Betty LaRue Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: MDM & all thanks for response, several points: a. today my brain HIFU procedure was success, 95% of right hand tremor gone, can now hold camera steady down to 1/30 sec, possibly even 1/20 sec, so highest ISO going forward ~ISO 4000, AI Denoise still will be very useful, ISO 2000 & up... b. any new avatar must reflect (a) success... c. my 7-yr-old laptop with problematic GPU message DOES process AI Denoise !! when first looking, estimate of ~26 minutes per image appeared, but upon finally trying, 2 different images took 11 minutes & 6 minutes, the latter being OP image below... d. I will still replace 7-yr-old laptop this year Photoshop 2024 AI Denoise, Amount = 70 (from Sony RX10 IV DNG) done after manual process of 2nd image below; only possible problem is sitting woman's facial hair became "rows" of hair..? https://www.photosphotos.net/MX231124029-Enhanced-NR.JPG comments? should it pass QC? compare to my earlier manual effort, less hair detail & elsewhere: https://photosphotos.net/MX231124029b.jpg Jeff, congratulations on your successful procedure! I am thrilled for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 8 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: MDM & all thanks for response, several points: a. today my brain HIFU procedure was success, 95% of right hand tremor gone, can now hold camera steady down to 1/30 sec, possibly even 1/20 sec, so highest ISO going forward ~ISO 4000, AI Denoise still will be very useful, ISO 2000 & up... b. any new avatar must reflect (a) success... c. my 7-yr-old laptop with problematic GPU message DOES process AI Denoise !! when first looking, estimate of ~26 minutes per image appeared, but upon finally trying, 2 different images took 11 minutes & 6 minutes, the latter being OP image below... d. I will still replace 7-yr-old laptop this year Good to hear your procedure was succesful Jeff. I suspect that Denoised image might pass QC, especially if downsized, but who am I to judge that. Try it and see. I am considering strike action in terms of answering any more of your questions until you get a new avatar 😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 I second what Betty said. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 Let's keep this thread on topic for once rather than another discussion on health please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 6 minutes ago, MDM said: Let's keep this thread on topic for once rather than another discussion on health please. I differ. Tremors can severely affect photography. I love hearing about the successful procedure. Go Jeff! And keep us in the loop, please. We care. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 (edited) 17 minutes ago, NYCat said: I differ. Tremors can severely affect photography. I love hearing about the successful procedure. Go Jeff! And keep us in the loop, please. We care. Paulette I'm delighted for Jeff as well but the topic is Denoise not the effect of tremors on photography. If you want to discuss that, then start a new thread. Edited April 17 by MDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 34 minutes ago, MDM said: I'm delighted for Jeff as well but the topic is Denoise not the effect of tremors on photography. If you want to discuss that, then start a new thread. I very much appreciate what you offer to the Forum in the way of advice. You helped me enormously and I thank you for that. Please leave the monitoring of the Forum to Alamy. You are too harsh for me. It's a friendly place and I like it like that. Paulette 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 23 minutes ago, NYCat said: I very much appreciate what you offer to the Forum in the way of advice. You helped me enormously and I thank you for that. Please leave the monitoring of the Forum to Alamy. You are too harsh for me. It's a friendly place and I like it like that. Paulette If I'm to harsh for you then don't argue with me. I call it straight talking. I believe I am in my rights in asking that this thread that I started should stay on topic rather than turn into yet another topic on health (in particular). I think this could be a useful thread for many contributors now and down the line but not if it gets diverted. You are free to start your own thread as I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Jeff's tremor is not that far off topic. ISTR The reason he was posting about his noise reduction problems was because he was having to shoot at such high ISO levels indoors to avoid his tremor causing image blur. This in turn caused image noise problems and led to your useful thread on Adobe's Denoise. Mark 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 (edited) 8 hours ago, M.Chapman said: Jeff's tremor is not that far off topic. ISTR The reason he was posting about his noise reduction problems was because he was having to shoot at such high ISO levels indoors to avoid his tremor causing image blur. This in turn caused image noise problems and led to your useful thread on Adobe's Denoise. Mark I agree and I'm fully aware of that but I would like to stay focused as things have a habit of diverging rapidly, particularly when health is under discussion. We could also talk about Jeff's eyesight which was also under discussion in another thread and led way off topic to a discussion of cataract surgery to which I contributed as I have experience there. I am genuinely delighted for Jeff in relation to his tremor and the ultimate cause thereof. Edited April 17 by MDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KitJames Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 11 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: MDM & all thanks for response, several points: a. today my brain HIFU procedure was success, 95% of right hand tremor gone, can now hold camera steady down to 1/30 sec, possibly even 1/20 sec, so highest ISO going forward ~ISO 4000, AI Denoise still will be very useful, ISO 2000 & up... b. any new avatar must reflect (a) success... c. my 7-yr-old laptop with problematic GPU message DOES process AI Denoise !! when first looking, estimate of ~26 minutes per image appeared, but upon finally trying, 2 different images took 11 minutes & 6 minutes, the latter being OP image below... d. I will still replace 7-yr-old laptop this year Photoshop 2024 AI Denoise, Amount = 70 (from Sony RX10 IV DNG) done after manual process of 2nd image below; only possible problem is sitting woman's facial hair became "rows" of hair..? https://www.photosphotos.net/MX231124029-Enhanced-NR.JPG comments? should it pass QC? compare to my earlier manual effort, less hair detail & elsewhere: https://photosphotos.net/MX231124029b.jpg I think it might pass. I'm glad the GPU manages at all rescuing the details with the AI denoise and it looks a lot better. The reduction of your tremors will probably have the big benefit too when you take more photos. I toyed with the DNG with Photolab, and the results were similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 5 hours ago, KitJames said: I think it might pass. Thanks for opinion. 2 issues I see, a. darker facial makeup converted into rows of facial hair, nearby sitting woman b. "bubbles" around speaker's chin both easily fixed with a content aware tool...? regards jg, 2% Neanderthal, 2% Denisovan, & proud of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 That's great news about the success of your operation, Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KitJames Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: Thanks for opinion. 2 issues I see, a. darker facial makeup converted into rows of facial hair, nearby sitting woman b. "bubbles" around speaker's chin both easily fixed with a content aware tool...? regards jg, 2% Neanderthal, 2% Denisovan, & proud of it... The first issue I'm not personally seeing. It's the same thing for the denoise I did in DxO Photolab. Second issue wouldn't be an issue honestly as it's normal for skin to have some imperfections, I don't think it's needed to be edited out in any way in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted Friday at 07:11 Share Posted Friday at 07:11 (edited) I think it's worth adding a link to this blog post https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified from Adobe's ACR team to this thread as it gives some useful insights. It also concludes with the following statement; What’s next? Denoise is our third Enhance feature. We’re proud of what it can do today, but we’re already looking ahead to make it even better. For instance, we have some ideas on how to use additional training data to improve resolution. We’d like to support additional file formats and combine Denoise with Super Resolution. We’re even looking into ways to speed up the workflow by not needing to make a new DNG file. It’s a very exciting time, and you can expect us to continue making big strides forward in AI-powered image editing. Mark Edited Friday at 07:47 by M.Chapman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted Friday at 07:33 Author Share Posted Friday at 07:33 Yes I read that last year when they introduced Denoise and it is very interesting. A major improvement since then is in their algorithm for the enhanced DNG file which is now way smaller than it used to be but is lossless compressed. I recall a conversation with you about this and a workaround to save space when using Denoise which is no longer necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted Friday at 13:32 Share Posted Friday at 13:32 If it wasn't for Denoise I would not have uploaded as many images as I have up to date. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted Saturday at 19:50 Share Posted Saturday at 19:50 (edited) I just tried some Adobe Denoise speed tests on my iMac 3.4GHz Quad Core i5 Radeon Pro 570 4GB with 32GB RAM + 1TB NVMe + PS 25.6 ACR 16.2.1.1767, on RAW files from various cameras, with the following results. 12MP RAW file processed in 23 seconds 15MP RAW file processed in 27 seconds 16MP RAW file processed in 29 seconds 18MP RAW file processed in 32 seconds 20MP RAW file processed in 34 seconds 46MP RAW file processed in 72 seconds So a pretty linear increase processing time with image size that roughly fits to an equation of processing time = 5 secs + 1.5 secs/MP. It made no difference what % Denoise setting was selected. I tried the a few tests on a 2020 MacBook Air 1.1GHz Quad Core i5 Intel Iris Plus Graphics with 1536MB and 16GB RAM with following results 12MP RAW file processed in 185 seconds (8x slower than my iMac) 18MP RAW file processed in 270 seconds (over 8x slower and fans came on) Larger RAW files caused it to crash - oops! My question is, how much faster would various M series Macs be? I see LightroomQueen site has some results https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/my-recent-gpu-experience-gigabyte-nvidia-rtx-4070-ti-12gb.47572/page-2#post-1315545 but I'm not sure how reliable they are. As an aside, my 50% Adobe Denoise results from quite a variety and age of RAW files were extremely good. I didn't test on any very high ISO files, but in all cases noise was so well controlled that I could always open up shadows to the max in PS (not ACR) without seeing any noise problems. Very impressive. I think I'm going to double the default Auto ISO upper limit in my cameras' settings as I'm confident that applying Denoise can fix any problems that might arise. As another aside... I just tried the latest DXO Prime RAW 4 and find it runs about 15% faster and my initial reaction is that the results are even better than Adobe Denoise (much better recovery of detail). I need to experiment some more... Mark Edited Sunday at 10:43 by M.Chapman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted Saturday at 21:13 Author Share Posted Saturday at 21:13 1 hour ago, M.Chapman said: I just tried some Adobe Denoise speed tests on my iMac 3.4GHz Quad Core i5 Radeon Pro 570 4GB with 32GB RAM + 1TB NVMe + PS 25.6 ACR 16.2.1.1767, on RAW files from various cameras, with the following results. 12MP RAW file processed in 23 seconds 15MP RAW file processed in 27 seconds 16MP RAW file processed in 29 seconds 18MP RAW file processed in 32 seconds 20MP RAW file processed in 34 seconds 46MP RAW file processed in 72 seconds So a pretty linear increase processing time with image size that roughly fits to an equation of processing time = 5 secs + 1.5 secs/MP. It made no difference what % Denoise setting was selected. I tried the a few tests on a 2020 MacBook Air 1.1GHz Quad Core i5 Intel Iris Plus Graphics with 1536MB and 16GB RAM with following results 12MP RAW file processed in 185 seconds (8x slower than my iMac) 18MP RAW file processed in 270 seconds (over 8x slower and fans came on) Larger RAW files caused it to crash - oops! My question is, how much faster would various M series Macs be? A lot faster. My M1 Max MacBook Pro processes a 45MP file in about 27s and a 20MP file in about 10s. I presume that the latest equivalents would be faster again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now