After doing a number of comparisons between LR AI Denoise and DXO PL 6 with some high ISO files I have for the A7RII and A74, I've come to a few conclusions.
1. DXO DeepPrime is way faster (20 seconds vs 50) and more similar to AI Denoise. Based on my older, slower 2017 5k iMac.
2. DXO DeepPrime XD is slower (50 vs 80).
3. For landscapes, architecture and other things with fine details I think the results from DXO DeepPrime XD are sharper and more detailed. Occasional weird artifacts, but usually great results.
4. Photos with people at further distances (portraits might be fine, have not tried yet) end up with a lot of weird artifacts in both DXO DeepPrime's. AI Denoise results look natural, just a lot cleaner. DXO gave faces Picasso like artifacts.
I want to play around with some more photos. But based on what I'm seeing so far I will continue to use DXO for landscape type stuff. But for shots with people AI Denoise might become my go to.
Bruce n Philly wrote:
I will be watching this thread and will give LR more tries... but not until THEY fix this. I am not wasting my time. It appears that Adobe has really poor testing and accepting processes.
Cheers for competition... at least Adobe is trying... poorly, but trying.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
No need to blame Adobe for your 8 year old GPU.
LR thrives on GPU power and speed...that's what they lean on for heavy processing. Yours simply isn't up to task, don't get grumpy at Adobe about that.
I have a better spec'd desktop than you that I gave up using as my primary editor about a year ago because it just couldn't hang anymore and I wasn't ready to build a new PC yet. Been constantly amazed at what a baseline MBP with M1 can do compared to a "good" desktop PC. It's a new era.
Why on earth would anyone give a hoot about a benchmark score vs real world results?
DXO adds sharpening in addition to denoising. From what I have seen online, LR denoise only does that. You have to apply sharpening later. This is much better in my mind since you have more control over the overall process
RoamingScott wrote:
No need to blame Adobe for your 8 year old GPU.
LR thrives on GPU power and speed...that's what they lean on for heavy processing. Yours simply isn't up to task, don't get grumpy at Adobe about that.
I have a better spec'd desktop than you that I gave up using as my primary editor about a year ago because it just couldn't hang anymore and I wasn't ready to build a new PC yet. Been constantly amazed at what a baseline MBP with M1 can do compared to a "good" desktop PC. It's a new era.
Why on earth would anyone give a hoot about a benchmark score vs real world results?...Show more →
Well, it doesn't work on my brand-new arc a750 either. Multiple posts on adobe support forum about this. Some issues with RTX 3050 users too. LR and PS have worked flawlessly on my GTS450 untill I upgraded this year and that GPU is pushing 15 years at this point
RoamingScott wrote:
No need to blame Adobe for your 8 year old GPU.
LR thrives on GPU power and speed...that's what they lean on for heavy processing. Yours simply isn't up to task, don't get grumpy at Adobe about that.
I have a better spec'd desktop than you that I gave up using as my primary editor about a year ago because it just couldn't hang anymore and I wasn't ready to build a new PC yet. Been constantly amazed at what a baseline MBP with M1 can do compared to a "good" desktop PC. It's a new era.
Why on earth would anyone give a hoot about a benchmark score vs real world results?...Show more →
The point is that if DXO and Topaz can be used on our "old" systems, then this should also be able to be used. If we were having issues with the other software then we would expect issues here, but that is NOT the case. Good for you to be fortunate enough to have a great performing system, but if I can run Topaz thru LR with no issues I would not expect LR Denoise to give such bad performance. We just all have to hope they make it better. But it is the first effort and at least the results do look a bit promising.
pics53090 wrote:
The point is that if DXO and Topaz can be used on our "old" systems, then this should also be able to be used.
Maybe, maybe not. It appears as if LR is doing more than simple noise reduction, and is doing all other parts of the enhance module in one step. Unfortunately not being able to disable RAW details is probably slowing things down.
From the Adobe webpage that is linked inside the Enhance module: Denoise is a GPU intensive feature. Therefore, a faster GPU is recommended to Enhance images quickly.
Not new, not shocking. Every major LR Classic update has focused around increasing the amount of work the GPU is allowed to do. If your GPU is underpowered, processing times will suffer.
With an rtx5000 on my laptop it takes about 10 seconds or so, but that's only with the 24mp files from an A9.
The default 50 seems to work well with fewer artifacts than with Topaz. DXO is probably very similar but I just never got on with the way Photolab (6) works. Being built in to Lightroom could see me using this far more than Capture One that I usually process raw files with, which doesn't have this new generation of noise reduction it seems.
[Edit] This is on a Dell Precision 7760, Xeon W-11955M, NVIDIA RTX A5000 16GB, 128GB RAM with Windows11 running in a VM (64GB RAM assigned) under Fedora Linux.
Experimented with leaving all LrC adjustments at my settings and then all at zero. Both took about 35 seconds to process. I don't think it sharpness a second time. Logic does it may me best to apply noise reduction first before editing. I set up preset for that so it takes a second.
Everything set to zero and sent to Denoise and back
Zenon Char wrote:
Experimented with leaving all LrC adjustments at my settings and then all at zero. Both took about 35 seconds to process. I don't think it sharpness a second time. Logic does it may me best to apply noise reduction first before editing. I set up preset for that so it takes a second.
Again, everyone needs to click the link inside the Denoise module. All of these points are covered
We recommend to Denoise your image before applying other tools, including AI masks and Content-Aware, as using Enhance might change the result of the tools used.
Denoise needs to be your first step after cropping if you need to use it.
We recommend to Denoise your image before applying other tools, including AI masks and Content-Aware, as using Enhance might change the result of the tools used.
Denoise needs to be your first step after cropping if you need to use it.
Thanks. I did not read that document, just the Eric Chen one. I didn't see much difference but it makes sense.
LR is now much more promising with the noise reduction upgrade. Next should be to improve sharpening ability like topaz AI to include motion blur. Then I can stick to just one program. Right now if I need noise reduction or sharpening or both I go to topaz ai and then back to LRC. I am looking forward to just one program doing it all. My preference is LRC. Patience grasshopper.
FrankA373 wrote:
LR is now much more promising with the noise reduction upgrade. Next should be to improve sharpening ability like topaz AI to include motion blur. Then I can stick to just one program. Right now if I need noise reduction or sharpening or both I go to topaz ai and then back to LRC. I am looking forward to just one program doing it all. My preference is LRC. Patience grasshopper.
Back in LrC you can now push Texture, Sharpening and Detail much more than you could before without creating artefacts. I don’t miss 3rd party sharpening at this point. Yes de-blur would be nice so I’ll keep Sharpen AI around for when I need but I’ll keep working at not needing it.
Anthony says to use reset button but that puts Sharpening to the default of 40 and the lens corrections are still active. Not sure how critical that is.
dwh1312 wrote:
4. Photos with people at further distances (portraits might be fine, have not tried yet) end up with a lot of weird artifacts in both DXO DeepPrime's. AI Denoise results look natural, just a lot cleaner. DXO gave faces Picasso like artifacts.
It depends on the choices that you make with Deep Prime. There is a "noise model" slider, at least in DPL 6 (don't know if it's present in Pure Raw).
At the default value and in cunjunction with the lens sharpness, it leads to what you describe. There are indeed more Picasso like artefacts on the faces than Denoise AI. But if you slide it into the negative values, Deep Prime behaves more like Denoise AI Lr.
I just did a test with a group picture taken indoor at a very high iso settings, and I have in the end more Picasso like faces with Denoise AI than with Deep Prime with "noise model" at -25.
