![]() ![]() NoNoise and C1 also gave haloes, but these could be removed in C1. With the 200 ISO Olympus file, Topaz and DXO gave severe sharpening haloes (even with sharpening turned down in DXO) which I couldn't remove with the C1 halo slider. Interestingly, re-running NoNoise removed the texture artefacts it had created in the first run. C1 and DXO were close, but looking at the whole image, C1 clearly gave a nicer result. With an 800 ISO Olympus file, all the denoise options, gave a slightly smoother, sharper and detailed result than C1, but at the expense of giving various artefacts and loss of colour gradation. With every image I came to a different conclusion about which combinations gave the best result. ![]() Not surpassingly there was no clear winner. I deliberately erred on minimising the effects of the denoising programs so I had some leeway to tweak (increase) sharpening and denoising in Capture One. And secondly, I don't think they would mean very much, as my conclusions constantly changed as I went back and had another go at "improving" the results. Often re-running the denoising software, if I felt I had got something wrong.Īt this point you may expect to see lots of photo comparisons, but firstly as I don't post images on line, sorting out posting lots of images is more work than I am willing to put into this. I spent several weeks, working at least part of every day comparing the results. Where options were available in each program, I worked hard to get the best results, nothing was just "left at the defaults" as that rarely gave the best results. ![]() Denoising was also done in Capture One for comparison purposes. Neat Image was used a a Photoshop plugin with images round tripped from Capture One. Comparisons were made in Capture One 22, which allows subtle editing of multiple images at the same time, This it easier to match image quality than any other software I'm aware of. Raw processing was done by the denoise programs (except Neat Image), and exported as DNGs. Subject matter was landscape, flowers and birds. Cameras were Olympus EM5 MkII, Fuji XE1, Nikon D600, D750 and Nikon D500. ![]() I tested with eleven different files from ISO 200 to ISO 20,000. Topaz PhotoAI I abandoned as I couldn't get it to give consistent results, and I only used Topaz Denoise AI 3.7 With NoNoise, I ended up using the "low" setting for noise reduction and switched the sharpening off entirely. While trialling PhotoLab 5, I bought a copy of ON1 NoNoise (half price offer, version 2022.5) and downloaded the beta version of Topaz Labs PhotoAI that combines Denoise AI, Sharpen AI and Gigapixel AI into a single program, which was getting rave reviews even in beta (I used the 0.6 beta). I used Photolab5 at sharpening settings of -1 and -0.5 for my tests. A sharpening setting of +1 in Photolab 5is the same as the default in PureRaw, and and a sharpening setting of 0 in PhotoLab 5 is the same as switching sharpening off in PureRaw. My trial of DXO Pure Raw 2, didn't last very long because even with sharpening turned off, I was getting sharpening haloes, so I switched to a trial copy of DXO Photolab 5. Not that I believed this, but it piqued my interest. Not only for its denoising capability, but it's claims of improving the demosaicing quality of raw images at any ISO with claims that it could save you buying a new lens or camera because of how good it was. Overwhelmingly positive tests and comments about DXO PureRaw, encouraged me to try it out. I've used DXO Prime noise reduction in the past (Not DeepPrime), along with NeatImage, and more recently Topaz DeNoise AI. We now have, at least three (four) AI denoising options ie Topaz DeNoise AI, ON1 NoNoise and DXO Deep Prime either in the form of Pure Raw, or as part of PhotoLab 5. all were handheld on R5.This is a summary of my experiences testing several denoise programs and explains why I think you cannot rely on published test to help you make a decision. with really pushing boundaries like ISO 12800 (the antonov) it still will show noise. thought of this as mediocre, but with cropping, denoise and some adjustments it came out quite good. Image is ISO 2500 during day (correct exposure helps with denoising). if they could only get some R5 color profiles now. The biggest advantages so far is integration with the RAW processing and it produces way less artifacts (which I noticed with exported topaz when you try to adjust some stuff shows up that is really weird) and the color remains true (topaz often washes out things) It seems so far to do a slightly cleaner noise reduction/sharpening, but its quite close. The denoise engine is as good as topaz (which i have latest of), in some ways better as I do not have to convert my canon RAW files to another format to save. I ordered On1 photoraw 2022 which has their denoise engine built in and holy cow, this version fixes most of my gripes with the product (each year its been a swing and near hit, but miss). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |