Adobe introduces AI noise reduction

kirkt wrote in post #19511908
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

I don't want PL or PureRaw. I'm happy with the product I'm using. The masking alone in versions 11 and 12 were worth it. I keep reading about skipping an annual upgrade but the forums also show that people can hardly wait for them. Companies depend on that for their annual revenue. Knowing myself I'd be upgrading every year. Competitor prices keep going up. Look at C1.

As for speed between ISO Adaptive presets and Auto I can develop a decent looking file in seconds. Last year I did a charity Marathon shoot. 500 files just took me over an hour. A lot has changed since LR6.

kirkt wrote in post #19511914
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

Nothing wrong with a constructive conversation. We all have our likes and dislikes. The original RAW file is not replaced. It is placed beside the original RAW or stacked on it depending in how you like it. I tolerated PureRaw (I also own PL3 but can't use it) because it is a good product but never liked the sub-folders and collections it created back in LrC. I spent the weekend getting rid of all that too. On another site I commented if the DNG's are too big then just delete them after export.

I never put all my files through PL, PureRaw or any Topaz products. Only select files went there. If I was at a commercial level or earning as a personal business then I'm sure I'd have 3 or 4 programs if not more. I don't and I have time to wait for Denoise.

After playing with several files my impression is that it's as good as or maybe slightly better than Topaz DeNoiseAI. But it will require some workflow changes and because I'm an old grumpy guy I might be a bit slow to give up Topaz.

I did some more experimenting with sharpening, and I remain convinced that it doesn't make any difference whether you apply sharpening to the RAW or the DNG, unless you want to skip LR sharpening completely and use a different app/plugin. At least no difference that I can see. And even with LR at 40 I'm finding that the DNGs can benefit from tweaking the sharpness/clarity/text​ure sliders a bit.

I did two comparisons - one with the denoise slider at 50 and one at 100. In each set I ran denoise with the RAW sharpen at zero and the DNG sharpened to 150, and with the RAW sharpen at 150, in which case the DNG comes back at 150. Interestingly, the total time after hitting the enhance button ranged from just over a minute five seconds to just under a minute seven seconds.

Here are crops of the DNGs with denoise at 50. First one has the RAW sharpening at zero and the DNG sharpened to 150. Second has the RAW at 150.

And here is the comparison with the denoise slider at 100. First one had the RAW at zero sharpening and the second at 150.

kd_reno wrote in post #19511940
After playing with several files my impression is that it's as good as or maybe slightly better than Topaz DeNoiseAI. But it will require some workflow changes and because I'm an old grumpy guy I might be a bit slow to give up Topaz.

I did some more experimenting with sharpening, and I remain convinced that it doesn't make any difference whether you apply sharpening to the RAW or the DNG, unless you want to skip LR sharpening completely and use a different app/plugin. At least no difference that I can see. And even with LR at 40 I'm finding that the DNGs can benefit from tweaking the sharpness/clarity/text​ure sliders a bit.

I did two comparisons - one with the denoise slider at 50 and one at 100. In each set I ran denoise with the RAW sharpen at zero and the DNG sharpened to 150, and with the RAW sharpen at 150, in which case the DNG comes back at 150. Interestingly, the total time after hitting the enhance button ranged from just over a minute five seconds to just under a minute seven seconds.

Here are crops of the DNGs with denoise at 50. First one has the RAW sharpening at zero and the DNG sharpened to 150. Second has the RAW at 150.

Hosted photo: posted by kd_reno in
./showthread.php?p=195​11940&i=i131216169
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Hosted photo: posted by kd_reno in
./showthread.php?p=195​11940&i=i262514636
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Edited to replace wrong second image.

While Photo AI is good it tends to be a little aggressive in sharpening. Topaz was and is still is working on that. Adobe Denoise is at least as good with less artefacts IMO. Even if wasn't it is still a huge improvement over what we had and will get better. I have a whole new workflow now. Before I used either a Topaz product or DXO PureRaw. No two files are alike.

With LrC I can now push Texture, Sharpening and Detail much more than I ever could. I currently don't feel the need for another app for that. I kept Topaz Sharpen AI for OOF shots but I don't use it often. I pre-cull my files using Canon's DPP and delete pretty much everything that is not usable. If I couldn't get it in focus I don't keep it.

Photo AI saved me here. I got to this model show just as this one was ending it's fight and hurrying never helps. I like Spitfires. Sharpen AI could taken care of but there is an appeal to having sharpening and denoising in one app. I'm not much into upscaling. Buy purchasing Gigapixel Topaz gave me another year of support for Denoise and Sharpen and threw in Photo AI for free. Maybe one day Adobe will release a de-blurring module.


https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1527463

In case anyone is interested I was looking for more info and found this short video that summed up the last release, 12.3. I'll have to try some of those new masking features.

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

I was just watching some videos for more info and came across this. Minute 3:10. He also says to set sharpening to 0.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=D5Kn7tD8GD0

Just messing around with it. An

The sky was still a little noisy so I ran it through masking and reduced texture, sharpening and noise.

Then I thought the door may look a little plasticky and since I could fix the sky I reduced Denosie to 35. The default is 50 and some you tube presenters like about 43 or so. It left a little noise which I don't mind.

DXO makes an excellent product and it may be better than Adobe Denoise but this is good enough for me. I
've waited so long for this and now 95% of my editing will be under one roof. This their first release so I can't imagine where it will head.

Here's my effort. Still experimenting.

Archibald wrote in post #19512763
Here's my effort. Still experimenting.

Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=195​12763&i=i45000642
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

That looks like a pretty wicked crop and looks pretty good for that amount. There are almost no halos which the traditional method always showed. I can't remember if I said this but after Denoise I can now push texture, sharpening and detail far more than before.

That is great for web presentation but when printing a little noise recommend to prevent posterization.

digital paradise wrote in post #19512769
That looks like a pretty wicked crop and looks pretty good for that amount. There are almost no halos which the traditional method always showed. I can't remember if I said this but after Denoise I can now push texture, sharpening and detail far more than before.

That is great for web presentation but when printing a little noise recommend to prevent posterization.

I should have mentioned - they are 300% views.

Archibald wrote in post #19512798
I should have mentioned - they are 300% views.

I figured.