My goto for browsing a new day’s folder of images is DXO. And as for Topaz, I bought the Black Friday bundle excluding Video Enhance AI (performance was bad, even on a new gaming laptop with 16GB of ram and 6gb GPU) - and I might not use it anyway, so no sense spending the extra money. So I bought the Elite that included the Prime options of Denoise (I did not buy into their Viewpoint add-on, and when the trial expired I missed it - for correcting wonky angles, etc). When exporting from RAW to JPG, colors were a bit washed out, too, I thought, but I gradually figured out how to handle that.Īs for DxO, I found that I could create a preset for my camera(s), and the lens corrections actually worked well, the horizon correction was good. Denoise generally is a very powerful option - but I noticed that when I’d export as DNG, the embedded JPG was tiny and even organizers like FastStone Viewer had trouble. By black Friday I had purchased a new laptop with 6gb nVidia graphics (the 10 year old Quattro did not do these softwares any justice), and had settled on Topaz Denoise as a must have, and then also stumbled upon DxO as an option. I read a lot of reviews last fall, and downloaded 30 day trials of various products, not limited to Topaz Denoise and DXO Photolab 4. At work, I must use some Adobe products, and am not particularly a fan, but I began to realize that as I moved beyond the capability of my camera to take a great jpg shot, and needed to be able to process the RAW to tweak a little more detail out of an otherwise good shot to make it better (hummingbird wing at high iso/fast shutter speed, or a shot of the Milky Way from southwestern desert skies), then I needed to at least do denoise. I never paid for software to process photos until this past winter. While I did test Denoise AI and the Low Light models in Topaz they didn’t fare better than AI Clear in this case.įWIW. If you want a pretty good photo program it does have a lot of features that can be worth it. I don’t know if it is worth buying DXO Photolab just for the Denoise, even though it is certainly excellent. The wording on the upper sign is bolder on the Topaz version. The DXO Deep Prime version shows more texture on the carpet and the light wording on the stands is more readable. See the circled areas on the Topaz results. The carpet is more blurred in Topaz and some light working on the stands almost disappears. Overall, the results were good for both but I think DXO has a small edge. I realized that DXO had applied a optical correction so there is a bit of difference in the two. For that both are tied.įor the results I brought both jpg files into Affinity photo. There are some adjustments as well but it is not complicated. DXO does have three NR processes with Deep Prime being the strongest but may not always be necessary. First, I think DXO should allow a larger preview option for those who have faster machines so that advantage goes to Topaz. Here are my thought and the photo results below. I also used the same RAW file and developed in Affinity Photo then used the Topaz Denoise AI plugin. In the DXO case I applied phot corrections for the exposure and color sat as well as Deep Prime NR. I’m trying a trial version of DXO Photolab 4 and have used a very underexposed sony RAW file as a test of Deep Prime noise reduction. I have seen some comments on this forum that are just unbelievable. Please, if you say something, make sure that it is correct and you can prove it so. The only downside of this high-powered processing is that the results can only be previewed in a small window and images must be processed and exported as JPEG or TIFF files." Claiming better color details and more natural transitions, the company says DeepPRIME offers a gain of two ISO steps for the same levels of image quality. DxO says it is especially effective for photos taken in low light, especially those which need brightening, and images taken on older, previous generation cameras. "DeepPRIME works best with raw files shot at high ISO settings and photos taken with small sensor cameras with small photosites. This is a quote from the fstoppers review and also repeats DXO claims: For example Canon 1D series and Sony A7S series. I have tested it and it isn’t any better than DeNoise AI and if you use it on pics from cameras with larger pixel sizes it simply doesn’t cut it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |