But at the same time, DeepPRIME gets rid of ‘invisible’ noise too, resulting in much sharper images. If there is noise because it was dark, then I expect the darkness to be smooth. My response was that I like a clean and sharp look to many of my photos. I was discussing ON1 versus PhotoLab in another forum and another user asked why some of us were so intent on getting the best noise reduction. Interesting summary and, at least as it concerns ON1 and DxO, matching with my experience (regarding results). I should note that with DxO support it may take several exchanges before I get a direct answer to a question – but ultimately, I do get a direct answer. ![]() For some things this is possible if there is actual “detail” in the pixels many do not work from raw.) I never received a specific explicit answer. (The comment about a prosumer was not meant to be derogatory, but one common attitude is that “one can fix it in post”. Were the images taken by working photographers using “professional” equipment, or instead designed to look more like what a prosumer might get? End response. I use a (digital) loupe to verify both noise and “sharpness” (by which I mean “detail” – can I see the end of an antenna on a butterfly/moth? Can I see feather structure or eye ring detail in a bird? etc). ON1 provided a survey before release after completing the survey, I emailed ON1 a more detaied response I append here: The survey ON1 provided is very difficult to use as it did not have a loupe and depended very much upon the way an individual computer screen is calibrated. As with my past experience with ON1 (before I settled upon PL as my Adobe PS replacement, not willing to use rental software, ON1 does a lot of marketing. Note that the times might not be under identical loads depending upon what MS Win was doing in the background – but each was the only applications that I had in use during the comparison tests. I also tried both of the non-DxO applications on JPEGs (of lower pixel count than the NEFs), DNGs, etc., and these seemed to take less wall clock time than DxO. In terms of output processing wall clock time, in most cases Topaz takes less time (but still slow) compared to DP, and ON1 seems to vary widely (by a factor of three or so). ![]() Using both DeepPRIME, ON1, and Topaz Labs current de-noising applications on a MS Win 10 machine, the quality of results for relatively high ISO NEF from a D850, along with detail “restoration”, I find that DP works better on some images, Topaz on others, and ON1 not as well. The ON1 application appears to have numerous software defects and glitches (as noted, and beta). I too have licensed for fee (with the “early” discount) ON1 NoNoise, and have the Topaz AI noise reduction as well. If you want to compare, you could use the same pictures as used in this post. The comparison should be made for me on basis of a complete process I would not imagine produce a picture without correcting chromatic aberrations, distortion,… This is a strong point for PL4. ![]() You may need to adjust the auto settings in Photolab for a closer match. Use the default settings for Lens Sharpness.Įxport the raw image from PhotoLab with these settings using the Export as DNG (Denoise and Optical Corrections only) option and compare the output with the PureRAW DNG version of the image. Then, use the auto settings (the magic wand) for Chromatic Aberration, Distortion, DXO Denoising, and Vignetting. To match against PureRAW, i would start by using the no correction preset in PhotoLab to make sure no edits are applied to your image. Besides DeepPRIME (as well as PRIME and HQ), Pureraw also applies chromatic aberration adjustments, lens distortion adjustments, lens sharpness, and vignetting adjustments. Matching the output of PhotoLab exactly to PureRAW could be difficult since we don’t know how DXO set the automatic defaults. ![]() My interest in PL4 is having the ability to make changes from the PureRaw defaults for noise, sharpening and amount of lens correction, but it would be much easier to explore making adjustments in PL4 if I had a starting point that matches the PureRaw output. I have been testing PL4 against PureRaw to see if it would be worth paying the additional money for PL4 just for more control over PureRaw’s defaults.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |