chiron wrote:
Very nice comparison! I don't have DXO PureRAW, so I don't know what controls it offers in comparison to DXO PhotoLab 4. But in PhotoLab, you can adjust the sharpening and contrast to taste. PhotoLab is designed to give you more auto editing options than you may want, but they are all easily adjustable. And as I recall in Topaz, you can also adjust the sharpening away from the preset levels. So, perhaps the difference in sharpening and contrast in your sample is mainly a matter of where each program sets its presets and easily adjustable in either?
DxO PureRAW does not offer any processing adjustments, just the three levels HQ, Prime and DeepPrime. Of course, adjustments can be applied in LR.
Topaz DeNoise offers five modes, and settings for the level of sharpening and noise reduction in each, plus a couple of "Post-Processing" adjustments.
I suspect you are correct that most of the differences can be equalized in post processing.
dclark wrote:
I processed an A1 file with DxO PureRAW and Topaz DeNoise AI for comparison. The image has been cropped to 2K resolution and presented here at that resolution, so what you are seeing is 1:1 pixel resolution. The original ARW file was opened in Topaz DeNoise using their RAW workflow, with the settings set to Auto. The DXO files were also opened using their RAW workflow, and since there are no processing settings, processed at DXO's settings. The ARW original and the DNG files produced by DXO and Topaz were unedited except for the crop and I applied +0.5 stop of exposure correction.
I find that both do an excellent job of reducing noise and retaining detail. I find that the DXO processing goes well beyond that and applies a lot of sharpening and contrast. Too much for my taste. It is easy to apply sharpening or contrast/clarity/texture and I prefer to do that myself rather than have it applied to the DNG file.
What's up with that yellow edge along the neck of the duck? Can you somehow tweak the PR settings to avoid such artifacts? If not then I guess Topaz would clearly be the better choice (IMHO).
I have been happy with Darktable as my main raw developer and for the purpose of birding I recently picked up Topaz Denoise.
As I upgraded form a7RII to the a7RIVa I had to upgrade Darktable to the newest version only to discover they changed the base/starting point of raw development of Sony ARW's that made it very bad for me and my work flow. So I started playing with Capture1 express.
If you guys look at the complete raw image processing, what would you choose - Capture1 + Topaz or DxO Photolab5?
For me at the moment Capture1 wins as it said the next month releas should have Panorama sticher and I already have Topaz for denoising. On the other hand DxO PL5 is on sale now I like it's masking options but it lacks perspective corrections, which can be bought separately (Viewpoint).
dclark wrote:
I processed an A1 file with DxO PureRAW and Topaz DeNoise AI for comparison. The image has been cropped to 2K resolution and presented here at that resolution, so what you are seeing is 1:1 pixel resolution. The original ARW file was opened in Topaz DeNoise using their RAW workflow, with the settings set to Auto. The DXO files were also opened using their RAW workflow, and since there are no processing settings, processed at DXO's settings. The ARW original and the DNG files produced by DXO and Topaz were unedited except for the crop and I applied +0.5 stop of exposure correction.
I find that both do an excellent job of reducing noise and retaining detail. I find that the DXO processing goes well beyond that and applies a lot of sharpening and contrast. Too much for my taste. It is easy to apply sharpening or contrast/clarity/texture and I prefer to do that myself rather than have it applied to the DNG file.
In DxO PureRAW there is a drop down tab with two settings 1) for lens correction 2) sharpening, you can shut off or leave on each as you wish. Additionally you can set in preferences what GPU you want used
You will reap the best results using the RAW workflow for each, so you are correct in using the Raw workflow. and sending out after being processed a DNG file
j4nu wrote:
Is that PureRaw or PhotoLab vs Topaz (the sharpening defaults are different from what I've read) ?
And more interestingly, how did the head part near the beak actually look, as the major color shifts significantly betwen the two imho...
My first impression (just bought Topaz the other day) is that Topaz does a better job than PhotoLab at sharpening (preserving / extracting detail) , but I guess it also means it can sometimes oversharpen by default. Also, I tried this on a photo with a lens that does not yet have a DxO profile, so no "super sharpening" mode was available ....Show more →
ruthenium wrote:
If you use the latest Topaz DeNoise, note that "Low Light - Auto" seems to work the best of the four available modes. "Clear" can over-sharpen, and may produce artefacts.
Go to the Topaz DeNoise page and scroll down to the bottom, it will explain in the videos how to use Raw, give it a try, I think you'll be impressed
#1 is Denoise, and #2 is PureRaw Deep Prime, but they are so close in rendering you cant call one a winner over the other !!!
Backstory
I edited from the original RAW file (no adjustments) and went directly from folder into each software. In Topaz Denoise I choose raw to process
Deep Prime was a tad darker when finished, and Denoise had a bit more red in feathers. I equaled both out and they practically look the same.
I had lens correction and sharpening checked for Deep Prime. For Denoise I had it set to auto for Raw
On another try, I put in a high ISO quite noisy image into both following the same workflow above and found Topaz Denoise did a better job. The Deep Prime still had far more noise to the point I had to run it into Denoise to eliminate the noise. Topaz Denoise needed no further work. .
Your mileage may differ, but these were my findings..
I say, what ever works for you and your happy go with it.
Gears used:
R5 + Sig 150-600 + 1.4II + in crop mode
With DxO PureRAW, the option to not use either lens correction or sharpening is a recent feature which makes it much better in my opinion. I was disappointed that with this new update, A7RIVa was not added to supported cameras. Also my often used Sigma TC-1401 and TC-2001 teleconverters are not supported but my Sigma 500 f4 Sport is.
For lens and TC, it just means lens corrections cannot be applied.
For the body, it means the files cannot be opened. Fairly easy workaround is to use Exiftool to remove the 'a' from the Model field.
Choderboy wrote:
With DxO PureRAW, the option to not use either lens correction or sharpening is a recent feature which makes it much better in my opinion. I was disappointed that with this new update, A7RIVa was not added to supported cameras. Also my often used Sigma TC-1401 and TC-2001 teleconverters are not supported but my Sigma 500 f4 Sport is.
For lens and TC, it just means lens corrections cannot be applied.
For the body, it means the files cannot be opened. Fairly easy workaround is to use Exiftool to remove the 'a' from the Model field.
So this sound like DXO still hasn't changed and "forces" you to buy a new version every year if you want to use recent lenses / cameras.
keepcoding wrote:
So this sound like DXO still hasn't changed and "forces" you to buy a new version every year if you want to use recent lenses / cameras.
This is not entirely true, as for example new lenses were added to DxO PL 4 around the same time DxO PL 5 was released.
Even if it was, that would be nothing specific to DxO as CaptureOne (and Adobe too I think) does the same ...
I would, but Topaz still doesn't support Sony Lossless...
As mentioned by @ruthenium, I also think "low-light" gives the most balanced results (noise reduction vs sharpening vs details vs artifacts).
As also suggested by this user, DxO (->TIFF) + Topaz also give nice results together .
I think you can't separate the discussion about NR from sharpening, and in that area I see some advantage in Topaz. I need to compare more photos, especially some that have DxO lens profile available, as that enables "better" sharpening mode (Lens Sharpness vs Unsharp Mask) in DxO presumably...
@dclark
Oversharpening was a common complaint about DxO PureRaw, but there is an option to disable it which I'd recommend as others noted. In DxO PhotoLab, you can adjust the amout of sharpening (and/or lens correction) applied. Not sure about PR, as I have only tried it once some time ago.
j4nu wrote:
This is not entirely true, as for example new lenses were added to DxO PL 4 around the same time DxO PL 5 was released.
Even if it was, that would be nothing specific to DxO as CaptureOne (and Adobe too I think) does the same ...
What about Topas then? Do they also do the same, i.e. you only get updates in the first year after purchase?
IndyFab wrote:
In DxO PureRAW there is a drop down tab with two settings 1) for lens correction 2) sharpening, you can shut off or leave on each as you wish. Additionally you can set in preferences what GPU you want used
You will reap the best results using the RAW workflow for each, so you are correct in using the Raw workflow. and sending out after being processed a DNG file
Choderboy wrote:
...
Fairly easy workaround is to use Exiftool to remove the 'a' from the Model field.
May you kindly share the correct command syntax to remove the trailing 'a' from the Model field - I do not (still) have one of the new cameras but tried tinkering with an A7R II raw file Model field without success :-(
This discount on PureRAW finally pushed me over the edge to trying it. I've used Topaz for awhile and am very happy with the results, but wanted to see what I might be missing.
After a few hours of trying every nasty high-ISO image I could find, I've got to say that PureRAW really does magic sometimes...but not always. For most of my images, the results are comparable to Topaz. But then I'll come across a shot, that for no apparent reason, responds better to whatever it is that DXO does.
I'm happy to have them both in my toolkit. And -amazed- how these tools have enabled me to get beautiful images from previously impossible situations. It's like getting a big camera upgrade for $60.
I am actually happy with how Topaz Denoise performs. But the processing time is a little long for my taste. Is PureRAW any faster in processing images than Denoise? To those that does a direct side-by-side comparison, is there a noticeable difference in the processing time between the two? Thanks!
(the sharpening defaults are different from what I've read) ?
.
