- Does dxo photolab reading in xmp software#
- Does dxo photolab reading in xmp iso#
- Does dxo photolab reading in xmp series#
The difference is also visible at all the iso stages, but high iso images is clearly where the algorithm outperform everything i saw on the market. In practice, By experience, it's close to what you measured, 2EV increase in DR compared to a more regular algorithm like Adobe CR. The denoising from deepprime is very well placed in the raw pipeline, where it works with a maximum of efficiency, already starting to deal with the noise before any demosaicing operation.
On Pureraw, the whole demosaicing operation is done by the nn, and they include sensor-specific noise in the training (and maybe some artifacts, like fringing, glare, etc). And it's also what does every demosaicing algorithm. But here it's exactly what the step is supposed to do. Looking at the histograms provided they look like truncated gaussian distributions or three tiny ghosts as well:
This means noise in DxOPureRAW's DNG is very dense but never reaches deviations above a threshold. I think visually the result looks better for two reasons: DxO PureRAW eliminates all colour noise which is very annoying, but specially because of its closer to a uniform distribution (RAW noise is gaussian). I have to say I expected more, but this is what the calculations say (I repeated the numbers using Photoshop's info. That means noise is 40% as large as in the original RAW files.ĭR (SNR=12dB criteria) for the Sony A7 II at ISO25600 is enhanced by 1,9EV, from 4 stops to 6 stops: The numbers say that all patches improve SNR (and hence DR) by aproximately 1,25EV. I have shot an IT8 at ISO25600, measuring SNR over the 24 gray patches (I just used the G channel of a neutral RAW development done with DCRAW vs the linear extraction over DxO PureRAW's DNG): I wanted to numerically measure the DR enhancement provided by DxO PureRAW.
Does dxo photolab reading in xmp software#
In the real world, this kind of software will be used without being able to compare with the real detail, so most photographers will consider valid all the fake detail recreated by the NN.īut watch out! those clean of noise feathers could belong to some other bird, not exactly the one you photographed.
Does dxo photolab reading in xmp series#
Just comparing the output (right) with the noisy unprocessed capture (centre), the result is awesome, but when we look at the original scene some considerations have to be made: To find out we need a noiseless version of the scene and compare it with the result output from DxO PureRAW (DeepPRIME) when applied to a noisy version of the same scene.ġ00% crops test (LEFT: noiseless capture, CENTRE: noisy capture, RIGHT: processed noisy capture): Nobody testing DxO PureRAW seems to care about how much detail the neural network "invents", they just throw at it a noisy RAW file and look at the result -> WOW.