Brightness Noise Artefacts
Hello,
does someone have a solution for my problem as seen in the images (first with second without)?
I have already set harware acceleration to "None".
Regards Matthias
-
CSP,
here' what I mean with fisher net:
Affinity, left without NR, right with color NR only:
I added pencil lines here to show the net structure:
0 -
CSP,
Yes, setting different values for DXO DeepPrime might be a good idea. It seems this is not available with DXO PureRaw, so I would need PL.
With regards to "most expensive raw converter "I think you meant C1, but isn't DXO PL+Nik collection even more expensive (not even accounting for DXO Viewpoint)?
0 -
@beo
thought changing the settings is now possible with the latest version but I do not own it. when you get it when they offer a big discount it is incredible cheap even when you add the nik filter pack but getting the filmpack is more important as it offers a fantastic contrast control in dxo
the fisher net artefacts are strange, do you see it with all images processed with affinity or just with this ? maybe this is caused by sloppy mapping out the pdaf pixel but who knows ?
0 -
CSP,
Do you have experience with DXO DNG files further edited in C1 with C1 tools?
The fisher net artefacts: I checked a few other Z7 NEF files, it's there, but less obvious, and NR reduces it anyway.
EtMRS,
I never ever touch my RAW files again since a problem a few years back when C1 could not read NEF files which were changed by a Nikon software.
0 -
EtMRS,
What I'm saying is only that I would not change my raw files, but I don't have your issue as my metadata is not wrong.
Can you write the newname into any other field (in C1 catalog or .xmp or .cos file) and after export from C1 as jpg use exiftool as a commandline tool in a more or less automated fashion (maybe "open with" in export recipe) to set the desired value in the desired field in the jpg (e.g. take the newname from this other field and write it into the desired field), and delete the newname from the then obsolete field?
0 -
I assume my camera would do so but I did not configure it.
0 -
@beo
the only difference worth mentioning I found with some images between an original raw and the dxo linear dng version is a very slight black point difference. adobe has a special tool to correct this, with c1 the level tool can help. the only real disadvantage is that dp is really slow.
ps.: c1 is censoring me when I post the name of the competitor product.
0 -
Yeah thought the same and it is good they get "angst" when they read the name ;-)
0 -
CSP,
the only difference worth mentioning I found with some images between an original raw and the dxo linear dng version is a very slight black point difference.
How do you export the raw files from dxo? As dng with "all corrections applied" or dng "denoise and optical corrections only"?
What I don't get is this: When I open the raw file in dxo, I think a curve is being applied and I see RGB values on my screen, I can adjust the image to my taste. When I save it as dng with "all corrections applied", that means pixels are RBG values with the curve and my edits baked in the pixels (or isn't this correct?), but when I open this in C1 the icc profile and curve in base characteristics are applied as if it were a normal raw, e.g. ProStandard and Auto, and I can change them. Does that mean a curve is applied twice, first in dxo then in C1?
0 -
@beo
dxo itself advises against the use of include all applied settings when exporting dng files , best is just NR and optical corrections than nothing interferes with c1 and it can be used just like any other raw file.
The DNG export option in DxO PhotoLab "with all corrections applied" has been kept in the program for legacy reasons. However, it does have some known drawbacks when used with color management. For instance, it can clip highlights (and in doing so induce color shifts in the resulting photo), and it does not fully include color rendering data applied in PhotoLab (hence the difference of color rendering between the picture seen in PhotoLab and the one seen in Adobe Camera RAW). That's the reason why we are offering a new DNG export option in the latest version of PhotoLab 4.
0 -
CSP,
Thanks a lot very helpful. I think I have seen the "all corrections" as the default in PL5 but I'm not sure anymore.
Guess I should dig more into the documentation anyway...
EtMRS,
... and maybe into that forum.0 -
The second image look so much better. The table top but also the chair's fabric.
First image is C1 only? All settings at default?
And second image is DXO NC(dp), mc -30, lens correction, then export dng to C1? Did you change the structure silder in C1 or any other setting from default?
0 -
First image is C1 only? All settings at default?
yes
second image is DXO NC(dp), mc -30, lens correction, then export dng to C1? Did you change the structure silder in C1 or any other setting from default?
first yes and no corrections are applied with c1. (200%)
not all images benefit equally so some testing is needed. with the filmpack you get even more control. c1 enhances detail at all cost but also makes surfaces (skin) look used or reveals unimportant information resulting in an un- elegant, rough look.
0 -
I moved most of my work, stills, portraits over the last year to dxo as I prefer the look - smoothness, less highlight banding and better control over micro contrast but I am also a heavy viveza user since the old nik days which helps me to get the best out of pl5 in less time than with c1 regarding local adjustments. as almost everything I shoot gets retouched I also prefer the less aggressive detail extraction dxo performs but for others this is one of the key selling points for c1.
0 -
CSP:
not all images benefit equally so some testing is needed.
Not all images, and even not all parts of an image benefit equally when I compare PL noise reduction and detail with C1.
c1 enhances detail at all cost but also makes surfaces (skin) look used or reveals unimportant information resulting in an un- elegant, rough look.
I have an image developed with a lot of detail (a tunnel with artifical as well as daylight coming in, all rocks, bricks and old wood timber). No plain areas. iso3200 and exposed ettr, so quite dark and needed a shadow lift.
I needed to dial down the strength of the PL DP noise reduction to 20 (default is 40), then most of the image looks better than C1, but it lacks some details which C1 provides. How much of this is actual detail or fake detail is hard to say but it looks "right" in C1. Even dialling down DP to 10 did not bring out the detail with PL.
But those details which PL does show are usually sharper, less fuzzy, and less noisy.
That's across zoom levels between 33% and 100%.
I am not sure yet which look is more palpable, more realistic. I think it is C1, though I cannot say that I prefer it in this image as it is also a bit more fuzzy and noisy, but just a bit.Btw, CSP, if I zoom to 400% or so then the PL image looks more digital, I even can see patterns (similar to Affinity).
For other images with less details and more even surfaces, I found that PL DP has an edge over C1.
Bottom line for me, for now: It depends on the image, what is important in the image, and ones preference.
Btw, I did fine-tune the dng in C1, this works quite well because I am used to it. I cannot fine tune the raw in PL, not even see the impression I have of the image when I want to use DP noise reduction, and this is a nogo for me. I cannot fine tune what I don't see. (Unless maybe if I export from PL to dng and then open this dng file in PL again, instead of opening it with C1, haven't tried this yet).
0 -
we all have different needs, i like smooth surfaces similar to what my eyes see I also want to save retouching time. the wooden table is a good example one looks used the other new and clean which it actually is. with pl I have learned to use micro contrast also as tool to focus attention but it took me some month to master PL as it behaves very different to c1 or adobe.
maybe there is a connection between sensor resolution and a more digital look with dp ?
I cannot fine tune the raw in PL, not even see the impression I have of the image when I want to use DP noise reduction, and this is a nogo for me.
at the beginning it concerned me too but after many images I stopped worrying for 100 iso I normally use 20 with higher iso always 40. the number does not really reflect the applied effect btw.
c1 looks always looks fake for me, it is alway reminds me of the look of a time when we tried hard to make a fuzzy 6mp image printable.
0 -
no
0 -
the lens correction are different c1 is manufacture profile dxo = dxo
0 -
my post is being held off by the spam AI and needs approval, sigh...
0 -
The PL image has a cleaner look, and definitely more appropriate for a catalog/magazine (which is the intended usage, I assume), or at least the look everyone is used to, in magazines.
In other genres e.g. nature or landscape, more detail is what photographers often look for.
...
0 -
The three dimensional look of the PL image is probably due to higher tonal contrast,
0 -
e.g. the dark sides of the sofa and chimney are much darker compared to its bright sides, whereas in C1 the contrast is not as high.
0 -
Nevertheless, the C1 image looks more natural to my eyes, but I would send the PL image to the magazine publisher.
P:S: I had to splitt my post in order to work around this "great" forum AI filter.
0 -
C1 vs. PL dp strength=20 (imported to C1 and NR set to zero).
0 -
0
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
The C1 image has a bit more sharpening in C1 than the PL dng, I can sharpen the dng a bit more, but this does not reveal more detail nor good looking fake detail. When I set the dp strength to 10, the images are closer together, and it is even more a matter of taste. And what the output media makes out of the two images.
0 -
Have to agree with BeO re lamps interior shot comparison.
The PL version has darker shadows thus giving greater overall contrast
which might be interpreted as more 3D like.
Overall smoothness may give a film like appearance but to me that does not relate to
a more 3D look but actually a flatter 2D feel.
CSP, how does a bit of negative Clarity in C1 work for you?0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
67 comments