myotis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,503
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
A couple of years ago I posted on here a fairly detailed review of denoising programs that for a while was made sticky. It took a lot of effort and although it quickly became outdated, I haven't found the enthusiasm to repeat it: even though I have continued with more casual comparisons.
However, Steve Perry and Terry MacDonald have recently made some detailed tests (much more detailed than mine), which largely mirror my current feelings.
Steve's video
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx-EupHI7G4
Terry's blog
blog.luxborealis.com
Not mentioned in either review is the effect that different AI denoise programs have on rendering straight lines e.g. window frames, where, for me Adobe AI DeNoise gives clearly better results than DXO or Topaz. Both the latter can add extra parallel lines or turn straight lines into zig-zag lines where there are geometric shapes.
Some may remember the problems I was having some time ago with weird patterns being created in Dragonflies eyes. Both DXO and Topaz were creating strong linear lines in the complex patterned eyes (which didn't exist) while Adobe was rendering the eye patterns correctly. This only happened occasionally (and other people had the same problem), and DXO still does it. Topaz, however, now seems to just smooth the pattern out. At the time of the discovering the issue, both DXO and Topaz asked for sample files to pass onto their development team.
"Apparently" the underlying approach used by Adobe is to analyse for the "noise", where as DXO and Topaz analyse for the "detail", which gives the different end results .
I now generally prefer Adobe AI Denoise ( I round trip from C1 via Bridge into ACR) which seems to give, to my eyes, the most pleasing and natural results. DXO and Topaz still seem capable of finding more detail, but this seems to mean accepting a less natural look to the photograph. With very noisy files DXO and Topaz seem better at "rescuing" an image than Adobe can.
I am still working out, when and how, they should be used, because each program has its strengths and weaknesses, with different levels of effort needed to get the best results. For example, I have started to switch off the sharpening tools entirely in DXO, which I have always done in Topaz, leaving the sharpening to be done in C1 or PS, and this seems to improve the "overall look" with little, sacrifice in detail But, it adds to the time involved.
And, as I'm using C1, it's easier to round trip to DXO or Topaz than round tripping to Bridge/ACR/DeNose, and DXO also offers excellent lens corrections, so it's not just about denoising when it comes to deciding on denoising software.
My "best" approach for noisy images, so far, is to still to use Adobe or DXO to create a DNG with low levels of noise correction, then selectively refine the noise and sharpness in C1 (using masks), Or if C1 isn't up to the job, round trip to Photoshop and use PS layers and Topaz PhotoAI. Doing the noise reduction in steps seems to minimise artifacting, but Adobe seems to now give the best starting point for most files.
In my original comparsion I included ON1 NoNoise, but I found the updated version impossible to get good results from, and even though it had a proper plugin for C1, I haven't tried it again.
However, Steve Perry and Terry MacDonald have recently made some detailed tests (much more detailed than mine), which largely mirror my current feelings.
Steve's video
Terry's blog
Raw File Optimization
We all want the best from our raw files. This post compares results from five of the leading raw file processing apps–Lightroom, DxO, ON1, OM, and Topaz– at three different end-use sizes. Seeing is…
blog.luxborealis.com
Not mentioned in either review is the effect that different AI denoise programs have on rendering straight lines e.g. window frames, where, for me Adobe AI DeNoise gives clearly better results than DXO or Topaz. Both the latter can add extra parallel lines or turn straight lines into zig-zag lines where there are geometric shapes.
Some may remember the problems I was having some time ago with weird patterns being created in Dragonflies eyes. Both DXO and Topaz were creating strong linear lines in the complex patterned eyes (which didn't exist) while Adobe was rendering the eye patterns correctly. This only happened occasionally (and other people had the same problem), and DXO still does it. Topaz, however, now seems to just smooth the pattern out. At the time of the discovering the issue, both DXO and Topaz asked for sample files to pass onto their development team.
"Apparently" the underlying approach used by Adobe is to analyse for the "noise", where as DXO and Topaz analyse for the "detail", which gives the different end results .
I now generally prefer Adobe AI Denoise ( I round trip from C1 via Bridge into ACR) which seems to give, to my eyes, the most pleasing and natural results. DXO and Topaz still seem capable of finding more detail, but this seems to mean accepting a less natural look to the photograph. With very noisy files DXO and Topaz seem better at "rescuing" an image than Adobe can.
I am still working out, when and how, they should be used, because each program has its strengths and weaknesses, with different levels of effort needed to get the best results. For example, I have started to switch off the sharpening tools entirely in DXO, which I have always done in Topaz, leaving the sharpening to be done in C1 or PS, and this seems to improve the "overall look" with little, sacrifice in detail But, it adds to the time involved.
And, as I'm using C1, it's easier to round trip to DXO or Topaz than round tripping to Bridge/ACR/DeNose, and DXO also offers excellent lens corrections, so it's not just about denoising when it comes to deciding on denoising software.
My "best" approach for noisy images, so far, is to still to use Adobe or DXO to create a DNG with low levels of noise correction, then selectively refine the noise and sharpness in C1 (using masks), Or if C1 isn't up to the job, round trip to Photoshop and use PS layers and Topaz PhotoAI. Doing the noise reduction in steps seems to minimise artifacting, but Adobe seems to now give the best starting point for most files.
In my original comparsion I included ON1 NoNoise, but I found the updated version impossible to get good results from, and even though it had a proper plugin for C1, I haven't tried it again.
