DxO PhotoLab 8 Elite - Noise Reduction Tested and Compared

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 28

  • @sounderdavis5446
    @sounderdavis5446 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    This was the comparison I was waiting for. Very valuable. Topaz abandoned DeNoise AI two? years ago and want its users to now go with Topaz Photo AI, which you did test. I think most of these apps are so close that you have to pixel peep to see the differences, which tells me others have closed the obvious best NR DxO once enjoyed, somewhat, but for those who want the best NR and for whom price is no object, I agree, Photo Lab 8 looks like a new winner. Since I also shoot Olympus, often at high ISO where noise is a big issue, I appreciate this. Thanks again.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Glad you liked it Sounder.. I think Lightroom Denoise marks the point of diminishing returns for folks with occasional de-noising needs. However, in my Lightroom Denoise - good enough? video, I measure other factors such as the reliability of its automated mode and its batch processing speed. DxO's technology is far superior in both areas making it a better choice for users with frequent denoising needs.

  • @Brillig2
    @Brillig2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    What settings did you use for DxO PureRaw 4? I'm guessing it's more "harsh" because of the setting you used to adjust softness. There are several.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Hi Brillig2. It was just the overall best result I could get with this image. However, you are right in that you could trade the harshness of this image for a little more noise and less detail.

  • @davethinkingsystems
    @davethinkingsystems หลายเดือนก่อน

    I really like this version of the DXO noise reduction. I've used DXO photolab now for a few years and have always like the noise reduction. The problem I had with the last version (7) was that it took 5 minutes to run doing a deep prime process (on an i9 processor). This version finishes in less than a minute which is a real improvement. I take photos for my local football club so end up with perhaps 50 I want to process after each game. This will mean I can finish the workflow on them all in a couple of hours instead on most of the night for dxo 7.. The quality you have shown in your review is comparable to my limited experience as well. It is better than deep prime HD so its a win win. Thanks for your great review. Very well put together and in my experience totally fair as well.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Thanks Dave, appreciated. Just for info and having tested many versions of DeepPRIME -include PL7s - I never had any five minute waits. I think you may have been suffering some kind of anomaly.

  • @SandboChang
    @SandboChang หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Thanks for the review, but I do feel the Adobe one could simply use some ehancement in sharpness and have the output looking more similar to the DxO output.
    The DxO one, while might be left as default, has applied significant details enhancement. The video will be much more helpful if youl could give the basic setting parameters involved in each of the denoise samples.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Hi SandboChang. You've hit upon a tricky issue. I agree, with sufficient time spent and enough manual intervention, I could optimize all of these images, including Lightroom's and DxO's output.
      But then we get in to questions such as how much time is fair and reasonable - given DxO's DeepPRIME gives a near-perfect result almost immediately and autonomously. In other words, if I spend 2 minutes denoising and polishing an image in Lightroom to get closer to a superior image DxO produced autonomously in 15 seconds - is it still a fair comparison.

    • @SandboChang
      @SandboChang หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@silentpeakphoto1845 I understand that it would take more effort, so I was merely suggesting providing the setting parameters involved in each attempt.
      For example, if you left everything as default, it's useful to mention so people know what to expect when considering using these software and what room they have to explore.
      Nonetheless, the review is very valuable as very few people did such in-depth review and analysis, thanks again for your time and effort.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      I understand what you're getting at. Perhaps I'd introduce my testing method when I come to refresh this video. Thanks for the feedback :)

  • @martinlennon4673
    @martinlennon4673 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Most excellent review/comparison thanks 👍

  • @nyobunknown6983
    @nyobunknown6983 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    I was under the impression that DXO Pure Raw 4 used the same XD2 noise reduction as PL8. What is missing here is a comparison to the XD noise reduction used in PL7. Since I own PL7 that is the only comparison I was interested in.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Hi. DxO PureRaw 4 uses XD2 - the same as PL7. PL8 now uses XD2s which, presumably, will feature in the next PureRaw. Thus, the PureRaw 4 and PL8 comparison is the most useful to you.

    • @nyobunknown6983
      @nyobunknown6983 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@silentpeakphoto1845 PL7 uses XD, not XD2. Pure RAW uses XD2.

    • @sounderdavis5446
      @sounderdavis5446 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Actually I think PL8's top-end NR model is "Deep PRIME XD/XD2s," said (and shown here) to be slightly better at NR than Pure RAW 4's and PL7's Deep PRIME XD2. Silent Peak didn't test PL7, but I would expect the same result. Deep PRIME XD was the top NR model in PL6. I agree that DxO will likely release Pure RAW 5 in 2025 including "DP XD/XD2s," but DxO will ilkely remain silent about that until it announces PR5.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      @sounderdavis5446 - I just opened PL7 to check. You're right - XD it is :)

  • @sirdelek2629
    @sirdelek2629 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So far my tests of trial versions for both Photolab 8 and Pureraw4 are quite opposite. Results of Photolab seems to be worse vs Pureraw. No matter what settings I use in Photolab. Pureraw produces better and cleaner results. I'd like to have more control in it, that's why I tested Photolab but so far I'm not super impressed with it. More leaning towards Pureraw, but still not sure if it's worth that vs working on it in Lightroom which offers more flexibility (masking, selective sharpness etc). Denoise is superb in Lightroom. But sharpening is more challenging.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Hello Sir. I think we're reaching a point where the differences between top-flight noise reduction applications are hard to measure objectively. But the subjective measure is alive and kicking! My eye enjoys PL8's more natural finish but I also consider PureRaw 4 top-tier. Indeed - the continued absence of AI sharpening in Lightroom is puzzling.

  • @minusinfinity6974
    @minusinfinity6974 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Looks like you didn't tune the NR software for these tests. Both LR denoise and PureRAW can be tuned. Fopr PureRAW 4 softis usually by far the best option especially for feathers, and force details can be played with but I usually use 20-40 with soft. Using standard is going to produce harsher results and is not advised. The strong and harsh settings are useless IMO. Your LR denoise shot needed to have NR reduced and denoise does not do sharpening so that's is why it'll look softer. I add a little sharpening after it's exported as a DNG.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Hi Infinity. I perform some optimization but my focus is on automation. In other words, which application reliably produces the best result in the least amount of time. I do it this way because it's a safe bet that all the outputs in this video could be improved at the expense of additional time and effort. Thus, if it takes me 3 minutes of supplementary processing in Lightroom to produce a result equivalent to what DxO PL8 can do in 15 seconds - I'd rate PL8 the winner.
      My alternative would be to produce optimal results - time spent be damned. However, that wouldn't be a fair measure of the gap between the apps.

  • @Aladdin_TV
    @Aladdin_TV หลายเดือนก่อน

    I like DOX, updated from 6 to 8 andI like it so far, only used for a couple of days. But I miss a SUPER SIZE option. I hope it will come in the next upgrade. Now I have to switch between Topaz Giga Pixel and DOX and I do not like it

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      I think if DxO implemented an upscaler today - it would take some time to match Gigapixel's quality. GP and Topaz Photo AI are in their own upscaling league.

  • @MaxZappa1
    @MaxZappa1 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    This review might be useful and meaningful if you disclosed e.g. which version of Adobe Lightroom you are actually using, since there are differences between denoise results, dependant on the version you own. Are you using the cloud based online version, an old and unsupported standalone LR Classic version or the latest downloadable LR Classic version. The denoise function on old standalone versions e.g. Lightroom Ver 6.14 (no longer supported) is inferior to the current downloadable LR Classic.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Hi Max - the sample in question was processed in Adobe Lightroom CC using its AI Denoise feature. I ran the sample about two months ago so its pretty up to date.

    • @MaxZappa1
      @MaxZappa1 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@silentpeakphoto1845 Thanks for the update.

  • @waltermayr339
    @waltermayr339 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I find the somewhat grainy images more interesting, these smooth, made-up images are not my cup of tea.

    • @silentpeakphoto1845
      @silentpeakphoto1845  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Hi Walter - you can always dial down the settings.