He's talking about editing in PhotoLab. You're talking about the denoise feature. There's no way to adjust how the denoise processing goes as far as I know (unlike Topaz). Sometimes the PureRaw results look too sharp and unnatural, it's hit/miss from my experience. In my experience, it worked better when the subject was smaller in the frame (where feather details are not very visible). When the subject fills the frame and plenty of feather details are visible, I find it tends to make the the individual feathers unnaturally sharp.
I think for Denoise, you can only choose between DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD. If you are using their photo editing product Photolab, you have more options.
As for sharpening, maybe you can choose from the drop down menu "soft", "standard", "strong" or "hard". Photolab has more controls.
I don't think you can refine the mask/subject.
You want to take a look at Photolab6 too... Hahaha
Colin F wrote:
The more I use DXO, the more I see what a better job it does than Topaz Photo AI, so thanks for the tip; I will buy it once the free trial month expires.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to re-process 88,569 files with it - .
https://images20.fotki.net/v1684/fileGSBx/a/8/3978958/15056834/OM1P7878dng_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD.jpg
Beware of DXO PureRaw…
I tried PR2 and PR3.
Often a great one click result but also too often an over sharpened/over cooked (not by much to be honest but noticeable to me) result for my taste.
WORSE…with both versions I could find/adjust no settings which prevented the app from re-sizing, stretching, and/or skewing the image file either along the border and even the subject itself.
This will not be an issue unless you want to layer the DXO edit with the original layer in PS in order to blend/reduce the edit’s effect.
It will be impossible to align the two layers.
The Topaz apps at least did not make this problem.
I’ll say it again…LR’s Denoise (set it and forget it at 50% for my tastes) betters both DXO and Topaz Photo Ai and has never failed me. If I want to add a little more output sharpening I use Topaz Sharpen Ai (with its great masking utility).
Since the file is still the original size I can put the edit on a layer in PS to further fine tune it with the original if/when I am yearning for a long night of post-processing.
Also, LR Denoise beautifully restores colors lost in the higher ISO files…and I do mean beautifully…spot on color reproduction and not an overly saturated mess. Subtly enough done that few users even notice it has been done. I did not know it was being done until I watched a YouTuber point it out. I don’t know of any other Denoise apps that restore colors. I know of other Denoise apps that remove false colors and simply replace with gray.
RSK01 wrote:
I think for Denoise, you can only choose between DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD. If you are using their photo editing product Photolab, you have more options.
As for sharpening, maybe you can choose from the drop down menu "soft", "standard", "strong" or "hard". Photolab has more controls.
I don't think you can refine the mask/subject.
I am a Beta tester for PR4. One of the suggestions that I have made to DxO several times is to make the sharpening section a slider instead of a drop down.
Wow... PR4!
The slider is definitely a better interface.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
I am a Beta tester for PR4. One of the suggestions that I have made to DxO several times is to make the sharpening section a slider instead of a drop down.
In this case I think it may be the 2x TC that is causing issues - never had good luck with 2x TCs. I often use a spreadsheet that was posted here on FM to understand when the 20 MP sensor will lag behind my other cameras. Here is a link:
I highlighted 2 rows that seem applicable to your comparison. The last column is HPPD or horizontal pixels per duck. It seems that in the specific cases that you have posted, the PPD should have been similar. However, you can also see from the spreadsheet that PPD for m43 can seriously lag behind a high MP full frame sensor, all depending on the shooting configuration. Full disclosure, I never took the time to verify the math behind this spreadsheet. Note: when the spreadsheet predicts that both cameras will produce similar results I find the A1 edges out my OM1 sensor but not to the degree that you have posted.
I was out for the ducks this morning, and while the OM-1 and 150-400 can do a good job if the subject is close and frame-filling, it continues to disappoint when it comes to BIF.
improved af system in om-1 ii, higher refresh rate, better for moving subject, according to marketing, maybe problem is om-1 or your om-1, talk to omds
Colin F wrote:
I was out for the ducks this morning, and while the OM-1 and 150-400 can do a good job if the subject is close and frame-filling, it continues to disappoint when it comes to BIF.
HicHic wrote:
Do you have any samples of the BIFs? Maybe we can help diagnose what the issue is.
I deleted all of them except for a couple, and here's one. The shutter speed was plenty at 1/3200. They just lack that critical sharpness. This was run through DXO PurRAW3, and I think I added a bit of extra sharpness on the head and feet with a NIK brush.
Colin F wrote:
I deleted all of them except for a couple, and here's one. The shutter speed was plenty at 1/3200. They just lack that critical sharpness. This was run through DXO PurRAW3, and I think I added a bit of extra sharpness on the head and feet with a NIK brush.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Is that the full frame of the original image? Or was it cropped? If so, what's the framing of the original?
Good question. It is definitely cropped, as our sensors are not 1:1 aspect ratio. I'm curious also of the amount of crop.
You would have gotten more feather detail with 1.4x or 2x, but it will be more challenging to keep the bird in the frame. A dot sight helps if you're not using one already.
Yes, that's just a file that I had made for Instagram, thus the square aspect ratio. I much prefer landscape aspect ratio for most images, but that looks too small and lacking impact on IG. For IG, it's either 1080x1080 or 1080x1350 portrait, and I'm amazed at how many people don't know that, or just don't bother to crop accordingly. I see many images that are posted as landscape, but there's clearly a much better photo sitting there in plain sight with a square or portrait crop.
Here's the original frame, and yes, adding the 1.25 TC made it very difficult to stay on the bird once it was in front of me, as these birds fly very fast.
Colin F wrote:
Yes, that's just a file that I had made for Instagram, thus the square aspect ratio. I much prefer landscape aspect ratio for most images, but that looks too small and lacking impact on IG. For IG, it's either 1080x1080 or 1080x1350 portrait, and I'm amazed at how many people don't know that, or just don't bother to crop accordingly. I see many images that are posted as landscape, but there's clearly a much better photo sitting there in plain sight with a square or portrait crop.
Here's the original frame, and yes, adding the 1.25 TC made it very difficult to stay on the bird once it was in front of me, as these birds fly very fast.
As for the photo, the bird just wasn't close enough. Here's my suggestion. If the bird has a flight pattern, you can get a sense of the closest distance they'll get to you, after you've spent a good amount of time observing them. From there, what I will do is figure out what combination of TC (or lack of) is needed in order to fill the frame as much as I can, at that closest distance the bird will come. There will be shots that won't make it, wings can get cut off. It's the compromise you'll have to make if you want to better the image quality. Judging from the uncropped you've provided, if that was shot at the closest distance the bird comes, then I would use at least a 1.4x. Maybe combine it with the 1.25x even.
^^^ The trouble is, they fly past at various distances, some closer than this, some further. I did try the 1.25 TC, but again, because of the insane speed that they fly past, it's almost impossible to keep 'em in the frame. It's easy when they're approaching, but when they're in the zone, they're like a bullet.
.
