![]() ![]() Only the true raw are accepted by the current Prime and DeepPRIME – at some point I hope that DxO will offer a mode of DeepPRIME that works with de-mosaiced image files. Note that DNG files come in two forms, true “raw” and de-mosaiced (“de-Bayered”). However, since it only works with raw files, it cannot handle images that are under-exposed. If the image is quite under (or over) exposed (using the channel histograms as the estimator), one often must invest much work making manual adjustments, and in most cases, the yield of “keepers” is not worth (in possible client compensation) the effort. However, since it only works with raw files, it cannot handle images that are under-exposed.Īssuming that your camera system provides a true raw (not de-mosaiced) file that PL4Elite (DeepPRIME) supports, I have had no issue with under-exposed images, being capable of doing much more than I could with wet chemistry imaging (film and paper push, pull, dodge, burn). This first version of On1 No Noise is a bit buggy and not fully refined but it shows a lot of potential which may be attained in future upgrades. No Noise’s main defects were smearing and a greater sense of a plastic look when over applied. When comparing ON1 to DeepPRIME, l found DeepPRIME to be superior to ON1 NoNoise in every case although the differences were noticeably smaller than between DeepPRIME and Topaz Denoise. When comparing Topaz Denoise to On1 NoNoise on raw files I found the output from ON1 was superior and more pleasing compared to Topaz virtually all the time. ON1 states that while No Noise can be used for non raw images the quality of the output is still essentially in beta and should improve over time. On some images Topaz was closer to DeepPRIME in quality than on others but it was never anywhere as good. When comparing its raw capabilities against DeepPRIME, in my opinion DeepPRIME was superior 100% of the time. I have a license for Topaz Denoise AI 3 primarily for use on non-raw images. ![]() A query for the DxO marketing group: is DxO using similar outlets to the “review” pushed by a competitor? At the moment, DxO due to the DxO evaluation of lenses, etc, possibly has the most extensive training set. If one happens to have an image that is “close” to one in the training set, all the better. As for the fact that DeepPRIME, etc, are AI based only means one is comparing the detailed AI engine (and implementation, as all of these are AI software applications on a non-quantum non-neurosynaptic “classical” computer) and the training set upon which the AI “learned”. The fact that the ON1 application is better than what Adobe native offers, etc, is no great surprise. The review reads like an advert: (Excerpt) Where On1 NoNoise has the edge over Topaz is its ability to duplicate layers within the program, which includes blending modes, and then mask the layers using its industry-leading “Perfect Brush." (End excerpt) “Industry-leading” is a very advert statement, and certainly one with which many might take exception. I also note that DeepPRIME did not seem to have been comparison evaluated. I have read the review, and the results in terms of the ON1 application do not correspond to my experience – the application I tried (under purchased license, not “trial”) seemed far more “buggy” than that described in the article. Is a comparison review cited by ON1 in an email advert. ( Will On1's NoNoise AI Steal the Crown from Topaz DeNoise AI? Quite Possibly. Will ON1’s NoNoise AI Steal the Crown from Topaz DeNoise AI? Quite Possibly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |