how fast the new Photoshop Denoise?

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

those with proper graphics processors,
(if willing, mention your gp size)

how fast is new Denoise processing

your high ISO images?

a. within seconds per image?
b. minutes per image?  how many?

 

if the latter then its a batch workflow

one starts & comes back to later...?

 

thanks in advance.  no really.

[MDM]

It depends on the pixel size of the image - between about 10 (20MP) and 25 seconds (45 MP). M1 Max MacBook Pro. 

Edited October 6 by MDM

[Gervais Montacute]

Have you thought about trying DXO Pure Raw 3 on the 31 day free trial. 

[M.Chapman]

On 06/10/2023 at 19:11, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

those with proper graphics processors,
(if willing, mention your gp size)

how fast is new Denoise processing

your high ISO images?

a. within seconds per image?
b. minutes per image?  how many?

 

if the latter then its a batch workflow

one starts & comes back to later...?

 

thanks in advance.  no really.

Another factor to bear in mind is that Adobe's Denoise creates a DNG file for each RAW processed. These files are much larger than the RAWs they come from. On my Lumix RAW files a 23MB RAW file creates a denoised DNG which is 73MB - Ouch! Giving a quadrupling in storage used for the RAW + DNG. Sure the DNG's can be deleted later, but I believe that also removes the record of any adjustments made subsequently in ACR to the DNG file because the associated XMP (or LR catalog entry) will also be deleted. 

 

Mark

Edited October 8 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

36 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

Another factor to bear in mind is that Adobe's Denoise creates a DNG file for each RAW processed. These files are much larger than the RAWs they come from. On my Lumix RAW files a 23MB RAW file creates a denoised DNG which is 73MB - Ouch! Giving a quadrupling in storage used for the RAW + DNG. Sure the DNG's can be deleted later, but I believe that will also remove the record of any adjustments subsequently made in ACR to the DNG file because the associated XMP (or LR catalog entry) will also be deleted. 

 

Mark

 

This is an interesting and important point and is the main reason I've not yet incorporated Denoise into my regular workflow. However, in my case I'm talking aibout 50-60MB lossless compressed raw files (Nikon NEFs) from a 45 MP camera which become big DNG files weighing in around 200MB or so. Up to now I always keep the raw files as well as associated 8-bit PSDs if I do any additional work in Photoshop (much less nowadays than in the past before Lightroom introduced so many new features).

 

However, as Denoise is truly amazing in what it can do with high or even intermediate ISO images, I have been toying with the following workflow.

 

1. After import into Lightroom (same thing with ACR), I don't apply any processing including no colour or luminance noise reduction.

 

2.Run Denoise and make any processing adjustments.

 

3. At this point, export the JPEG if no further work required and synchronise the adjustments with the original raw file which maintains a record of all adjustments except for Denoise.

 

4. If I do want to do further work I open the DNG into Photoshop and save as PSD which maintains layers and channels etc.

 

5. I can then delete the DNG knowing I can repeat the process down the line if necessary, the important step being to synchronise with the original raw. This works in ACR as well as Lightroom in a slightly different way. Really it shouldn't be necessary to go back to redo Denoise (unless there are further improvements in the future).

 

 

Edited October 8 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

3. At this point, export the JPEG if no further work required and synchronise the adjustments with the original raw file which maintains a record of all adjustments except for Denoise.

 

5. I can then delete the DNG knowing I can repeat the process down the line if necessary

Excellent idea!

 

I don't really understand why Adobe insist on creating a DNG in the first place, it seems like a bit of a "cobble together" approach to me. But your workaround is a great idea.

 

Mark

Edited October 8 by M.Chapman

[Mark Scheuern]

I haven't tried it in Photoshop but in Lightroom (I assume it'll be similar), about 30 seconds for a 40 MP image on my M2 Pro Mac mini

[Alex Ramsay]

I'm not sure that it's actually necessary to zero any noise reduction settings before applying Denoise - I think Denoise does that automatically for you as part of the process

 

Alex

[MDM]

59 minutes ago, Alex Ramsay said:

I'm not sure that it's actually necessary to zero any noise reduction settings before applying Denoise - I think Denoise does that automatically for you as part of the process

 

Alex

 

Yes you are probably correct. I thought I read something from Adobe to run it on an unprocessed raw but I can't find that again and it doesn't seem to make any difference as you say. I haven't checked if it there is a difference leaving some sharpening on or not beforehand as in the Adobe default settings but I am guessing not. The Raw Details section of Denoise is a sharpener as far as I know and it seems to recognise the subject and apply the sharpening only to that area. I must do a bit more experimenting. 

 

 

[MDM]

23 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Excellent idea!

 

I don't really understand why Adobe insist on creating a DNG in the first place, it seems like a bit of a "cobble together" approach to me. But your workaround is a great idea.

 

Mark

 

I don't think there would be any other option as they couldn't modify the original raw file. DNG is effectively raw. 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

I don't think there would be any other option as they couldn't modify the original raw file. DNG is effectively raw. 

They could just hold the result in RAM, just like they do with any other ACR editing operation, until the user swaps to PS or exports the result in a format of their choice.

 

Apparently the DNG created by denoise process contains the original RAW sensor data together with the demosaiced/noise reduced RGB data.  This explains why the DNG produced by the the Denoise process is so large because demosaicing roughly trebles the amount of data. The DNGs produced by Adobe's RAW to DNG convertor are much smaller, because they don't include demosaiced data.

 

Mark

[MDM]

17 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

They could just hold the result in RAM, just like they do with any other ACR editing operation, until the user swaps to PS or exports the result in a format of their choice.

 

 

 

Mark

 

 

That might work for single files or small batches but larger batches could be very problematic. I think saving to a file is essential really as batching is the way to go with Denoise for efficient usage.

[Mark Scheuern]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

They could just hold the result in RAM, just like they do with any other ACR editing operation, until the user swaps to PS or exports the result in a format of their choice.

 

Apparently the DNG created by denoise process contains the original RAW sensor data together with the demosaiced/noise reduced RGB data.  This explains why the DNG produced by the the Denoise process is so large because demosaicing roughly trebles the amount of data. The DNGs produced by Adobe's RAW to DNG convertor are much smaller, because they don't include demosaiced data.

 

Mark

 

Good point about the file sizes. And I just noticed, this morning, that I can't use it on my Leica Q2 Monochrom, which makes sense because there's not a Bayer or X-Trans filter array. Not much of a problem since it's a ridiculously low-noise camera, anyway. 

Edited October 9 by Mark Scheuern

[Allan Bell]

On 08/10/2023 at 10:19, MDM said:

 

This is an interesting and important point and is the main reason I've not yet incorporated Denoise into my regular workflow. However, in my case I'm talking aibout 50-60MB lossless compressed raw files (Nikon NEFs) from a 45 MP camera which become big DNG files weighing in around 200MB or so. Up to now I always keep the raw files as well as associated 8-bit PSDs if I do any additional work in Photoshop (much less nowadays than in the past before Lightroom introduced so many new features).

 

However, as Denoise is truly amazing in what it can do with high or even intermediate ISO images, I have been toying with the following workflow.

 

1. After import into Lightroom (same thing with ACR), I don't apply any processing including no colour or luminance noise reduction.

 

2.Run Denoise and make any processing adjustments.

 

3. At this point, export the JPEG if no further work required and synchronise the adjustments with the original raw file which maintains a record of all adjustments except for Denoise.

 

4. If I do want to do further work I open the DNG into Photoshop and save as PSD which maintains layers and channels etc.

 

5. I can then delete the DNG knowing I can repeat the process down the line if necessary, the important step being to synchronise with the original raw. This works in ACR as well as Lightroom in a slightly different way. Really it shouldn't be necessary to go back to redo Denoise (unless there are further improvements in the future).

 

 

 

Thanks for that Mick. I will definitely use it when needed.

 

I do not use denoise much but when I do I always "Stack" the original RAW with the denoised image. So far only three of four so not to worried about the space consumption.

 

Yesterday I decided to delete an image which had gone through the denoise process in LrC and there was only the RAW and denoise DNG as I had not produced a Tiff or jpeg.

The two images were stacked and using "remove image" I clicked on it and deleted from disc. I was surprised to see it still in LrC then realised I had deleted the DNG image leaving the RAW image still to be deleted.

 

In other words the denoise images are stacked on top of the RAW images so it is easy to delete the DNG after making a Tiff from it.

 

allan

 

[MDM]

On 08/10/2023 at 09:44, M.Chapman said:

Another factor to bear in mind is that Adobe's Denoise creates a DNG file for each RAW processed. These files are much larger than the RAWs they come from. 

 

 

Just noticed today that the DNG files produced in the latest version of Lightroom - V13.0 (and presumably ACR) by Denoise, Merge to Panorama and Merge to HDR are way way smaller than they were. In fact they are typically about 60% of the file size of the raw from which they are derived. I did a little searching and apparently Adobe are using a different compression method on the DNG files (JPEG XL as against JPEG) which makes for much more efficient compression without loss of quality according to Adobe. I have only tested a few images and I can see no difference in the results between these new loss DNGs and the orignal lossless ones (descriptions as given in the metadata filter in Lightroom). I don't know if there are any differences that might become apparent with further editing.

 

The use of JPEG XL also ties in with the new ability to edit and export in HDR in Lightoom (not the same thing at all as merging to HDR and very confusing terminology for those not familiar with it). The results are simply amazing as they are with video HDR. You need a HDR capable monitor (as in the MacBook Pro XDR monitors) to be able to use this feature but it is the future of digital imaging coming clearly over the horizon.

Edited October 18 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

13 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Just noticed today that the DNG files produced in the latest version of Lightroom - V13.0 (and presumably ACR) by Denoise, Merge to Panorama and Merge to HDR are way way smaller than they were. In fact they are typically about 60% of the file size of the raw from which they are derived. I did a little searching and apparently Adobe are using a different compression method on the DNG files (JPEG XL as against JPEG) which makes for much more efficient compression without loss of quality according to Adobe. I have only tested a few images and I can see no difference in the results between these new loss DNGs and the orignal lossless ones (descriptions as given in the metadata filter in Lightroom). I don't know if there are any differences that might become apparent with further editing.

 

The use of JPEG XL also ties in with the new ability to edit and export in HDR in Lightoom (not the same thing at all as merging to HDR and very confusing terminology for those not familiar with it). The results are simply amazing as they are with video HDR. You need a HDR capable monitor (as in the MacBook Pro XDR monitors) to be able to use this feature but it is the future of digital imaging coming clearly over the horizon.

That's excellent news.

I just ran a test with denoise in ACR 15.5.1 and my 23MB RAW produces a Denoised DNG of 72MB

I then updated to ACR 16.0 and the Denoised DNG produced is only 32MB, still larger than my RAW, but a great improvement. They must be compressing the demosaiced data.

 

Mark

Edited October 18 by M.Chapman

[Julie Edwards]

I (think) the reason that it creates a new DNG as the denoise is included in a demosaicing process (as in PureRaw & Topaz etc).

 

As for speed. On my 2018 MacBook pro it could take 4-6 minutes per image. On my new M2 Max Studio it takes seconds....

[Steve F]

Jeff,

Just got a replacement for my 2015 machine. Denoise has gone from more than 10 minutes to less than 20s.

Steve

 

p.s. I'm using the new LR AI denoise tool

Edited 46 minutes ago by Steve F

[Malcolm Park]

On my 2020 iMac 3.8 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i7 (Graphics: AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT 8 GB) denoise on 6000iso 22mb image is around 12 secs; on my 2020 13” MacBook Pro 2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 (Graphics: Intel Iris Plus Graphics 1536 MB) around 45 secs. I use denoise a lot for very low light theatre images, but mainly processed from the iMac.