Olympus Viewer 3

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
For years I've avoided using Olympus Viewer as a RAW editor because it's very slow and doesn't quite have the finesse of LR. However, I've ben trying it out the last couple of days because I got a request out of the blue for some corporate photos I shot and the company wants large files, rather than the smaller JPGs that they've seen. I don't mind the results that I've gotten out of LR, but when I worked on one of the files in Viewer, the results were much, much better. I also tried some up-rezzing, going from a long side measurement of 4500px to 6000px and Viewer beat LR hands down; it even did a better job than Perfect Resize. So I then up-rezzed as high at Viewer would allow (8000px) and once again the results were excellent.

I still wouldn't use Viewer as my default RAW editor because it is much slower, but if I need to produce more critical files, then I have to say that it will be my go to converter in the first instance. If Olympus could improve on the speed and the user interface to bring it into line with the more established RAW converters, there'd be no need whatsoever for LR, Capture One or others.
 

MajorMagee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Messages
1,630
Location
Dayton, OH
I'm hoping the next update at least includes the selective color Art Filter for the E-PL7.

I wonder if they're working on a major OV3 update that will include new Video features (like High Speed / Slow Motion), and that's perhaps why the E-M1 Firmware update didn't include them yet. Maybe they're waiting to release it all at one time?
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
634
Location
Springfield, Illinois
After reading these posts, I went back and tried to re-evaluate it. I just don't see what you guys are praising. As near as I can see, the quality is in the middle of the pack, maybe a bit better than average, but not more than a bit. In my eyes, CaptureOne, ACDSee Pro, and Lightroom (the three I'm most familiar with) can all equal or beat OV3 in terms of producing a quality image.

The controls are still difficult to use (What I call 'jumpy') and I found it difficult to adjust with any degree of subtlety. And the incredibly slow update speed doesn't help with that sort of fine tuning. TBH, I think even Silkypix has a better user interface.

I would never try to talk someone out of using a tool they like, and know how to make it give them the results they want. That is too personal a path, and for a free tool, it offers some value, I guess. But I just don't see how it could be considered something that could be compared to the better raw development/workflow tools.
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,718
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
I use OV3 to get nice colors, but I never use it to resize. When downsizing it always adds a subtle but noticeable blur. Instead, I export a full-size, uncompressed, 16-bit TIFF to Image Analyzer or Raw Therapee and then use that program to downsize. Neither introduces noticeable blur. I have not tried upsizing.

Brian
Downsizing in OV3 for web display also requires your own level of sharpening. I usually use +5 (in the JPEG edit screen) with sufficiently nice results, but, as I said above, CO7 allows me more editing for serious output.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
After reading these posts, I went back and tried to re-evaluate it. I just don't see what you guys are praising. As near as I can see, the quality is in the middle of the pack, maybe a bit better than average, but not more than a bit. In my eyes, CaptureOne, ACDSee Pro, and Lightroom (the three I'm most familiar with) can all equal or beat OV3 in terms of producing a quality image.

The controls are still difficult to use (What I call 'jumpy') and I found it difficult to adjust with any degree of subtlety. And the incredibly slow update speed doesn't help with that sort of fine tuning. TBH, I think even Silkypix has a better user interface.

I would never try to talk someone out of using a tool they like, and know how to make it give them the results they want. That is too personal a path, and for a free tool, it offers some value, I guess. But I just don't see how it could be considered something that could be compared to the better raw development/workflow tools.
I understand what you're saying, but I was completely surprised by the results I got with Viewer, compared to LR. LR allows you to up-rez also, but the quality was no where near as good as with Viewer. I'm going to do some more work and see if there is anything I missed with LR.
 

sokar

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
395
My workflow is batch exporting in 16bit tiffs with EXIF and then importing into LR. It is slow but the results are worth the few cups of coffee.
 

nstelemark

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,301
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
Real Name
Larry
For years I've avoided using Olympus Viewer as a RAW editor because it's very slow and doesn't quite have the finesse of LR. However, I've ben trying it out the last couple of days because I got a request out of the blue for some corporate photos I shot and the company wants large files, rather than the smaller JPGs that they've seen. I don't mind the results that I've gotten out of LR, but when I worked on one of the files in Viewer, the results were much, much better. I also tried some up-rezzing, going from a long side measurement of 4500px to 6000px and Viewer beat LR hands down; it even did a better job than Perfect Resize. So I then up-rezzed as high at Viewer would allow (8000px) and once again the results were excellent.

I still wouldn't use Viewer as my default RAW editor because it is much slower, but if I need to produce more critical files, then I have to say that it will be my go to converter in the first instance. If Olympus could improve on the speed and the user interface to bring it into line with the more established RAW converters, there'd be no need whatsoever for LR, Capture One or others.
This is what I found too. OV3 is effectively the same as the JPEG engine in the E-M1 and that is why I often shoot JPEG only at events where there will be a lot of frames.

I'd love to see some presets with LR or another tool that does as well.
 

thearne3

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
807
Location
Redding, CT USA
I too recently gave OV3 another look, but as a Mac user the experience is IMPOSSIBLE. Make any change with a slider, wait 5 seconds, see the effect. This is beyond excruciating. :mad:

I DO like the color, clarity and lack of noise compared to Aperture. If there were some way to batch adjust/optimize the RAW files and output to jpeg, that would be nice!
 

RobWatson

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,343
Location
Washington - The Evergreen State
OV3 beats LR (ACR) hard in the low signal with retained detail regime. Several threads here with details.

Too painful to use OV3 (for me) except in those cases low signal is critical then I always use OV3 to export 16 bit tiff then import into LR.

If I only want jpg then OOC is for me.
 

YantaYo

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
98
Location
Colorado
I have Olympus Viewer 3 and Capture One 7. I've never used Lightroom. For those who have used all three, which do you prefer, and why? I would also like to hear from anyone who has used the DxO raw converter.
I have all 4, including Aperture but just the trial for Capture One 8. In March I migrated to Lightroom from Aperture. Currently I am considering Capture One. Capture One 8 out of the box raw file conversion just cannot be beat by Lightroom. I cannot get my pictures as nice as Capture One processes in Lightroom. Olympus is just too cumbersome. I might use it if I just cannot get the picture right in any of the other software. DXO I picked up when it was on sale. I prefer its raw interpretation the best but without a DAM it is not a complete option. I am leaning towards Capture One. Converted my 21K library to test out C1 8. Capture Ones minus are it's DAM and lack of plugins. Additionally, there are few resources on using the software besides the Capture One tutorials. But you cannot beat it's image quality- just that might win me over.
 

MajorMagee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Messages
1,630
Location
Dayton, OH
They just posted an update of OV3 to version 1.4.

It's adds Keystone Correct and the Capture software interface support, but strangely does not include the new Art Filters even though those were available in the WiFi App update a few weeks ago.
 

MajorMagee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Messages
1,630
Location
Dayton, OH
The update web site says:

"- Added new Art Filter and Effect options in "RAW Development" and "Image Edit" windows."

but I can't see them...

Perhaps there will be a version 1.41 out in a few days.
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
3,718
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
The update web site says:

"- Added new Art Filter and Effect options in "RAW Development" and "Image Edit" windows."

but I can't see them...

Perhaps there will be a version 1.41 out in a few days.
Vintage & Partial Colour (Color) are added to the list now when I open an E-M1 RAW file, as well as the Keystone adjustment for (all) the JPEGs.

In OV3, only the Art Filters for that camera with them are shown in the 'Art Filter' option of RAW Edit. In the case of the E-M1, new Art Filters can be applied to old RAW files from the E-M1 as well & that would apply to any other camera that had new Art Filters added by a firmware update.
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,112
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
I used to use OV3 before I migrated to the latest Adobe Camera RAW / Photoshop CS. It was easier to get nice results from OV3 to start out with (nice Olympus RAW to JPEG engine after all) but the workflow for all RAW shooting was just too clunky and slow. I eventually got the hang of tuning in ACR and never really looked back. ACR lets more baseline noise through (unless you turn on noise reduction) but I prefer the way the grain looks from ACR.
 

MajorMagee

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Messages
1,630
Location
Dayton, OH
Vintage & Partial Colour (Color) are added to the list now when I open an E-M1 RAW file, as well as the Keystone adjustment for (all) the JPEGs.

In OV3, only the Art Filters for that camera with them are shown in the 'Art Filter' option of RAW Edit. In the case of the E-M1, new Art Filters can be applied to old RAW files from the E-M1 as well & that would apply to any other camera that had new Art Filters added by a firmware update.
Odd since they don't place that same limitation on the OI Share App. I guess I'll have to hope for a Firmware update then.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom