Existing users, 
Advanced SearchUser Name jamesn20012001
Member Since 2002-03-05
Total number of Feedback Posts: 46
Total number of comments: 0
Last 10 Feedback Posts by jamesn20012001 [ Search for All ]
DxO Optics Pro 5.2 (Mac OS X)
Finally- everything's working for me on 5.2 
So, I upgraded to 5.2 and was initially disappointed in the results. This time my comments to DXO were answered immediately by one of their customer service representatives ( Gaël ). Gaël suggested that my problem with reduced visibility of shadow detail with 5.2 compared to 4.5 was due to the fact that there were changes in the default settings of 5.2 compared to 4.5: "Thanks for replying. Version 5 lighting default changed from medium to slight. That might explain the differences in shadow areas, and the sharpness sensation, the "local contrast" parameter of the lighting palette is involved in the sensation of sharpness. If you want to have similar images I would recomend changing the lighting default by "Medium". Would you try this setting and let me know if that change the look of your images?" I went back and re-processed several of the images that I had redone earlier today along with several of the ISO 1600 images that I had been so disappointed with a few weeks ago with 5.1. After doing this, the sharpness was up to the level that I had been seeing with DXO 4.5 and the shadow detail was restored to at least as good as it had been with 4.5. A big difference was visible when I viewed the ISO 1600 images in extreme close-ups ( done by going to iPhoto, moving the slider all the way to the right and then holding down the "Control" key and dialing the spinner dial on my Logitech mouse forward to make a gigantic image of a tiny part of the photo. The resulting detail visible was much smoother and less jaggy mottled looking than the same photo processed in 4.5. Changing the lighting default from "slight" to "medium" made all the difference and made DXO a "must have" as far as I'm concerned. [alert admin]
Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 04:59 PM PDT
DxO Optics Pro 5.2 (Mac OS X)
5.2 version now renders sharp images
I have run several comparisons between 5.2 and 4.5. The 5.2 output is now much sharper than before though it still seems slightly less sharp than the same raw files processed in 4.5. Perhaps some of this is due to somewhat smoother raw conversion. What has not changed is that shadow detail rendered in 5.2 is less open than the same images processed in 4.5. Shadow areas that contain plenty of detail in 4.5 contain somewhat less detail in 5.2. Overall, the images that I processed again in 5.2 when uploaded into iPhoto and viewed back and forth and examined for detail and overall pleasingness- none of the 5.2 images were more enjoyable to view on a 23" Macintosh LCD display when compared to their 4.5 duplicates. I expect that DXO will continue to fine tune this product. The results are good enough that I think it's worth getting this especially if you have one of the newer cameras that are not covered in 4.5. [alert admin]
Read Comments (1) | More Info
Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 08:24 AM PDT
DxO Optics Pro 5.1 (Mac OS X)
I've used DXO earlier products (up to and including 4.5) for Macintosh with extremely satisfying results for several years. The new 5.1 is proving to be a problem for me because it doesn't provide the same satisfying outcome. This is a BIG problem because I've become lazy and just like letting DXO do all the heavy lifting for my final photo results. The problem is, I'd like to purchase one of the more recent Canon or Nikon cameras that are not covered in 4.5- but I sure don't want to have to start processing everything in Aperture, Photoshop etc. Here's a long email I sent to DXO about a month ago (no reply other than a message that it was being referred to one of their product specialists for comment). I sure hope they will get this new version perfected because I really want to purchase it and use it if it's perfected. Gentlemen, I have been using the new DXO 5.1 for Macintosh for a couple of days. My equipment: Mac Pro 2.66 GHZ 5 GB RAM Camera: Canon 20D Canon 17-40L Canon 70-200L Canon 10-22mm I took about 250 pictures of a stage show over the week-end. All shot in RAW, all shot indoors with a tripod with the 70-200L on tripod.- about half with an electronic flash at ISO 800 at f7.1 The other half at ISO 1600 at f4.0 with the 70-200L on tripod (no flash). I developed all with DXO 4.5 with these settings: distance: 35 feet Highlight Recovery: Strong Everything else was whatever the program automatically does without my making any other selections. I have never increased the DXO Lens Softness control beyond the approximately 45% position that the slider indicates automatically when opening a RAW file. No unsharpness masking has ever been used. I have processed thousands of images this way with DXO and have almost always been delighted with the results. The results were very good- very sharp images in the majority of instances- any unsharp were caused by focus or motion problems. I noticed after doing this that the new 5.1 software was finally available and downloaded it and processed again about 130 of the photographs to compare results. Once again, I used the exact same method I have used in the past: distance: 35 feet Highlight Recovery: Strong DXO Lens Softness control left where it automatically appears. Unsharpness masking control not used. The results were consistent for all duplicate pictures: The DXO 4.5 pictures were sharp on my 23" Macintosh LCD monitor. The DXO 5.1 pictures were consistently less sharp. I examined the jpegs at 100% in iPhoto- it is clear that the 5.1 produced jpegs were much smoother in appearance (considerably fewer of the jaggy artifacts that the 4.5 software revealed on the ISO 1600 images) but the photo viewed on the monitor did not look sharp- it looked like a RAW file opened by iPhoto before any sharpening has been added). I tried re-processing several of the RAW files again with the DXO Lens Softness turned further up in one instance- and turned fully up to maximum in other instances- there was no improvement in picture sharpness compared to the earlier jpeg produced at the basic sharpening level preset when first loading the images). I processed some earlier images taken outdoors using the 17-40L lens, results were the same. The pictures were sharper looking on my 23 inch monitor with 4.5 than with 5.1. The 17-40 mm lens was always a source of irritation in the past before I purchased DXO. When I shot JPEGS with the 20D, the 17-40 pictures always required the use of additional attention with iPhoto to increase the sharpness to a satisfactory level. After I began to use DXO, I no longer had to use unsharp mask. When I started to shoot all RAW and process with DXO 4.5 I was in Nirvana. The 17-40 became my favorite lens. Another problem with both sets of images is in shadow areas. In 4.5 the shadows remain open- and much more detail is visible than with the same images processed with 5.1. The dance pictures had the floor of the stage and scratches on it clearly visible with 4.5, on 5.1 the floor was much darker and other shadow areas were less visible. Outdoor pictures- same problem. In order to get acceptable results with 5.1, I have to resort to using unsharp mask settings again. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me if these are the results I should expect with this new product? Is it normal for the perceived sharpness of RAW files processed with 5.1 to look less sharp than 4.5 processed files when no additional unsharp mask is applied? Perhaps there are some internal changes to the 5.1 software that still have to be made. I am delighted with the ergonomic aspects of 5.1 compared to 4.5. It is much easier to use and everything looks much more professional. But the results as they stand now will cause me to avoid purchasing the product until the finished output is at least as good as the 4.5. If you would like me to email you comparative images, please let me know. The images are approximately 2 MB (I process to 90% quality level as jpgs). I'd appreciate hearing from you. Does anyone reading Versiontracker have different results?- please comment [alert admin]
Read Comments (1) | More Info
Tuesday, July 08 2008 @ 08:28 AM PDT
Switch Audio Converter 1.32 (Mac OS X)
Excellent app for audio file conversions
I've used the free version for several months. I was searching for a way to get good quality audio conversions of some choral singing from .wav files into 96 kbps mp3 files. Audio Hijack Pro will do truly excellent conversions from .aiff or .wav to 96kbps mp3 but it won't do batch processing so you have to do each conversion individually and wait for the process to complete before going ahead to the next one. iTunes will do batch processing to 96 kbps mp3 files but the results are not good- voices sound ragged on many occasions- a very inferior result to Audio Hijack Pro. Switch uses much superior LAME software and batch processes perfect sounding files (to my ear). Just drag your WAV files into the window of Switch, choose .MP3 output (having preset the desired quality level in the preferences) and press the button. Switch cannot process files to m4a files. This process is not even offered in the pay version for Macintosh (but it is for Windows). No problem here- iTunes does an excellent joy converting files to 128 kbps m4a files. The paid version offers a lot of extra features. You need to look for the correct download link on their webpage to get the free version. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 2 of 2 users found this helpful
Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 09:02 AM PDT
Fission 1.5.2 (Mac OS X)
A practical easy to use tool for the average guy
Just a word of praise for Fission. I've recently been putting mp3 files on the church website that I maintain and purchased a ZOOM H4 digital recorder to record our choir and organist. The ability to just set the ZOOM a few decibels below the peak levels and let it run for an hour without having to fiddle with it is all made possible because of Fission. If the hand bell choir is recorded not nearly loud enough with the ZOOM, Fissions' ability to select that tune and expand the audio without overloading it (and no noticeable extra background noise because I'm recording in WAV format with the ZOOM) is a real asset. It makes editing sound files a really enjoyable experience. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 1 users found this helpful
Tuesday, November 06 2007 @ 05:58 AM PST
DxO Optics Pro 4.2 (Mac OS X)
It does very infrequently quit for me too- but only when initially loading the pictures at the beginning of the process. Otherwise no problems. This version is extremely fast with the Mac Pro- it processes 4 pictures at a time which takes a total of about 36 seconds (this averages to just 9 seconds per picture). Lots faster that the pre-Intel version of the software. I starting shooting exclsively RAW files a few months ago. This led to a big improvement in the average output of pictures over and above using it to process JPG images from the camera. The color conversion aspects of the new software are fun. I can turn color into black and whites that look like they were shot with Tri-X film. Just when I was finally getting the hang of using Channel Mixer in Photoshop I no longer need to because of DXO. You can also automatically massage your color pictures into Fuji Velvia look-alikes or any of a large number of other formats. Try taking a picture with a superwide lens looking slightly up and look at the keystoning. You can take it out with Photoshop but you can do it 10 times faster with DXO if your superwide lens is covered by one of the DXO lens modules. Check out Ken Rockwell's web site for a real look at what this program can do: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 0 of 1 users found this helpful
Friday, April 13 2007 @ 04:31 PM PDT
Logitech Control Center 2.1.3 (Mac OS X)
I purchased the MX Revolution mouse a few months ago after the entusiastic 5 star rating at Mac World. The mouse is great but about 40% of the time when I attach and then disconnect a usb flashdrive or USB Compact Flash reader from my Mac Pro I find that the keyboard has frozen. To get it unfrozen requires unplugging the little USB Logitech wireless connector and then plugging it in again after which it works fine again until the next time I use the USB ports. The cure for the problem is the $20 shareware program USB Overdrive. Since I got rid of the Logitech drivers and installed Overdrive there are no more problems. You'd think that since Logitech apparently doesn't possess the ability to write useful drivers for Macintosh computers they could perhaps license Overdrive and provide it with the mouse. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 1 users found this helpful
Monday, April 09 2007 @ 11:31 AM PDT
DxO Optics Pro 3.5 (Mac OS X)
I shoot with a Canon 20D at the highest quality JPG setting. I don't use RAW files. I've been happy with the results produced with this camera and my lenses from using Photoshop CS2 and iPhoto 6. Certain lenses always seem to need a little extra help in the sharpening area. My 17-40L lens is excellent but I usually apply extra sharpening and there is some slight curvature of field at the edges. Likewise, with my Canon 10-22mm ultrawide lens the results are really good right out of the camera but always look better with a little extra sharpening and can certainly use some edge of field straightening. I can do this on an individual picture basis with Photoshop but it tends to get boring and time consuming. When I first purchased DXO I had photographed a meeting with a variety of lenses but mostly 17-40L, 28-75 Tamron, 70-200MM f4 Canon lenses. I loaded the 300+ shots into DXO and after selecting approximate distance of shot for each picture (Canon does not include this information in their EXIF data) I just clicked on the "process button" and went to bed. About 5 1/2 hours later DXO had processed the lot and they were spectacular. No supervision needed. They were sharper, straighter, had had the grain excellently reduced (most were taken at ISO of 800) and looked at least as good as I had ever been able to accomplish through the use of Photoshop and my anti noise plug in. It would have taken a lot more than 5 1/2 hours for me to do it on a picture by picture basis and I didn't see a single photo when viewing them side by side- pre DXO and post DXO- where I didn't prefer the DXO results. Photoshop can then be used to fix red eye, remove zits, apply various effects etc. This is an incredible product. If you have a quality digital SLR you owe it to yourself to download and try the free trial offer. [alert admin]
Saturday, April 01 2006 @ 05:12 PM PST
Hogwasher 4.2.2 (Mac OS 9, Mac OS X)
What about posting missing parts of binaries?
THOTH, as far as I know, was the only newsreader for Macintosh that was capable of reposting missing segments of binaries. This is important for anyone who posts mp3's to the usenet groups- invariably some provider doesn't get 100% of the posted binary and someone will ask for a repost. With Newswatcher you have no option other than reposting the entire file again. With THOTH you could repost one or more segments at will. Some people resort to posting the ridiculous PAR files to overcome this problem. The author of Hogwasher many, many months ago said he was going to incorporate the ability to repost segments into Hogwasher- I don't know if this has been done since it doesn't appear to be mentioned. Does anyone know? THOTH, fortunately, still works just fine on my machine with 10.3.5 installed. If you don't already own THOTH I don't think there is any way to get a full time functioning copy from the author. I suppose some day a new release of the operating system will torpedo THOTH so I really hope that Hogwasher or someone will offer a newsreader with this capability. [alert admin]
Post a comment | More Info | 1 of 3 users found this helpful
Thursday, December 23 2004 @ 04:29 PM PST
Steam 2.1 (Mac OS X)
About my missing database problems
The author of Steam answered my email and explained that the spinning beachballs were probably caused by the program attempting to convert over 9 months of listings to the new data format and that their testing indicates that the program is back to its speedy self after this not too lengthy conversion process. My problem was that I jumped the gun and attempted to reinstall the previous version of the program which had the effect of causing my 10 MegaByte data file to disappear and be replaced with a half megabyte file of programs for the next week or so. This points up the important of the admonition that we all hear again and again to "BACK UP YOUR DATA FILES" Even if you are not going to be screwing around with your program you should frequently back up your Steam data files if you value keeping your BBC database intact. With the new program those files are located in your preferences folder with the following names: FlixtonSoftware.Steam.data FlixtonSoftware.Steam.plist I plan to begin backing up these files at least every two weeks. Fortunately I did do a general system file backup three months ago so I managed to retreive 6 of the 9 months of listings that I had accumulated. After sitting for a while now with the older March 26 data file installed in my preference list the 2.1 program does operate just as fast as its predecessor in searching for old program listings. [alert admin]
Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:39 PM PDT
Last 10 Comments by jamesn20012001 [ Search for All ]
No user comments.
