EB-1 wrote:
But what differences are you seeing from PL8, PL9, etc.?
EBH
EBH, not sure what parameters you want to compare. I did some random measurements between PL 9 & PL 10. My laptop is not equipped with the greatest hardware, but the details are as below.
PL 9:
Load time: 25 sec (initial load time of the software)
TIFF export: 14 sec
PL 10:
Load time: 48 sec
TIFF export: 15 sec
For noise levels, a few comparisons. I did not see any huge improvement (for my eyes) though in this department. If you are looking for any specific comparison other than above, let me know.
Masking for sure is better like others already said.
I'm kinda new to the latest version being on 6/7/8 on 5 various machines.
I think DP3 is the same, but I noticed XD3 slower than XD2 and it looks slightly different. I'm assuming XD3 is better and doing more. In PL10 there is a huge difference in processing time between DP3 and XD3, with DP3 being about 5 times as fast. The image characteristics do influence the conversion time, but less so relatively. I was getting about 1.8 seconds per image (n=50) for DP3 vs. 9.4 for XD3 on a fairly basic system I can access on the road (9700X at 127W and RTX 4060). I'm surprised that DP3 is so fast with a lowly 4060 video card, but it seems that the CPU is 100% most of the time. XD3 seems to use the CPU only for a small part of the processing cycle, but the GPU was up to 80°C so maxed out.
I don't have any laptops here that have nVidia graphics and I'm not wasting time with some lame Intel iGPU. I may be able to appropriate a Ryzen AI Max+ later. I think the 8060S is similar to a desktop 4060 so would be OK for travel use if ever DXO can see a7rVI files.
I'm not sure if they've improved deep prime between 9-10. They look the same to me but maybe I just have bad eyes. As jojib mentioned they state better AI masking.
