Adobe introduces AI noise reduction

Edit using Denoise with or without LrC adjustments? I tried it and I couldn't see a difference either. Just to be on the safe side setting up a preset to remove all edits is pretty easy. Anthony says to use reset button but that puts Sharpening to the default of 40 and the lens corrections are still active. Creating a preset to zero everything out is pretty easy and fast.

Adobe says

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.

https://helpx.adobe.co​m …help/enhance-details.html

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=Y2KLxL8aQdc

This is a very good video as well. He says it looks like there is sharpening applied in Denosie but he likely had sharpening applied before sending it. The default is 40.

https://www.youtube.co​​m/watch?v=uvLudg1TS9o (external link)

Here is a test. First file is with 40. Second with 0. I have a preset to zero out everything before a file goes to Denoise.

I submitted a bug report and got response some may be interested in.

https://community.adob​e.com …ing-denoise/td-p/13753282

More info from this thread. Check out the responses from this post.

I guess I'm not done yet. Sorry. So is this still a bug? The algorithms may not be applying sharpening during the process but different levels look different in the Enhance window. How are we supposed to judge how much NR to apply? For now I think I will zero everything out so I can see the state of the unsharpened file.

https://community.adob​e.com …oise/m-p/13755149#M320034

I believe that LR runs the denoise algorithm on the original RAW data and ignores any edits. It then applies the edits to the DNG. This easily seen with cropping. If you apply a crop before running denoise, the dng will include the entire image but show the crop as set in the RAW.

I took a RAW file (ISO 4000) and made a virtual copy and set the sharpening to zero on the copy. I then ran denoise on both, with no other changes. Her's the original RAW converted straight to jpg and resized for the forum.

Here are 1604x1070 crops from the two DNG files. First one was from the original RAW (sharpening at 40). Second had sharpening set to zero before enhancing.

kd_reno wrote in post #19511840
I believe that LR runs the denoise algorithm on the original RAW data and ignores any edits. It then applies the edits to the DNG. This easily seen with cropping. If you apply a crop before running denoise, the dng will include the entire image but show the crop as set in the RAW.

I took a RAW file (ISO 4000) and made a virtual copy and set the sharpening to zero on the copy. I then ran denoise on both, with no other changes. Her's the original RAW converted straight to jpg and resized for the forum.

Hosted photo: posted by kd_reno in
./showthread.php?p=195​11840&i=i30671237
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Yes it does. I've tested this out with sharpening at 150. I find it deceiving because I think the preview window should not show the sharpening amount. We may be adding more NR than is needed. This is why Johan (Adobe Community) suggested to zero it out. I had already created a preset for this but there is one in the Classic - General presets.

This was the last example of an ISO 16000 file I submitted for the bug report.

I sent this file to Denoise with sharpening at 0. Back in LrC I set sharpening to 50. If you look in this area it looks less noisy than the image in the previous post that was sent to Denoise with sharpening set to 50.

Adobe is taking an interesting but typically inefficient approach to applying their super duper NR, shoehorning NR into the exiting "Enhance" interface and workflow module. You basically have to commit to applying NR to the entire image before you can work with the raw data as you would with a raw image file. This seems to be a potential waste of time and drive space, even if they intend to remove the need to write a separate DNG file after applying NR.

DxO's Prime NR at least waits until render time to go through the gyrations of applying NR to the entire image. It seems that Adobe could implement the same strategy (rendering a preview at a user-specified crop locations) and not waste the time and effort of the user who just wants to get on with typical tonal and color adjustments. The extra steps, time, and resources seems poised to make this new feature useful only in rare circumstances where noise has caused such damage to the image that the user feels there is no choice to rescue the image other than committing to this relatively onerous step.

Kirk

kirkt wrote in post #19511885
Adobe is taking an interesting but typically inefficient approach to applying their super duper NR, shoehorning NR into the exiting "Enhance" interface and workflow module. You basically have to commit to applying NR to the entire image before you can work with the raw data as you would with a raw image file. This seems to be a potential waste of time and drive space, even if they intend to remove the need to write a separate DNG file after applying NR.

DxO's Prime NR at least waits until render time to go through the gyrations of applying NR to the entire image. It seems that Adobe could implement the same strategy (rendering a preview at a user-specified crop locations) and not waste the time and effort of the user who just wants to get on with typical tonal and color adjustments. The extra steps, time, and resources seems poised to make this new feature useful only in rare circumstances where noise has caused such damage to the image that the user feels there is no choice to rescue the image other than committing to this relatively onerous step.

Kirk

I don't view it as inefficient. Adobe Denoise AI takes 45 seconds to process a file on my machine and it is free. Photo AI took 45 seconds on my machine and so did PureRaw 3. DXO super users are saying to get the most of out DeepPrime XD you really need PL6 for better control. I'm not spending $219 US just for noise control. XD is starting to show false detail and artefacts. The sharpening sliders that were added to PR3 are not enough. This is not coming from me, just repeating what I have read. If I get ticked off by Adobe PL is on my list of possible replacements but I have no desire to switch developers. I waited a long time for Adobe Denoise.

Adobe is already working on getting rid of the DNG approach. As for reducing noise on the entire file I don't see an issue. That is what PureRaw does and you can't even see the results until it opens the file in LrC. I sure won't miss the subfolders and Collections it creates. In LrC I can always go into Masking and add/reduce noise to specific areas.

For the first release I'm impressed. It will just get better.

Forgot to say. Since PureRaw opens a RAW file it does not recognize any LrC settings so you are also committed to applying NR before you can work with the RAW data. It also comes back as a DNG.

Adobe AI-based NR is not free - you already pay for it. If you insist on not using DxO PL6 but want DxO Prime NR, then you will, as you said, have to process the entire image in PR3, just like Adobe AI-based NR. However, the Adobe AI-based NR IS incorporated in the raw converter, as is DxO Prime and Deep Prime NR in PL6. In PL6 you can preview areas of the full NR to check your settings and then you can continue to adjust your image for output without having to first apply the time-consuming Prime or Deep Prime NR. In Adobe ACR or LR you cannot do this, which forces you to process the entire image before you can continue to edit it, creating a bottleneck in ones workflow. Not wanting to switch to PL6 is understandable, but that is your choice. Because you are willing to wait for the processed DNG to be returned for further processing, it is worth it to you. It is, however, inefficient.

Also, as far as I can tell, you cannot copy and paste the use of AI-NR across a set of raw images (I used LR to attempt this) because you must invoke the AI-NR dialog, wait for the preview to render, accept the preview (or adjust the amount slider), and wait for the file to be processed by the Enhance operation into a separate DNG file. You can copy-paste or sync all other adjustments across images, as you normally would, but to "batch" a set of images for AI-NR, you have to go through the operation individually for each image, render the NR, and then apply the other adjustments back to the new DNG to sync them with the adjustments to the original raw file.

In DxO PL6, you copy-paste the Deep Prime NR setting and you're done. The results are rendered at output render time, when you can leave your machine unattended and go have a cup of coffee.

Like I said, this tool as it is implemented now is a special tool that will not really be useful for a lot workflows - it seems useful for when the image demands a lot of NR to save it, or you simply want to apply this type of NR to all of your files, regardless of whether or not they actually need it.

Of course, one hopes it will get better in its design, interface, workflow and implementation (hopefully on the GPU). I think Adobe has simply been forced into AI-based tools because of smaller companies that specialize in third-party solutions for individual workflow steps. I would be interested in the folks here who demand and use noise-reduction tools (AI or otherwise) and who print their work to comment on the actual usefulness of these computationally intensive applications in the context of real print output, versus zoomed in screen grabs.

Is it even worth the trouble? For example, on the yellow bird image above - ISO 1250 on a modern sensor - is there really any need for NR other than maybe some gentle chroma filtering?

Kirk

Sorry for the bump. 45 seconds is long time but if you read computer forums people who make a living off photography invest big time. I've read some some clock out from 6 to 10 seconds. If that still was not good then I'd get PL, C1 Pro or whatever to do the job. I'm a hobbyist so 45 seconds is enough time get a beer.

Not sure if I mentioned this. PureRaw 2, Topaz Photo AI, DeNoise AI and Gigapixel no longer exist on my OS. I just kept Topaz Sharpen AI which I don't often use. There is a few hundred extra dollars in my pocket every year.

digital paradise wrote in post #19511909
Sorry for the bump. 45 seconds is long time but if you read computer forums people who make a living off photography invest big time. I've read some some clock out from 6 to 10 seconds. If that still was not good then I'd get PL, C1 Pro or whatever to do the job. I'm a hobbyist so 45 seconds is enough time get a beer.

Not sure if I mentioned this. PureRaw 2, Topaz Photo AI, DeNoise AI and Gigapixel no longer exist on my OS. I just kept Topaz Sharpen AI which I don't often use. There is a few hundred extra dollars in my pocket every year.

We are just talking here, I hope I do not come off as sounding grumpy. I think the issue is having to babysit LR to process one image, let alone more than one image. And you cannot even work on other images while LR gyrates through the Enhance step - the dialog is persistent. It's just not efficient.

A reasonable implementation might be one where you can preview regions of the AI-NR in the LR interface. Then you can flag the images you want for AI-NR and let LR process them into the NR'ed DNGs in the background so you can carry on with your other tasks, including applying tonal and color adjustments to the files that you flagged. When the processing is complete, the edits to the original raw files are applied to the new Ai-NR'ed ones (unless you specify otherwise) and the new DNG file with the NR is stacked with the original.

Or, you could use the Smart Preview approach and generate a Smart Preview proxy file for each flagged image file that you require to have the AI-NR apply to - this would give you the ability to "edit" the NR'ed file in real-time for tone and color, etc. Then, at render to output time, all of the AI-NR and the tonal and color edits are rendered at full-res.

I don't think you would ever want the new DNG to REPLACE the original raw file. That is just an archival no-no.

Kirk