Question to DXO pure-raw users

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).

Member's gallery
Here are older images in Fort Da Sota, Florida.
Z9 500pf (FW = Initial versions back in 3-2022)
Various shutter speeds.
On each set, the first is PR4, and the second is PR5, with the same setting, SOOC, and no processing.

ISO 4500
DSC6948-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-XD2s.jpg

DSC6948-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-3.jpg





ISO 8000
DSC6930-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-XD2s.jpg

DSC6930-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-3.jpg





ISO 16000
DSC6925-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-XD2s.jpg

DSC6925-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-3.jpg





ISO 22800
DSC6923-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-XD2s.jpg

DSC6923-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-3.jpg





ISO 25600
DSC6892-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-XD2s.jpg

DSC6892-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-3.jpg





ISO 25600
DSC6915-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-XD2s.jpg

DSC6915-Dx-O-Deep-PRIME-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Joel, great group. Looks to me that the higher ISO you go the more difference you see between XD2S and 3. My preference is XD2S.
What was the PR4 setting? Soft? Standard?
Since PR4 and PR5 have the same XD2S, I will not upgrade at this time. Deep 3 does not offer a significant enough improvement to upgrade.
I've probably watched over 10 reviews--some very good. The general opinion of those that actually do a deep dive is that PR3 to PR5 makes sense. PR4 to PR5 not so much. If PR5 had AI Masking then it would be a no brainer. I do like the interface.
Thanks again.
Jon
 
Member's gallery
jbk2forum said:
Joel, great group. Looks to me that the higher ISO you go the more difference you see between XD2S and 3. My preference is XD2S.
What was the PR4 setting? Soft? Standard?
Since PR4 and PR5 have the same XD2S, I will not upgrade at this time. Deep 3 does not offer a significant enough improvement to upgrade.
I've probably watched over 10 reviews--some very good. The general opinion of those that actually do a deep dive is that PR3 to PR5 makes sense. PR4 to PR5 not so much. If PR5 had AI Masking then it would be a no brainer. I do like the interface.
Thanks again.
Jon
Click to expand...
Thank you Jon.

I used the ‘Soft’ on both versions which is supposed to do lens correction without any additional sharpening.

The biggest difference between PR4 and PR5 is speed. PR5 is less then half the time to process the same photo.

Some reviewers suggested that PR5 is working wonders removing color cast fringing from budget glass like the 180-600 or CA resulting from TCs.

I’m curious to see how its working on studio portraits. PR 4 was too sterile.

In all honesty, I don’t see where Adobe ACR is falling behind with NR and RAW details. DxO is using laboratory equipment to measure and correct lens defects, but, it is so much better than Adobe? I’m not sure. I haven’t spotted a difference yet.

I look at PR4 as a tool to help with troubleshooting pictures. Sometimes Topaz gets it right and sometimes PureRaw extra sharpening gets the results I’m after. It is definitely a high quality product to have in the toolbox.
 
Member's gallery
I just went back and forth between PR4 and PR5. Looks like Soft is at a scale of 75..Standard at 100..and so on. I don't think there is a way to turn off Lens Sharpening in PR4. Turning down Luminance to '0' does not likely do this.
This may actually be the reason to go with PR5 if controlling Sharpness in DXO output is important.
Capture 1 does not offer the AI noise reduction that LR does..so DXO plays a more important role in my workflow.
Re-thinking...
 
From the user's guide, what not to do in lightroom after Pureraw:

Because the following corrections have already been applied by DxO PureRAW, you should not use the following tools:

Lens corrections: Do not combine DxO and Adobe optical corrections.
Noise Reduction and AI Noise Reduction: This may smooth out details and thus counteract the action of DxO DeepPRIME technology and denoising tools.
Sharpness (in the Develop module and Output Sharpening when exporting): Use sparingly as DxO PureRAW has already optimized sharpness.
 
It looks like you can turn off the sharpening and keep the corrections for CA, distortion, and vignetting.
 
Member's gallery
Probably just the evolution of PR...PR 5 separates it now. And I expect AI Masking to make its way as well.
But....DXO cannot/will not incorporate too many PP features as it will cannibalize PL.
I just don't know why DXO has not offered to make PR a plug in for other PP applications other than LR. Maybe there is a special financial arrangement between them. But then again LR has incorporated their own AI Denoise that is quite good.
 
Member's gallery
The advantage of PR5 is that you can use soft as default setting for whole image and then fine tune the details by adding mask/brush on specific areas and use stronger sharpening on these areas. Using these manual masks is a bit annoying as interface isn't great, but it's better than not having them. Also I find the copy/paste settings between set of images very confusing. It's either all or nothing. Or perhaps I wasn't able to find how to do it on selected images. But still, the denoise and sharpening are pretty good.

I wish to see the AI sharpen inside LR at some point. It would be amazing feature next to the existing denoise.
 
Member's gallery
As an experiment, I took a Nikon lossless compressed NEF file from my Z8 from a recent trip to Death Valley NP and processed it with standard settings in PureRaw 5 with DeepPrime 3; in PureRaw 5 with XD2s; and PureRaw 4 with XD2s. Not a high ISO shot (ISO 500). Used the free trial version for PureRaw 5, which is described as fully functional.

I preferred the XD2s results to DeepPrime 3. There was more detail and less noise.
What was interesting to me was that the files using XD2s were different between PureRaw 5 and PureRaw 4. There was a a white halo or edge along a high contrast line in the photo (a partly lit sand dune in early morning with bright sky behind it) in the results from PureRaw 4. The white halo or edge was not there in the results from PureRaw 5.

That’s only one shot and I did not play around with sliders for either the DeepPrime 3 results or the two XD2s results.

As noted by Joel above, I find that which software gives me the best result can vary with the image. I usually use PureRaw, but also at times use ACR’s new AI version or Topaz (both the older Topaz DeNoise AI and the current Photo AI).
 
Member's gallery
Bill, I did the same as you and also found that XD2s was more to my liking than DeepPrime 3. I did high ISO images and didn't notice the halo..but then again it may be there.
Even though there are PROs who suggest turning off Sharpening in their DeNoise application before import to LR or C1; this could only be done with apps that provide the option. Now PR5 does. The least sharpening in PR4 is 'Soft' as you note. This is indexed at '75' by PR5 and likely the same in PR4. The consensus seems to be to under-sharpen in DXO and then make adjustments with your PP software. I'm going to give this a try with some photos this weekend.
 
Member's gallery
jbk2forum said:
Bill, I did the same as you and also found that XD2s was more to my liking than DeepPrime 3. I did high ISO images and didn't notice the halo..but then again it may be there.
Even though there are PROs who suggest turning off Sharpening in their DeNoise application before import to LR or C1; this could only be done with apps that provide the option. Now PR5 does. The least sharpening in PR4 is 'Soft' as you note. This is indexed at '75' by PR5 and likely the same in PR4. The consensus seems to be to under-sharpen in DXO and then make adjustments with your PP software. I'm going to give this a try with some photos this weekend.
Click to expand...
Did you ever do this and come to a conclusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top