DxO PureRAW vs Denoise AI
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 апр 2021
- This started out as a demo of DxO PureRAW but it evolved into a comparison of PureRAW and Denoise AI by Topaz Labs.
For more info about Demosaicing, visit this website:
rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Demo...
If you're interested in DxO PureRAW, click on the link below:
tidd.ly/2S1WB8H
I'm sorry, I do not have a discount code for PureRAW.
If you're interested in Denoise AI by Topaz Labs, click the link below and scroll down to the applicable section. Bundles are also available toward the bottom:
bit.ly/3cDqa5J
To purchase, click on the link above then use my discount code to save an additional 15% off the price and on everything at the Topaz Labs:
AMDISC15
*Note that my 15% discount code may not work on sale products.
** I am an affiliate for all of the companies listed EXCEPT Affinity Photo.
Please read my Code of Ethics Statement:
onlinephotographytraining.com...
Anthony Morganti’s MUST HAVE applications:
At least one Non-Destructive RAW Editor
Lightroom - bit.ly/2zwQ0nW
Capture One - captureone.38d4qb.net/y1Djy
Luminar - bit.ly/2JUJxKw (Save with the Promo Code AM16)
On1 Photo RAW - bit.ly/2zJmA9I (Save 20% with Promo Code: AM17)
Exposure X6 - bit.ly/2U8UxrK (Save 10% with Promo Code: AnthonyMorganti)
PhotoLab 4: tidd.ly/2HhiN9X
At least one FULL Editing App:
Photoshop - bit.ly/2zwQ0nW
Affinity Photo - affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
My MUST-HAVE Plugins:
Topaz Denoise AI - bit.ly/3cDqa5J
Topaz Gigapixel AI - bit.ly/3cDqa5J
Topaz Sharpen AI - bit.ly/3cDqa5J
*Save 15% on all Topaz Labs apps - use the Promo Code: AMDISC15
Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 - tidd.ly/3dc4gYm
My MUST-HAVE Mac Utility:
CleanMyMac X - Info: bit.ly/3jtVpU3
To save 10% on your purchase of CleanMyMac X:
1. Visit the CleanMyMac X store: bit.ly/3bEMuMx
2. Scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click on "Enter it now" under "Already have a coupon code?"
3. Paste the promo code TONY10 and hit "Verify"
4. The prices will be reduced, and you’ll be able to select the license and proceed with the payment
** Note that all of the promo codes listed above may not work on sale products.
*** I am an affiliate for all of the companies listed EXCEPT Affinity Photo. Please read my Code of Ethics Statement:
onlinephotographytraining.com...
Please follow me on Instagram: / anthonymorganti
View my recommended gear list: www.amazon.com/shop/anthonymo...
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
I use this software to record my screen and make parts of my screen enlarge and zoom out so you can see it:
Screenflow: telestream.pxf.io/DMrW2
Unsure of how to price your photography? Check the 2019 Guide to Pricing Your Photography:
amzn.to/2S1CiU7
I am an affiliate for all of the companies listed EXCEPT Affinity Photo. Please read my Code of Ethics Statement here:
onlinephotographytraining.com...
Thank you!
This started out as a demo of DxO PureRAW but it evolved into a comparison of PureRAW and Denoise AI by Topaz Labs.
For more info about Demosaicing, visit this website:
rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Demosaicing
If you're interested in DxO PureRAW, click on the link below:
tidd.ly/2S1WB8H
I'm sorry, I do not have a discount code for PureRAW.
If you're interested in Denoise AI by Topaz Labs, click the link below and scroll down to the applicable section. Bundles are also available toward the bottom:
bit.ly/3cDqa5J
To purchase, click on the link above then use my discount code to save an additional 15% off the price and on everything at the Topaz Labs:
AMDISC15
*Note that my 15% discount code may not work on sale products.
** I am an affiliate for all of the companies listed EXCEPT Affinity Photo.
Please read my Code of Ethics Statement:
onlinephotographytraining.com/code-of-ethics/
Anthony Morganti’s MUST HAVE applications:
At least one Non-Destructive RAW Editor
Lightroom - bit.ly/2zwQ0nW
Capture One - captureone.38d4qb.net/y1Djy
Luminar - bit.ly/2JUJxKw (Save with the Promo Code AM16)
On1 Photo RAW - bit.ly/2zJmA9I (Save 20% with Promo Code: AM17)
Exposure X6 - bit.ly/2U8UxrK (Save 10% with Promo Code: AnthonyMorganti)
PhotoLab 4: tidd.ly/2HhiN9X
At least one FULL Editing App:
Photoshop - bit.ly/2zwQ0nW
Affinity Photo - affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
My MUST-HAVE Plugins:
Topaz Denoise AI - bit.ly/3cDqa5J
Topaz Gigapixel AI - bit.ly/3cDqa5J
Topaz Sharpen AI - bit.ly/3cDqa5J
*Save 15% on all Topaz Labs apps - use the Promo Code: AMDISC15
Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 - tidd.ly/3dc4gYm
My MUST-HAVE Mac Utility:
CleanMyMac X - Info: bit.ly/3jtVpU3
To save 10% on your purchase of CleanMyMac X:
1. Visit the CleanMyMac X store: bit.ly/3bEMuMx
2. Scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click on "Enter it now" under "Already have a coupon code?"
3. Paste the promo code TONY10 and hit "Verify"
4. The prices will be reduced, and you’ll be able to select the license and proceed with the payment
** Note that all of the promo codes listed above may not work on sale products.
*** I am an affiliate for all of the companies listed EXCEPT Affinity Photo. Please read my Code of Ethics Statement:
onlinephotographytraining.com/code-of-ethics/
Please follow me on Instagram: instagram.com/anthonymorganti/
View my recommended gear list: www.amazon.com/shop/anthonymorganti
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
I use this software to record my screen and make parts of my screen enlarge and zoom out so you can see it:
Screenflow: telestream.pxf.io/DMrW2
Unsure of how to price your photography? Check the 2019 Guide to Pricing Your Photography:
amzn.to/2S1CiU7
I am an affiliate for all of the companies listed EXCEPT Affinity Photo. Please read my Code of Ethics Statement here:
onlinephotographytraining.com/code-of-ethics/
Thank you!
Thanks for doing that comparison Tony. I definitely liked the PureRAW better, it was subtle but the way it sharpened (the demosaic process) was different and nice. Just like the way that Topaz does some things better than Adobe products, Rawtherapee does some thing a little better.
Thank you! A point most reviewers aren’t making is that if you own DxO PhotoLab 4 you don’t need to also buy PureRaw. PhotoLab 4 will also open up a batch of raw files and apply just sharpening, lens correction and Deep Prime noise reduction to them, and then in Export there is an option to export DNGs with just those adjustments applied. The result is the same as PureRaw. The latter is for those who just want the benefit of the very good DxO noise reduction without having to buy the full PhotoLab package for $200 because they’d rather do all their developing in Lightroom or elsewhere. Thanks again!
I did a similar exercise and also found that DxO did a better job of retaining fine details than Denoise. For the best result, I then ran the DxO'd image through Denoise in PS as a filter and that completely removed the noise and sharpened the image even further. So combining both produced the best results for me. However if I ran Denoise first, the image would be clean, but some fine detail would be lost. YMMV.
DXO Pure Raw is best and also denoise is good but it reduces details of the image
I have found topaz to be completely erratic as to where it chooses to reduce noise and not reduce noise. This is why I cannot use it. Also at the edge of feathers and birds I notice the topaz often leaves little spots of noise making the image worthless. Well the DXO pure raw as you mentioned does not reduce as much noise in the blurred background I noticed it as a way better job in every comparison that I have done and adding detail and reducing the noise everywhere in the image. Topaz chooses to add weird artifacts in random parts of the image that you just have to deal with. I’m kind of stunned that their software in this stage still has the same problem as when I purchased it when it first came out. This is why I am pretty happy about pure Raw. Not only that the most important thing is that it exports a DNG file not a tiff like topaz. If DXO can add more options like control over sharpness and control over noise reduction it will be even better. I also wish I could control whether it does lens correction or not.
Why I like DXO is that their lens distortion correction is really good and accurate. Better than the built-in distortion correction or Camera Raw distortion correction. And I love how good it is at removing vignetting. Both are automatically applied - so as long as the lens has electronic contact, ie stored lens info onto the raw file.
What I don't like is how they don't give me the option to fine-tune the sharpening or turn it off entirely. Most of the time it is fine, but some images are already sharp and for those, I feel like I don't need anymore sharpening. I hope they look into adding this option in the future. Other than that I love this software.
Thank you for the helpful comparison. Similar to your example, I found that using DxO PureRaw first, followed by Lightroom/Photoshop, and then followed by Denoise Ai produces a better quality image at each stage. What I like about PureRaw and Adobe Super Resolution is that they provide very good results reliably the first time you apply them and they prevent the user (amateur me) from overdoing it with powerful tools such as those from Topaz which are labor-intensive, time-consuming and require you to continuously relearn (even when you use their 'auto' setting) as they make frequent improvements. We are witnessing a rapid evolution of image enhancement and I appreciate you help guiding us as the changes and new products come to market.
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison. I think for the time being I am going to stick with LR and PS.
Thanks for the comparison Anthony. I am surprised by the amount of noise left over by PureRAW. Rob Trek did a similar comparison video, and his results showed PureRAW beating Denoise AI quite handily in every test. I use the entire Topaz AI suite and am very reluctant to shell out the high cost of PureRAW. Your test has shown that I'm not missing that much! (Topaz is constantly updating Denoise AI anyway.)
Good video Anthony. I'd just watched a video by a top Australian bird photographer about PureRAW and he was giving it big wraps, but I've been using DeNoise now for quite a while and it been giving me great results. After watching your video I'm happy to stick with DeNoise and save myself some money!
Thank you for honoring my request for this video. Based on this initial result, I don't plan to buy DxO PureRaw anytime soon since I have Topaz DeNoise already.
I do too, but the one thing that has me still considering switching to PureRaw is that PureRaw is so much faster and easier to use on my hardware than Topaz DeNoise. It's a drag-and-drop to PureRaw and the NR, a little sharpening, and lens corrections are all applied in seconds, pretty darned well, where it takes several minutes to run an image through Topaz from LR and back again. On the other hand, as you say, we already have Topaz, plus Topaz DeNoise is more adjustable with previews and sliders, which PureRaw 1.0 does not offer. I will continue with the free 30-day PureRaw trial and decide later. Note that with DxO Photo Lab 4 Elite, you get the same things PureRaw does, with previews and adjustable sliders and more editing capability, but it's not as easy or fast as PureRaw,.
First, you can drag directly from LR to DXO Pure RAW. Watch the PhotoJoseph video on Pure RAW to see the cool, easy way. No need to export to the desktop, etc. The Denoise AI details in the plumage were mush. You were also zoomed in way past 100%. Anything beyond 100% is completely meaningless and I just don’t understand why people insist on doing that. The other major issue is the way you used Denoise AI you end up with a TIF, not a RAW file. So, now if you want to do edits in LR on the Tif using Develop and then take the image to Photoshop, you have to use the option to make a copy with the LR adjustments and you have another copy to clean up your catalog. There’s a lot more to the puzzle than just zooming in and looking at the background noise.
Thanks Anthony! Another very helpful video.
Thank you Anthony. Great comparison video. They look very similar but when you look at the eye, DXO has more definition and clarity. The little extra noise in the DXO image looks like film grain which is actually kind of nice.
Thank you Anthony, we’ll done video very informative
It looks like there's more detail in the beak of the bird with PureRAW. It would be interesting to see the detail increased in Denoise AI before saving the file in Denoise AI. Since we're really trying to judge PureRAW vs. Denoise AI, right out of lightroom. Personally I have On1 Photo RAW, Corel Graphics Suite, PaintShop Pro Ultimate along with the full suite of Topaz Labs tools.
I'm definitely more interested in NOT losing detail on my subject rather than having the background smoothed out perfectly with a NR algorithm, so I also think that Anthony "focused" on the less-important-to-me part of the photograph. So the detail in the beak is definitely better with PureRAW. However, if you look at the bird's eye, it looks like Denoise AI has more detail in the bird's iris than PureRAW. I guess it's like most things in life, some things are better done by one person and others by another, but both do a pretty good job.
I tested out the DXO PhotoLab and it is still not up to what I get from Capture One. Getting closer but not their yet.
I have both full programs of DXO and Topaz love the DiNoise and A1 Clear
Thanks for the comparison. As a Fuji X-trans user, the DxO option isn't available and I've been bummed out by that. However, your video shows that DeNoise AI will do the job just fine and with a more straightforward workflow. We just have to get Topaz to merge DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI into a single product so that we can move the image just once to the tool and back to Lightroom. Perhaps the next release.
Is it better to preprocess vs post? If you tossed away original raw, would you regret it?
It's a good program if you're not on some subscription model... You get dng files with camera/optical corrections minus the noise..
Anthony how does DXO PURERAW stack up against Adobe Super Resolution enhancement?
Since I already own DeNoise, why switch. My guess is with a little sharpening, they will be the same.
To my eye the DXO image retained more realistic texture and detail at the cost of residual noise, compared to the Topaz image which looked over smoothed then slightly over sharpened as a second step. I've found this slightly over processed look common with Denoise AI's auto settings and that it is usually addressable by manual adjustment. Probably find the same is true with Pure Raw. I personally wouldn't waste money duplicating abilities software I already own can manage well, but if I didn't have Denoise and I wasn't already subscribed to Lightroom I might look at this, or perhaps if I had a camera with a non-Bayer sensor that wasn't handled so well in Lightroom.
Thank you for sharing this information
Finally someone on RUclips did proper comparison.
I take it that like Photolab that if your camera is "not recognised" you lose access to all DeepPrime goodies ?
Now, in my DXO Photolab 4, I can adjust the deep prime with a slider. I usually bump it up a bit past the default setting. Plus, the DXO lens sharpening is crazy good. It almost seems like magic.
I bump it up a little to 55 sometimes if I want something really clean. At 40 there might be a little grain in the out of focus areas.
It is magic, used dx0 optics/labs for years, now C1 since it suits my workflow better, but boy do I miss lens profiles and nr. Does pure raw solve this for me? You bet, like you said: magic - I was blown away when I opened the first batch of dng's in c1
@@805atnorafertsera6 Yes PureRaw does a VG job with lens profiles and NR, plus it's quite fast and efficient when combined with LR. I subscribe to Topaz, but on my hardware, Topaz is not as fast or efficient as PureRaw, though Topaz offers better adjustability than PureRaw 1.0 and therefore may give a slightly better result. I haven't decided yet on buying PureRaw, but it's definitely worth the free 30-day trial to see what you think. You don't have to give DxO a CC# to try it out; it just stops working after 30 days if you don't buy it.
@@sounderdavis5446 I buy any software that is a great tool, dx0 optics I bought for years, pure raw yesterday... 🙏
I also ponied up the $$ for PureRAW, but not sure if I'll use it or stick with Topaz. I'm still trying to figure it out.
Hi Anthony, I have just moved over to Olympus Micro4/3rds, and above 400 ISO, I need to definitely use some sort of Noise software other than the LR standard. I think DxO could be the answer. Thanks for another great video. Dave in Scotland.
I have Olympus gear also. In dimly lit photos DXO Photolab 4 is a game changer. You have to buy the elite version but it's worth it to me.
Hi Anthony. Do you mind me asking on what camera this picture was shot with. Because it seems new owners of the R5 are complaining about the ACR raw output and find that DxO pure raw give them the best results over say LR and Topaz.
Yeah I agree. I have the R5 and been loving the results from DXO
How long before Adobe starts doing the this?
Thx for sharing, my view: Pure raw is a different ballgame, the lens corrections and color science is unmatched, Topaz is to destructive, a lot of artifacts (depending on subjects/scene). I don't understand how even professionals seems to have a selected vision when it comes to nr. The dngfiles PR produce is stunning, don't take my words, try it out, compare with the original raw file.
I use Denoise Low light all the time but I drop the noise reduction to 1 or 2 and then increase the sharpening to 100. The sharpening slider actually decreases the noise as you go higher - try it, it's weird, but It gives me fantastic results.
Good video, thanks. But using DXO Pure raw is going to give me another file (location?) to move and find? I use LR to convert my CR2 files to DNG while importing and to keep track of images. Do I like the LRC catalog system? No I hate it, but I am getting better with it (I think). This is my biggest problem with LRC, PS and Topaz is just keeping track of files (raw, modifications, tiffs or psds, and files for printing or jpegs for sharing). I really don't want to generate another file in my work flow unless it is a big plus.
As a Fujifilm shooter the choice is made for me as DXO doesn't handle X-Trans files. I am quite satisfied with Denoise AI in partnership with Sharpen AI and sometimes Gigapixel AI. Your video demonstrates that despite the hype around DeepPrime I am not missing much if anything. Thanks for always being on the ball Anthony!
As a Fuji x-trans user, the comparisons I've done with Adobe's Super Resolution mode appear to be inferior to Topaz Megapixel AI. I tried the Topaz tools a few years ago and was very disappointed, they are certainly now best of breed. Just combine DeNoise, Megapixel and Sharpen into a single tool so that we don't have to make 3 round trips.
I noticed that the Deep Prime calculated a time of 8 secs for you, I have what I consider a fast computer and it takes over 60 secs which is annoyingly slow. Do you put this down to the quality of the graphics card and if so what card do you use please?
80 seconds means your graphics card is unsupported so it’s all being done on your CPU. Check the DXO web site for supported graphics cards.
Hi, thanks for the comparison. I am using Denoise quite a while and Pure Raw for several weeks with Olympus MFT. To my impression the gain in detail, also in landscape photography with little structures, is better in DXO, especially when lighting conditions are not perfect. And with ISO up to 2500 there is almost no noise visible with DXO what is amazing for MFT. For me it is a better compromise between detail and noise than Denoise. Might be different with Full Frame. Annoying for both: file size increases from 20 to 80-100 MB with Denoise (tif) and DXO (DNG) compared to Lightroom DNG. So even DXO is not really suitable to make the raw conversion for all files as a standard for my work flow. Both tools are perfect for selected photos which need the improvement. I made the experience that after raw conversion with DXO there is very little to do in Lightroom besides light and colour. But sometimes the photos are almost „too crisp“ and you have to soften them especially afterwards, especially with portraits :-)
I think both software apps did great. I prefer Denoise since I have a few of the Topaz apps. Speaking of Topaz apps, I do have a question for you, Anthony. Do you have a video on which Topaz apps work best with each other? For example, if I want to Denoise an image, and then Sharpen it, and use then use Gigapixal to enlarge it, would it be best in that order or does it work better in a different order?
I recently saw a video by Dave Kelly - The Joy of Editing where he explained and demoed how to accomplish best results when using both Denoise and Sharpen on the same image. In short: first Denoise without any Sharpening, then Sharpen with no or only little noise reduction.
Can bring in all images with purraw anf use ai on selected images to denoise even further?
wondering the same myself
Thanks for your tutorial, Anthony. For those of us who already have DXO Photolab, I am assuming that Photo Raw would offer no additional benefits. But please let me know if my assumption is not correct. Thank you.
Pretty sure you ARE correct. It was designed specifically for people who do not own Photolab.
@@librarycollection3795 Thank you!
Pure Raw is just a stripped down version of Deep Prime NR already in Photolab 4 and 5 so if you have PLElite you already have the Deep Prime noise reduction
It really depends on the image (from my testing). Denoise AI has more instances of creating artifacts (depending on the image), especially if adding sharpness to make up for the image going too soft. There are some files where DeepRaw clearly outperforms DeNoise AI (in speed and results) and some where the opposite is true (for results only; DeepRaw is still processing faster). Plus, I end up trying different options in DeNoise AI (which, again, takes more time).
I don't like the results for PureRaw when the image doesn't have a lot of noise (they do other adjustments besides noise removal) because it ends up cranking up contrast (and possibly adding some clear view adjustments).
What I like about PureRAW (again, for noisy images) is the speed of the processing (4-5 sec). And, yes, I own PL4, but that takes longer to interface with.
Also, DeNoise AI is slower (3x times slower on the same file). And yes, I consulted with Topaz when I ordered my new PC to get their recommendations for the configuration of processor, GPU, and memory.
That said, and as you said, it depends on the image. Is DeepRaw worth the $90? If money is an issue, no, especially after the initial introductory price runs out (although I'm sure they'll have sales). I tend to process a lot of images, and I tend to shoot higher speeds, higher f-stops, and AutoISO when shooting birds in flight or movement, and I no longer worry about ending up with a usable image because of DeNoise AI and now DeepRAW.
Thank you!
Hello, been using it a lot with an EM5 MK3 and various lenses. It is really great in my opinion. It still lacks a few options and sliders to customize the end results but it strikes a good balance between denoising and retaining image quality. More than once I've been pleasantly surprised by the results and if need be, image can be reworked in an external picture editor.
If you tweak Denoise AI, you can reach better results on noise alone, I think, in some cases, but the details are better kept by DxO. It could be personal taste, but I really prefer DxO Pureraw's rendering most of the time.
The advantage with DxO Pureraw is that you can also work in almost any application (even old box editions of lightroom) with the DNG that Pure Raw creates. A very promising sofware.
Good video. I tried both Denoise and PureRaw. I have a G85. I went with PureRaw because it is faster and easier for me to use (I'm a total amateur). I also thought the PureRaw did a better job (totally subjective).
I’m curious if DXO is returning a standard 16-bit TIFF in the DNG wrapper. If it is then I would think you would lose highlight and shadow recovery. Or DXO gives a shot at doing it for you. Seems this is important info for use of the PureRAW. If a TIFF is being returned then some use cases might be better off processing in Lightroom for manipulating RAW’s larger dynamic range and exporting that as a TIFF and then deal with noise. Or maybe use DXO’s full suite for control over RAW’s larger dynamic range. But I guess if image is well exposed and scene has narrow dynamic range, the PureRAW would be good.
I haven't seen Denoise Ai before your video. Thank you for the side by side demo. I think I will keep using DXO though. This is for 2 reasons. 1. I hate lightroom, PhotoLab is so much better. It is faster and easier to use. When I really need to edit with my pen I use photoshop. 2. DXO PhotoLab's lense corrections are amazing. They are so fast and accurate that I just can't ever go back.
Thanks for the video.
I didn't think LR would export a raw file. Are you sure it is a RAW file when you export from LR to your desktop?
There is an option to export original, but I was also wondering why he did not use a straight RAW file.
I think there is room for both Pure Raw 2 and Topaz Denoise AI. When DXO came out with support for Fuji X-Trans raw I picked up a trial version to check it out. I bought it within a day and now use it exclusively for both my Nikon and Fuji raw conversion. I turn off the sharpening in PR2 and leave on the global adjustments for body and lens combos which is DXO's forte. Then I go into ACR and photoshop. In PS I use Topaz to remove any background noise then mask out the subject and brush back in the edge details of the s.ubject. I already had Topaz DN so have found it useful to have both. If you read into it DXO states that the program works best as a standalone versus a plugin. This works well for me as I don't use Lightroom and instead use Bridge.
Clear as mud!
Can you make a video DXO PhotoLab 4 Vs DXO PureRaw. I know the Luminance can remove more noise. Sometimes I'll move the Luminance slider to 55 that should remove the noise and I did not notice images getting softer. It seems 55 is the farthest I like to push it. 40 seems like there is always a little grain in the out of focus area but its really not a big deal the everyday joe won't notice it.
Hi guys - let me add one more thing. I have an NVIDIA RTX4000 GPU and I just noted today that NVIDIA has released drivers versions 462.31 specifically for GPU performance for Topaz Sharpen AI and Denoise AI. Certainly after installing the updated drivers on my system they are both now a joy to use and quality seems excellent to my eyes (I'm not a professional though)
I contacted DxO because PureRaw and Photolab 4 both refuse to import DNG-files from all of my DJI-drones. I do a lot of drone photo editing so this is annoying. They asked me to upload DNG's to them. I will tomorrow
The real bummer is that dxo doesn't do xtrans raw conversions...
I purchased it for one main reason (I already own DeNoise AI and Sharpen AI which I use all the time) was the lens correction for my DJI drones (M2P's mostly). The built-in lens correction used by LR is absolute rubbish. I first noticed this with my DJI MPP drone when I tried DxO PhotoLab, 2 years ago, the starting point after importing was so much better, the perspective looked correct and most of the noise was gone and the image was sharper.
I have found over the last few weeks, I have not needed DeNoise AI at all unless the images are early morning in the deep shadows. I have only needed Sharpen AI on a few occasions when I know it's been really windy and expected some motion blur.
HDR's and Panoramas work in LR, just saying as I read other reviews where the author said they did not. Stitching a wide panorama required less work in PS (Adaptive Wide Angle filter) to correct wide-angle distortion, due to the much better lens correction applied by DxO Pure.
Images I have taken with my 5D IVs look better as well when imported into LR.
For my use case, it has been worth the investment to remove one or two steps in my workflow for most of my images, requiring just a simple drag and drop operation of the original RAW files, then import the output files into LR.
I am quite pleased with Denoise AI and need not look any further.
Both are very great tools to have. But, your example shows an issue I have had with Topaz on high ISO images; there is a distracting mottling in the even tone background that is disturbing and I think destroys the image. The DxO product has a more real and organic result with great detail and a touch of noise to keep it real with NO mottling. I am using DxO on all new images and Topaz on past images.
Try it to process portraits...
Excellent. Both seem to work equally well. For me, it comes down to my workflow. I rather work from Lightroom and export rather than preprocess.
The difference is so small, that depending on the workflow the results are roughly equal.
Hmmm. After watching this I decided to test myself. I already have Sharpen AI and so am doing a DXO trial. After testing about 20 different photos, I found Sharpen to be, well, sharper. Not really all that close. Interesting.
A video such as this should ALWAYS mention any major shortcomings and the fact that it does not handle Fuji X-Trans RAF files is a big one.
Good point. Not everyone uses Canon or Nikon.
Not all fujis are X-Trans file, it will work with Fujifilm cameras with regular sensors, like the X-T100 and GFX 100.
How much does the DNG file grow in size when exported from PureRAW? In Topaz DeNoise AI the DNG files - on my Win-system - grows to near 5 times the original size of the DNG, which makes me suspect that the returned file is not a true DNG file but an embedded TIFF file. This phenomenon is not explained by Topaz: "Oh, normally we see about 3 times in increased volume," Topaz answers, without explaining why. It's interesting that when these big "DNG" files then are processed in Topaz Sharpen AI, they doesn't grow in size - or the size changes very little - so they end up using a lot of space.
With raw file 18Mb, DNG file is over 50mb
@@AlexeyDubkov Probably the same "problem" - the output "DNG" is a Tiff file. It would be nice if the output still had true raw properties.
For me I’m still running the free trial with the Pure, I’ve been a Denoise fan for couple years now.
I’m more interested in speed, by far DXO is faster then Denoise on my 1050 graphic card. I’m probably going to purchase DXO just because it’s faster and it genuinely a great denoise software. I’ll take the speed honestly. Now if I up my pc rig then I’ll probably utilize Denoise.
When you say equal and switching back and forth around minute 9 , have a look for the birds eye...
maybe I give blender a try on AI-denoising images. Works wonders for renders, so!
DxO PureRAW or "Better Raw Files" seems like a marketing prestidigitation to me. My post processing in LR also gives me "better raw files" ... and much more along the process ...
I both agree and disagree with you. I'm an extensive user of Lightroom. It is great and probably the most efficient photo editor around (and I tried a lot of them). But in Pureraw's case, denoising and details sharpening is really done better than in Lightroom. It saves me a lot of time with great results. Exporting to DNG I then continue editing in Lightroom and results are even greater than usual.
Thanks for saving my money. Clearly no need to buy DXO product
they both do a great job, and are capable of the exact same output given the settings adjustments. So you're really just comparing settings more than anything. I think Topaz offers a far better user experience since it has the slider you can see the changes prior to final processing.
If I take a 1000 images and want to cull them before sending RAW files to DXO, how is it done? Can I go to lightroom to cull the images and export to DXO Raw? I do not believe Lightroom will export a RAW file. So how do you view and cull images before DXO RAW Al?
you do it before going into Lightroom.
@@gosman949 Thank you for the reply, Jay. So how do we view and cull the files before sending the keeper RAW files to DXO?
@@djack41 what I see most people doing so far is to select specific photos that you want processed and then send them into DXO Raw. I find this to be cumbersome and will keep using LR.
@djack41 - Go find the video from PhotoJoseph and watch on this topic and he’ll show you exactly how to do what you want to do.
@@NatPhoto56 Thank you.
I like that DxO is a pre-processor. It means to me that if I use AI or LR and having a better image to start with will make the editing easier and possibly better. I need to work with it more. So far I think at least it will simplify the workflow.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Send all my new photos into DxO before anything else, walk away for an hour or so, then import to LR when done. Right off the bat, I'm looking at much improved images I won't have to fiddle with nearly as much later. In my testing it did a spectacular job, especially on raw images from my Sony RX100 VII. Well worth the money, IMO!
It works for birds, but not for humans. Just tried it with photos of my kids on 85mm 1.4 IS. That DeepCRAP does awful job with skin texture. As for birds, it is ok, but it doesn't support either of my big white III lenses. Then what is the point? :\
Tricky job to compare sofwares.
You did it as impartialy as possible. (The main reason i've subscribed to your channel)
It's even more tricky for the viewer of a RUclips video to really see the difference.
Personaly, with my X Trans sensors that DXO never cared about, i'll stay with On 1 + Topaz.
And I'm still wondering why such a huge company as Adobe can't achieve a decent tool for noise reduction.
RAW Auto processing from DXO PureRaw need to integrate in DXO Photolab.
DXO Photolab has no auto processing like Adobe Lightroom.
I'm trialing DxO PureRaw right now but haven't decided yet. I already have LR and the Topaz apps. Anthony missed the biggest advantage of PureRaw over Topaz: its speed and workflow efficiency when used with LR. It's just so easy to use and takes much less time than the Topaz apps on my hardware. On the other hand, with Topaz you can preview the result and can adjust sliders, which you can't do with PureRaw 1.0. Also DxO support pages suggest that PureRaw *does* apply some sharpening, and if so, Anthony should have applied some sharpening with Topaz DeNoise for a fair comparison. What I don't like about either PureRaw or Topaz that Anthony never mentions are the large files they send to LR. PureRaw leaves you with a much bigger DNG file than LR does (and much bigger than your original Raw file), and the Topaz apps send to LR an even bigger TIFF file, assuming you're not outputting to JPG.
Informative upload but while the DxO consultancy keeps ignoring X-Trans I will continue to ignore their products
Pigs ear into silk purse territory.
For most viewers of images, there is no noticeable difference worth mentioning between the two packages, so it becomes a matter of cost and convenience. Having to use it not as a plug-in is a major workflow drawback as well as not having my original RAW but now a DNG file. The cost, while not astronomical, isn't worth having a second software package that does the same work. Recently Topaz has been working hard to upgrade and improve their products regularly, a la Adobe. So unless there is a significant change I am sticking with Adobe and Topaz.
Anthony, I am not keen on using software like this because it is a preprocessor and even more so because it operates as a stand alone that creates a duplicate of of the RAW file. I do not want to deal with two copies of the same file and then create a TIF file in PS. Based on your and my own evaluation this software does not appear to do anything more dramatic than Topaz and in my mind just adds too much to my workflow to be useful. My normal workflow is to do basic edits in LR then then into PS where I use all the plugins/filters then save back to LR thus only having to deal with the RAW and the TIF file...I do not need to add a DNG file into this mix. The other concern I have with the DxO product is that it has three modes but no sliders to make adjustments to what the mode is doing with Denoise or Sharpening like Topaz does. Many times I use the Auto settings in Topaz but there are times when the sliders need to tweaked so not having that option is another reason why this DxO product is not going into my workflow. Even more confusing to me is DxO already has a Denoise plugin that operates as a filter called Define 2. If DxO is so keen to create something new they should have spent their development time enhancing the Define 2 product. I have used Define 2 many times and it does a nice job so perhaps you should add that product into your evaluation of denoise products and then pressure DxO to walk away from a bad decision regarding what they thought would be revenue generator and instead spend development dollars on existing products.
There's no need to export or duplicate the RAW file, because DxO only reads it. You can run DxO on the same exact RAW file you imported into LR.
I'm mostly using Topaz Denoise+Sharpen on wildlife bird images with some noise and slight motion blur or not perfect focus, but sometimes DxO does a slightly better job. I believe the question is, how much are you willing to invest in a particular image, and what level of "perfection" do you expect from your work :-)
@@karstengieselmann5569 I am confused by your comment. DxO reads the RAW file and outputs to a DNG file...as far as I can tell it does not save the output back to the RAW file, that would be destructive! Therefore you end up with two files. If you were to use this product you would likely run the RAW file through PureRAW then import the DNG file into LR at the same time as you import the RAW file...that way you have an unaltered file in your catalog and a DNG file that you can start work on. In my opinion this is not a good solution because if you go beyond LR into PS you now have three files of the same image.
@@royceahr I was confused by your statement that DxO "creates a duplicate of of the RAW file". It's not an exact duplicate in terms of content, but a file ("linear DNG") that is already demosaiced. So it's rather an intermediate step on the way from a digital negative (RAW) to your final image. Similar to a TIFF that you would create by editing an image in any kind of external editor (when run from LR). I tend to keep the original RAW files for all images I like to keep, and remove files for intermediate steps (except it would require significant effort to recreate).
I understand your personal ambition to have only 2 files for every image (1x RAW + 1x PSD/TIFF). While it is possible to include a layer with the copy of the DNG in your PS file, this is not straightforward, makes the workflow more complicated and is not fun if you apply this on every image because you want to follow the same general workflow for your images.
I'm using external noise reduction and sharpening only on certain images (wildlife), and here I'm willing to spend extra effort for the sake of maximum IQ. My experience is that for some images, DxO creates better results without any tuning need, for other it's a fine-tuned combination of Denoise+Sharpen. I guess in the end it all comes down to the fact how "perfect" you want want your images to look like, and how much effort are you willing to spend.
Every single comparison I've seen demonstrates that Topaz softens more and loses detail compared to PureRAW. PureRAW is clearly superior, especially v2 with the new Lightroom integration but then it does cost more.
Something to keep in mind is Denoise has an edge as it also works on Jpegs.
I don't know why but Pure Raw is much better than Denoise in my tests. The only difference seems to be that I am only testing up to 1600iso.
I'm at 3:50 and can tell this is unfair comparison! PureRAW works on RAW files from cameras directly. Exporting a picture from Lightroom then process it with PureRAW does reveal the full potential of the app.
Good comparison
I prefer denoise ai. Its hands down the best denoise app out there
so you can't output as a 16 bit tiff, only jpg or dng? wow, if that is the case, that's *BAD*. edit: I have topaz, but to be honest, it over sharpens images and causes artefacts that well, ruin any good done by denoising the image. I also have a licence for Neat Image v8 - would be curious to see how it fares...
I found DXO is better than Denoise. In my case it did better job and better sharpness detailing.
While DXO is great for denoising for sharpness I would always choose topaz sharpen ai.
I have found Neat Image to be a much better software in this regard than any of these you evaluate. I don't believe you can get perfect result by using auto settings. Neat Image gives more control in noise reduction and sharpness. In these examples, the DXO did best, albeit with some leftover noise. It retained the most high and mid frequency detail. The DeNoise AI was a buttery mess! I think Neat Image could do better, it has more control, and is cheaper than any of these solutions. BTW, I have bought and used both DeNoise and Neat Image over the years. My experience is first hand.
Perfect software for pixel peepers, not for real photographers.
Denoise is def better
You lost me after 5 minutes. Too much talking about things that don’t have anything to do about what the video is about