIS (Mode 2), ISO=200, F=4.0, Ts=1/15, Optical Zoom = 2.0, 6.78 Mpixel crop. Post-processed using all 16-bit arithmetic.


In two to the power nine posts I think that I have already said about all that I might have to say ... Good Day ... :P
User avatar
Detail Man
Site Supporter
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:13 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest