Very good review. I don’t have DXO but have both LRc and Topaz Denoise. For the last two weeks I’ve been comparing my bird and wildlife photos cleaned up using both programs. I’ve used photos from my M43 OM1 with ISO up to 12800. I expected the LR module to be less effective than Topaz - especially since Topaz has four standard options, from Standard to Severe Noise. To my surprise, I consistently seem to get better results with LR over Topaz. I’m still trying to figure out the right sequence in LR, since I do the sharpening as a separate step, whereas Topaz does sharpening and denoise in one step. I’m glad I bought Topaz - before the LR upgrade it was a godsend. But I think Adobe has just eaten it’s lunch. I wonder what the DXO users are experiencing. Again, thanks, a very good review.
I’m really glad Adobe released this. I had been considering buying the dxo version but as an amateur hobbyist it doesn’t really make sense to pay for dxo when I already pay for adobe. I don’t like adobe as a company or its business practices but i use some of the other creative cloud tools and it just makes sense to use Lightroom as part of that subscription
Hi Matt, always great analysis. Let me just point out that everyone compares to Pure Raw. DXO's Photolab has the same noise reduction as Pure but allows many more controls to avoid getting too "digital" a result. From the many tests that have been done, I would say again that Adobe camera Raw has very good color management, perhaps better than Photolab, but at the level of noise reduction it is still a long way off. I still prefer to export DNGs from Photolab and work later in Adobe. I hope Adobe improves its NR which is dramatically lagging behind.
For the very good portrait, guess for the lighting : soft light from left (from a window, partially barn), horizontal direction, a reflector on the right side. the reflection in the eyes give on a contrary an idea of sort of slim, vertical softbox (there is also a small little white point a the base of the eyes )... OK, I give up. How was it done?
So you'd like to know how I did the portrait. Very simple, only window light, no reflectors or other accessories. I shot through a door frame so I by moving my camera and my model I had some directional control for the light. Can't any simpler than that😀
LrC denoise is good. However it takes more than 5 minutes to process one picture. This is the reason to use Topaz . Is very fast and has more functionality.
The main advantage of Lightroom's new AI Denoiser over DxO PureRaw is that it works with any camera supported by Adobe Camera Raw - which practically means: with almost all digital cameras ever built. You can use it to breathe new life into 20 years old digicams and make their pictures look like they were shot with a modern camera. In comparison, DxO PureRaw (and DxO Photolab with DeepPrime XD) is limited to much smaller selection of relatively contemporary cameras. However, I wish the denoiser would work as a regular denoiser within Lightroom, without the need of converting files, that it could be combined with AI Super Resolution, and be available in the Lightroom Mobile.
There are few caveats with this. Adobe and Capture One do in fact support more cameras and lenses, and have faster support cycle, this is true. But they do this at the expense of the quality of the corrections. Most of correction done by Adobe and C1 is to avoid it all together by cropping in tighter and doing less drastic corrections. This is particularly a problem with wider angle lenses and landscape or architectural photography where you might invest in expensive lenses only to be cropped in post. This is also a problem when working with zoom lenses that need more digital correction because of their compact design. You actually get almost a different image when you apply some correction in DXO compared to Adobe or Capture One which is particularly liberal in how much they crop. In this video you can see the comparison: ruclips.net/video/-l90Qah3YFs/видео.html Also, some of the lens sharpness that DXO offers, while aggressive in some cases, can really help save the lens in other cases. Especially with older, cheaper, or softer optics on smaller sensors. When it comes to noise reduction and lens distortion, I personally am not a fan of how it was implemented in DXO PureRAW compared to how it was implemented in DXO PhotoLab. In the former, it's quite aggressive and has little control, while in the latter, it's very easy to find and tune any settings you want for superior overall results compared to other software out there. I do agree that lens support from DXO is lagging, but they offer better quality, and it would seem they are putting more effort into supporting more lenses and cameras than before. There seems to be a steady increase in the number of lenses and cameras in the release cycle. From DXO forums: On 10 May 2023 we have added support of new cameras and lenses for DxO PhotoLab 6, DxO PhotoLab 5, DxO FilmPack 6, DxO PureRAW 3, DxO ViewPoint 4. Cameras newly supported are Hasselblad X2D One exception : it will be available fr DxO PhotoLab 5 and 6 on May 16th, due to internal delay. Lenses newly supported are Fuji XF 56mm F1.2 R WR Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S Leica APO Summicron SL 75mm F2 ASPH Leica Vario Elmarit SL 24-70mm F2.8 ASPH Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS (L-mount) Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS with TC-1411 (L-mount) Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS with TC-2011 (L-mount) See DxO Supported Cameras & Lenses for compatibility of Optic modules with PhotoLab. in June, we have planned, support of DJI Mini 3 DJI Mavic 3E OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO with TC x1.4 Zuiko OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO with TC x2.0 Zuiko Nikkor Z 800mm F6.3 VR S Nikkor Z 800mm F6.3 VR S with Z TC 1.4x Nikkor Z 800mm F6.3 VR S with Z TC 2x Panasonic Lumix S 14-28mm F4-5.6 MACRO Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN (L-mount) Yongnuo 85mm F1.8 (Sony FE) in July, we have planned, support of DJI Mavic 3 Pro Nikon Z8 Panasonic S5IIX Sony ZV-E1 Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH (Micro 4/3) Samyang AF 24mm F1.8 (Sony FE) Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 (Sony FE) Samyang 135mm F2 ED UMC (Sony FE) Please note July list is a work in progress and can evolve. As you can see if they keep this up, they will have a pretty nice collection of supported lenses and cameras, with superior results. I would often re-process old raw files or later in DXO once is supported simply because they corrections are better.
That would be a topic for another video and it would require printing too. I don't know what kind of old photos you have and what does "larger print" mean, but you can print quite large even from not so good looking file. I used to shoot magazine covers (A4 size) on the Nikon D1 that had 2.7Mp. Anyway, you can download a trial version of Gigapixel and try out for yourself.
Thank you for making the excellent video. I was wondering which AI noise reduction software to go with and you made my decision easy. It will be Adobe for me.
This update is for Lightroom Classic only and I have no idea if they'll ever bring the AI Denoise for the mobile version. The again, I think also PureRAW and PhotoAI only work on a desktop computer.
@@mattisulanto The denoise feature works in both Lightroom Versions actually. But only for the desktop version of Lightroom and Lightroom Classic. That’s probably because mobile devices don’t have the computational, power graphics cards to pull it off.
@@mattisulanto android phones have much more powerful hardware than apple 😊 but yes, sadly if apple can't handle it, they think nothing can 😬 remember that no hardware in Apple units, are made by apple themselves 😉
please do not use xd ... artifacts a oversharping by default. pure eaw (without) xd does not have so much visible artefacts. then it will be a fair comparation and i am not sure, if dxo will win (i am happy dxo photolab 6 user a few months). dxo is a small company ... adobe has resources for bigger r&d.
PureRAW3 uses DeePRIMEXD by default and DxO touts it as their best denoising option. However, I should have included DeePRIME result in the video as well.
@@BuildingByFaith zoom to 100% in a night photo and you will notice, that objects from background seems to be in foreground due to oversharping just of some 'textures'. sometimes is sharper just a part of wall .. but you need to zoom. deepprime does not work so much with sharpness and is using some kind of 'grain filter' (just visual observation) to cover defects from denoising, so the results does not 'pop up', but also defects are not annoying 😁.
@@miso56 thanks for the tip. I will make sure to pay attention to this. I do find DxOPureRaw3 to be amazing, though. It makes my old $600 camera look like a $2000 full frame.
@@BuildingByFaith true, the same for my gf camera 😁. let's see what will happen with the dxo price due to competition by adobe. adobe discounted first year of the plan ...
Very good review. I don’t have DXO but have both LRc and Topaz Denoise. For the last two weeks I’ve been comparing my bird and wildlife photos cleaned up using both programs. I’ve used photos from my M43 OM1 with ISO up to 12800. I expected the LR module to be less effective than Topaz - especially since Topaz has four standard options, from Standard to Severe Noise.
To my surprise, I consistently seem to get better results with LR over Topaz. I’m still trying to figure out the right sequence in LR, since I do the sharpening as a separate step, whereas Topaz does sharpening and denoise in one step.
I’m glad I bought Topaz - before the LR upgrade it was a godsend. But I think Adobe has just eaten it’s lunch. I wonder what the DXO users are experiencing.
Again, thanks, a very good review.
Thanks for sharing and watching.
I’m really glad Adobe released this. I had been considering buying the dxo version but as an amateur hobbyist it doesn’t really make sense to pay for dxo when I already pay for adobe. I don’t like adobe as a company or its business practices but i use some of the other creative cloud tools and it just makes sense to use Lightroom as part of that subscription
Hi Matt, always great analysis. Let me just point out that everyone compares to Pure Raw. DXO's Photolab has the same noise reduction as Pure but allows many more controls to avoid getting too "digital" a result. From the many tests that have been done, I would say again that Adobe camera Raw has very good color management, perhaps better than Photolab, but at the level of noise reduction it is still a long way off. I still prefer to export DNGs from Photolab and work later in Adobe. I hope Adobe improves its NR which is dramatically lagging behind.
Thanks. I have Photolab, but in this video I wanted to use the updated PureRAW.
For the very good portrait, guess for the lighting : soft light from left (from a window, partially barn), horizontal direction, a reflector on the right side. the reflection in the eyes give on a contrary an idea of sort of slim, vertical softbox (there is also a small little white point a the base of the eyes )... OK, I give up. How was it done?
So you'd like to know how I did the portrait. Very simple, only window light, no reflectors or other accessories. I shot through a door frame so I by moving my camera and my model I had some directional control for the light. Can't any simpler than that😀
I agree, the LR AI noise reduction works surprisingly well. Unfortunately the current release seems to have no effect on Ricoh GR IIIx DNG files.
Yes, I have noticed the same, but forgot to mention that in the video. It's a real bummer.
LrC denoise is good. However it takes more than 5 minutes to process one picture. This is the reason to use Topaz . Is very fast and has more functionality.
The main advantage of Lightroom's new AI Denoiser over DxO PureRaw is that it works with any camera supported by Adobe Camera Raw - which practically means: with almost all digital cameras ever built. You can use it to breathe new life into 20 years old digicams and make their pictures look like they were shot with a modern camera.
In comparison, DxO PureRaw (and DxO Photolab with DeepPrime XD) is limited to much smaller selection of relatively contemporary cameras.
However, I wish the denoiser would work as a regular denoiser within Lightroom, without the need of converting files, that it could be combined with AI Super Resolution, and be available in the Lightroom Mobile.
There are few caveats with this. Adobe and Capture One do in fact support more cameras and lenses, and have faster support cycle, this is true. But they do this at the expense of the quality of the corrections. Most of correction done by Adobe and C1 is to avoid it all together by cropping in tighter and doing less drastic corrections. This is particularly a problem with wider angle lenses and landscape or architectural photography where you might invest in expensive lenses only to be cropped in post.
This is also a problem when working with zoom lenses that need more digital correction because of their compact design. You actually get almost a different image when you apply some correction in DXO compared to Adobe or Capture One which is particularly liberal in how much they crop. In this video you can see the comparison: ruclips.net/video/-l90Qah3YFs/видео.html
Also, some of the lens sharpness that DXO offers, while aggressive in some cases, can really help save the lens in other cases. Especially with older, cheaper, or softer optics on smaller sensors. When it comes to noise reduction and lens distortion, I personally am not a fan of how it was implemented in DXO PureRAW compared to how it was implemented in DXO PhotoLab. In the former, it's quite aggressive and has little control, while in the latter, it's very easy to find and tune any settings you want for superior overall results compared to other software out there.
I do agree that lens support from DXO is lagging, but they offer better quality, and it would seem they are putting more effort into supporting more lenses and cameras than before. There seems to be a steady increase in the number of lenses and cameras in the release cycle.
From DXO forums: On 10 May 2023 we have added support of new cameras and lenses for DxO PhotoLab 6, DxO PhotoLab 5, DxO FilmPack 6, DxO PureRAW 3, DxO ViewPoint 4.
Cameras newly supported are
Hasselblad X2D
One exception : it will be available fr DxO PhotoLab 5 and 6 on May 16th, due to internal delay.
Lenses newly supported are
Fuji XF 56mm F1.2 R WR
Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S
Leica APO Summicron SL 75mm F2 ASPH
Leica Vario Elmarit SL 24-70mm F2.8 ASPH
Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS (L-mount)
Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS with TC-1411 (L-mount)
Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS with TC-2011 (L-mount)
See DxO Supported Cameras & Lenses for compatibility of Optic modules with PhotoLab.
in June, we have planned, support of
DJI Mini 3
DJI Mavic 3E
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO with TC x1.4 Zuiko
OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO with TC x2.0 Zuiko
Nikkor Z 800mm F6.3 VR S
Nikkor Z 800mm F6.3 VR S with Z TC 1.4x
Nikkor Z 800mm F6.3 VR S with Z TC 2x
Panasonic Lumix S 14-28mm F4-5.6 MACRO
Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN (L-mount)
Yongnuo 85mm F1.8 (Sony FE)
in July, we have planned, support of
DJI Mavic 3 Pro
Nikon Z8
Panasonic S5IIX
Sony ZV-E1
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH (Micro 4/3)
Samyang AF 24mm F1.8 (Sony FE)
Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 (Sony FE)
Samyang 135mm F2 ED UMC (Sony FE)
Please note July list is a work in progress and can evolve.
As you can see if they keep this up, they will have a pretty nice collection of supported lenses and cameras, with superior results. I would often re-process old raw files or later in DXO once is supported simply because they corrections are better.
How about Gigapixel ? I would like to revisit some of my old photo images and resize them for making larger prints.
That would be a topic for another video and it would require printing too. I don't know what kind of old photos you have and what does "larger print" mean, but you can print quite large even from not so good looking file. I used to shoot magazine covers (A4 size) on the Nikon D1 that had 2.7Mp. Anyway, you can download a trial version of Gigapixel and try out for yourself.
@@mattisulanto From a 6 megapixel image to A2+ print
@@cameraprepper7938 Download Gigapixel trial version and make some comparison prints before you buy.
Thank you for making the excellent video. I was wondering which AI noise reduction software to go with and you made my decision easy. It will be Adobe for me.
Glad I could help!
Interesting!
I thought LR Denoise didn’t work on iPhone photos? Or did iPhone X have a bayer sensor?
It does not work with Apple RAW photos, but it works with DNG, which was the file format I used.
Is it available in premier pro for video?
I don't know which app you referring to. Please, go to each app's home page to check out all the details.
👏👏👏
I wish they would update it for the one I use on my tablet
This update is for Lightroom Classic only and I have no idea if they'll ever bring the AI Denoise for the mobile version. The again, I think also PureRAW and PhotoAI only work on a desktop computer.
@@mattisulanto The denoise feature works in both Lightroom Versions actually.
But only for the desktop version of Lightroom and Lightroom Classic.
That’s probably because mobile devices don’t have the computational, power graphics cards to pull it off.
@@WaddyMuters Thanks for correcting. I only use the Classic version and just assumed, but of course, should never just assume things😀
@@WaddyMuters think bigger than the apple. Android phones has more than enough power to do it. Sadly most of this world, is just as limited as apple.
They still need to add it to the mobile version, but I think it's on the way 😊🤞
I could be that mobile devices don't have the processing power, because they don't have a dedicated powerful graphics processor.
@@mattisulanto android phones have much more powerful hardware than apple 😊 but yes, sadly if apple can't handle it, they think nothing can 😬 remember that no hardware in Apple units, are made by apple themselves 😉
Pity there is not an AUTOPILOT in Adobe
Only one slider, very easy.
please do not use xd ... artifacts a oversharping by default. pure eaw (without) xd does not have so much visible artefacts.
then it will be a fair comparation and i am not sure, if dxo will win (i am happy dxo photolab 6 user a few months).
dxo is a small company ... adobe has resources for bigger r&d.
PureRAW3 uses DeePRIMEXD by default and DxO touts it as their best denoising option. However, I should have included DeePRIME result in the video as well.
I find deep pride XD works better for me. No artifacts seen thus far and have processed hundreds of photos. I have a Panasonic G85 M43 camera.
@@BuildingByFaith zoom to 100% in a night photo and you will notice, that objects from background seems to be in foreground due to oversharping just of some 'textures'. sometimes is sharper just a part of wall .. but you need to zoom.
deepprime does not work so much with sharpness and is using some kind of 'grain filter' (just visual observation) to cover defects from denoising, so the results does not 'pop up', but also defects are not annoying 😁.
@@miso56 thanks for the tip. I will make sure to pay attention to this. I do find DxOPureRaw3 to be amazing, though. It makes my old $600 camera look like a $2000 full frame.
@@BuildingByFaith true, the same for my gf camera 😁.
let's see what will happen with the dxo price due to competition by adobe. adobe discounted first year of the plan ...