DXO Pureraw3

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Muddy Valley

Muddy Valley

Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I just tried this new program. I am more than impressed! I pushed the ISO up to 8,000 just as a test with the Z9, 100-400 and a 2x for 800mm.
I don't think I'll be that concerned with high ISO's from now on. It should be pretty clear which is the unedited jpg from the raw image. My dog Pippin. (we rescued each other!) Cropped quite a bit. No other processing other than a bump up in brightness.
Z9V_3575.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z9V_3575-NEF_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z9V_3575-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z9V_3575-NEF_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Muddy, I prefer the first image. For me, the sharpening in the second image, is excessive. This is a personal preference.

Is it possible to run this image through PR3 with each of the four options, and label them so we can make a comparison. Thanks.
… David
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I turn the lens softness (i.e. sharpness) off in PureRaw. Ideally my images don’t require further sharpening and if they do I prefer to do it manually in a way that I can control the amount. But I have found even for the noisiest of images if the original photo is sharp, and no more than minimal cropping is required, the detail preservation in DeepPrimeXD is so good that only minimal if any further sharpening is required. I agree that the lens softness correction in PureRaw often oversharpens.
 
Member's gallery
David Berry said:
Muddy, I prefer the top image. For me, the sharpening in the lower image, is excessive. This is strictly a personal preference.

Is it possible to run this image through PR3 with each of the four options. Thanks.
… David
Click to expand...
I agree that it is excessive, but I wanted to see what could be done with the highest setting on a 8,000 ISO photo. It's often quite dark here in the PNW. Trying all PR3 options is a good idea, and next.
Victor
 
The dxo users guide explains that the lens sharpness correction is also AI, not like global sharpening like unsharp mask or similar.
 
One of many things I like about DXO Photolab is that all the tools have amount sliders and a little preview window, so one can judge and adjust the lens sharpening and all the other settings. It's the same denoise engine as Pure raw but with more fine tuning.
 
Member's gallery
I've been playing around with the trial versions of Pure Raw and Photolab, trying to decide which one to get. I was trying to see if I could replicate the results of PureRaw in Photolab. I lthought the fact that you can preview and finetune the settings in Photolab would be a real advantage. However I was disappointed that the large preview window is not accurate at all ( even with high quality previews set in Preferences). The image looks noisier and lacking detail compared to the result when the dng is exported back to lightroom, which pretty much made it useless when you are trying to adjust for the best denoise/detail ratio. Is there some preview setting I am missing? The small preview window in the Denoise dialog box is much more accurate, but the window is small and cant be enlarged.
 
Ed Erkes said:
I've been playing around with the trial versions of Pure Raw and Photolab, trying to decide which one to get. I was trying to see if I could replicate the results of PureRaw in Photolab. I lthought the fact that you can preview and finetune the settings in Photolab would be a real advantage. However I was disappointed that the large preview window is not accurate at all ( even with high quality previews set in Preferences). The image looks noisier and lacking detail compared to the result when the dng is exported back to lightroom, which pretty much made it useless when you are trying to adjust for the best denoise/detail ratio. Is there some preview setting I am missing? The small preview window in the Denoise dialog box is much more accurate, but the window is small and cant be enlarged.
Click to expand...

In photolab the preview for the NR is only within that little loupe window top right. The lens sharpness is shown in the main but only if you have the magnification high enough.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
In photolab the preview for the NR is only within that little loupe window top right. The lens sharpness is shown in the main but only if you have the magnification high enough.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. That is a shame. I wonder why they are unable to provide a comparable quality large preview window like that in Lightroom. I do like the dxo noise reduction. I did a few comparisons to Topaz Denoise AI, using high ISO noise images, and I do prefer the DXO result. The images seem to retain a little more detail.
 
Ed Erkes said:
Thanks for the info. That is a shame. I wonder why they are unable to provide a comparable quality large preview window like that in Lightroom. I do like the dxo noise reduction. I did a few comparisons to Topaz Denoise AI, using high ISO noise images, and I do prefer the DXO result. The images seem to retain a little more detail.
Click to expand...

The way they explain it is that they demosaic the raw simultaneous with applying the AI noise reduction, so to get a full size preview we'd have to wait for the whole process to complete, which can be several minutes. Where the small preview window is relatively few pixels wide and tall. I find it's not bad (though I wish it was bigger) because you can move the loupe around the scene to see the impact on various regions, and also get a quick before and after by holding down the mouse button in the loupe window.
 
Member's gallery
I vote for the top bottom image, by a fair margin. Full disclosure, I use and quite like pure raw 3. While the bottom may be slightly over-sharpened, the noise in the eye reflections, around the eye, and in some of the fur details of the top image is, to me, distracting.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
DxO PR3 does appear to be a step up from PR2 and I still prefer the rendering from DxO than LRC (12.2.1) for the raw processing of Nikon Z9 Lossless RAW images.
But I perform all my edits in LRC. I no longer use DxO PL and only use Capture One for tethered shots of humans.

I like the fact that somehow DxO PR exposes the Focus/Subject Distance data, whereas other tools appear unable to do this.

I also prefer to run my output through Topaz DeNoise or Photo AI as tools to simplify backgrounds and provide a little bit of additional sharpening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top