This is probably most noticeable in the subject's far cheek. In DxO's version the falloff is much more rapid, likely thanks to the algorithms managing to claw back some detail in the more subtly-defocused areas and then suddenly reaching their limits. With that said, in Adobe's rendering, the falloff of fine detail from blurred areas to defocused ones feels just a little more natural. You can see the same elsewhere too, especially in the subject's forehead, nose and foreground cheek. In this crop DxO pulls back just a little more of the finest detail in the skin textures. Our third sample comes courtesy of our Sony a7R V review and was shot at ISO 8000. It also has a bit more saturation across the board, even if Adobe's version still feels far less washed out than the out-of-camera JPEG. Pretty much everywhere in the shot, DxO's result feels crisper than Adobe's version, thanks to greater local contrast. You can also better make out the phone number in the Premiere on Pine building just above and left of center in the full image. The same is true for the patterns of the brick textures in the building in front of it, which were barely even visible in the out-of-camera JPEG. In this same building, we can also see that DxO's DeepPRIME XD algorithm has restored more of the very fine lines in the paneling than did Adobe. Again we can see that Adobe retains a bit more of the fine grain, which is especially noticeable in the flat areas of the lighter-colored buildings like the one at the very center of the shot. Here, the differences are a little easier to find. Next, let's step up the sensitivity range a bit to ISO 6400 with a shot from our Canon EOS R10 review. This is most visible in the well-blurred bokeh areas of the image. The biggest difference between the two shots in terms of noise and detail levels is that Adobe retains a little bit of fine (and quite natural-looking) grain by default, whereas DxO yields an almost noise-free result. Look for example at the fine woodgrain patterns in the in-focus areas of the floor or the finer fur in the dog's paws or near the tips of its ears and you'll discern just a little more detail and contrast in the DxO DeepPRIME XD version. Both are noticeably crisper in the fur than the out-of-camera JPEG, but there's only a razor-thin margin between the two denoised variants.īut if you look more closely you'll spot some differences elsewhere, specifically in the lower-contrast regions. Test 1: Dog (Sony ZV-E10, ISO 3200)Īs we begin our head-to-head contests, remember that you can click each crop to see the full-size denoised image.Ĭomparing the two versions of this shot from our Sony ZV-E10 review side by side, it isn't easy to see a lot of difference between the Adobe and DxO result in the dog's face. By eliminating the intermediate file and extra step in your workflow, PhotoLab can save you processing time and disk space (PhotoLab's processed DNGs are routinely about 1/4 smaller in file size than those from Adobe Denoise, should you need to take that route instead of JPEGs). By eliminating the intermediate file and extra step in your workflow, DxO PhotoLab can save you processing time and disk space.īut with PhotoLab, you can also choose to perform noise processing at the same time as lens, exposure and other corrections, outputting straight to JPEGs. Both programs take quite a while to perform their AI-based noise processing, after all, so you won't want to repeat the NR step unless you're actually tweaking its settings. That could be useful if you want to process the same set of images differently for multiple output formats while retaining the same noise reduction. With Lightroom or Camera Raw, Denoise processing must be performed separately from the rest of your image processing it delivers an intermediate, noise-processed DNG file from which you'll then perform the remainder of your processing.ĭxO PhotoLab can do the same thing if you choose to manually output DNGs after performing noise processing alone. It's worth noting off the bat that Adobe and DxO take a different approach to the processing pipeline, which has some implications for your workflow. Adobe's approach to workflow is a bit less versatile The crops in the remainder of this article come from denoised versions of these five images using both programs' default noise reduction levels, and are shown here as the original out-of-camera JPEGs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |