Adobe Denoise - nutz not to use it?

[M.Chapman]

11 hours ago, MDM said:

I would argue that Denoise can give 5 stops with my full frame Nikon gear. A well-exposed shot at ISO6400 is now no problem, even without downsizing.

A more demanding (than the Nuts) sequence of RAW Nikon Z7 test images can be downloaded here https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7/6

The results from Denoise at ISO 6400 are indeed very impressive, but some details have been lost (e.g. the red cotton reel threads).

I chose ISO 1600 as my default upper limit because I could barley detect any visible difference between the Adobe or DXO de-noised ISO 1600 image and the base ISO image, but it's pretty extreme pixel peeping. That Z7 is one heck of an impressive camera, the overall resolution / image clarity is simply stunning, even at ISO 6400 with denoise.

 

Mark

[MDM]

2 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

A more demanding (than the Nuts) sequence of RAW Nikon Z7 test images can be downloaded here https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7/6

The results from Denoise at ISO 6400 are indeed very impressive, but some details have been lost (e.g. the red cotton reel threads).

I chose ISO 1600 as my default upper limit because I could barley detect any visible difference between the Adobe or DXO de-noised ISO 1600 image and the base ISO image, but it's pretty extreme pixel peeping. That Z7 is one heck of an impressive camera, the overall resolution / image clarity is simply stunning, even at ISO 6400 with denoise.

 

Mark

 

Yes I just did the nuts images for a catchy title. No doubt there are far more demanding images. 

 

The Z7 and Z7II  (and the D850) are probably the best cameras for pure image quality Nikon has made. The quality at ISO 64 is out of this world. I almost sold my Z7 last year but the prices I was being offered made me decide to keep it. I'm glad I did. 

[M.Chapman]

Denoise - Nutz not to use it. 

 

Yes - After a processing a range of images, I've now modified my workflow to include RAW denoise by default before further processing. Although Adobe Denoise is effectively free (as I already have an Adobe CC subscription) I decided I preferred DxO Pure RAW 4, so bought a copy. Why did I choose to DxO?

 

1) Slightly faster processing (on my old iMac)

2) DXO suits my workflow better

3) More sophisticated/accurate lens corrections than ACR

4) Noise removal is better (less noise left) whilst detail is preserved

5) Option to retain all pixels or retain largest rectangle when removing barrel or pincushion distortion (ACR doesn't offer this for all my cameras)

6) Option to generate a jpg directly (without the large DNG) 

 

But some caution needed with DxO lens corrections which can over-sharpen (especially towards corners of frame), so I have correction set to "Soft" rather "Standard".

 

I'm finding the end result of preprocessing with DxO is the noise is reduced to such an extent that I can significantly open up shadows without worrying about noise. This, combined with DxO lens corrections means I no longer need to downsize to get sharp low noise image and this gives either a larger image to upload or more cropping freedom.

 

It's like having a new camera and lenses... 😀

 

Mark  

[MDM]

OK. I won't be changing as I'm more than happy with things the way they are now but it's good to hear about alternatives. 

 

1. Not an issue. I've got an M1 Mac and it's fast enough for me. Batching Denoise and letting it run while doing something else  is an alternative option. 

2. As a Lightroom Classic user, it is far easier for my workflow to keep everything in house. I can run Denoise and continue to work on what is effectively a raw file (DNG) for most intents and purposes (white balance and additional sharpening if necessary). I would not get any benefit from denoising outside of Lightroom (or ACR)

3. Not something that affects anything I do. In any case, most of my lenses nowadays have built-in corrections that can't be modified without special measures. 

4. I find Adobe Denoise more than adequate for anything I do up to ISO6400 which I use a lot more than I ever did before and don't have any concerns about passing QC due to noise. I find Denoise's ability to recognise the main subject and apply selective sharpening to that quite amazing and invaluable. 

5. Not relevant to my work but, if I do shoot architecture, I leave space for correcting perspective. Then I am using a 45MP camera so there is plenty of room fopr losing a few pixels. 

6. The new DNG files are about a tenth the size of what they were when Adobe introduced Denoise and about the same size as the raw image from camera (about 60MP or so depending on content). 

 

For me it's a new way of shooting, especially for close-up plant photography where I need fast shutter speeds (to avoid motion blur) and small apertures (for depth of field). 

 

Edited May 29 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

51 minutes ago, MDM said:

5. Not relevant to my work but, if I do shoot architecture, I leave space for correcting perspective. Then I am using a 45MP camera so there is plenty of room fopr losing a few pixels. 

Yes, so do I when I can but, when photographing buildings, I sometimes find I just can't get back far enough to allow for perspective adjustments.

 

I also find it useful for landscape photography with my relatively low MP sensors not to throw away pixels if distortion correction is not needed. The number of pixels discarded by ACR distortion correction with my RX100 MkIII at shortest focal length is significant, (only the paler area is retained by ACR). Luckily ACR now allows distortion correction to be turned off for newer lenses / cameras, but Adobe haven't added this option to some older cameras/lenses (yet?). DxO provides this option.

 

 

Mark

 

Edited May 29 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

Have you tried doing merges - vertical or horizontal? That is what I would do in that situation. You can leave loads of room for perspective correction. The widest lens I have is a 24mm.  I have never bothered to get anything wider as I wouldn't use it much and it would just be more weight. 

[M.Chapman]

6 minutes ago, MDM said:

Have you tried doing merges - vertical or horizontal?

Yes, PS and LR do a really good job these days. Although I've yet to find a way of denoting which frame (out of 3 for example) is to be undistorted when using the perspective correction setting. I'd prefer it to be the middle one, but it often picks one of the end frames. Maybe you know a trick?

 

Mark

[MDM]

I tend to use vertical merges of two images (in landscape format) with buildings and use the bottom one as undistorted, then do perspective correction. If I do landscape merges, I tend to use the cylindrical option with horizontal merges (images in portrait format). This is more tricky with buildings as it can make the result look like it is projected on a cylinder but I find that much less of an issue with landscapes. I do all in Lightroom ever since it was introduced several years ago, again for the benefit of working on a DNG. I used to do it in Photoshop but it would hog the computer and take ages for large merges (oldish Mac at that time). Doing it in Lightroom allows me to continue working on other things, even in Lightroom. 

[M.Chapman]

DxO Pure RAW with it’s excellent denoise and lens correction capabilities is currently 20% off.

https://shop.dxo.com/en/dxo-pureraw-4.html

 

Mark

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

Thanks mate.

MarkC or anyone...

 

my PS 2024 AI Denoise steps are

 

a. process DNGs (Sony RX10 IV)

b. apply AI Denoise to ISO 1200 & up

c. convert to 16bitTIFs & further process

d. convert to 8bitTIFs27MB

e. convert to JPGs27MB

 

for whatever reason, all files at (c) step are near

same size 117000 KB, whereas at all other before-after

steps AI Denoise files are ~20% bigger?  WHY?

[MDM]

That doesn’t make sense to me. Where exactly are you getting these numbers? 

Edited June 18 by MDM

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

That doesn’t make sense to me. Where exactly are you getting these numbers? 

from Windows

C:\Users\Jeffr\Desktop\2Bprocessed\2Bprocessed-16bitTIFs-114 (folder)

then "file size" column;

no time now to provide screen shot;

what exactly don't make sense?

 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

 

from Windows

C:\Users\Jeffr\Desktop\2Bprocessed\2Bprocessed-16bitTIFs-114 (folder)

then "file size" column;

no time now to provide screen shot;

what exactly don't make sense?

 

 

It doesn't add up at all. 

File size on disk Tiff 27MB, JPEG 27MB does not make sense.

16-bit TIFF should be twice the size of the 8-bit TIFF - does not make sense.

Why quote one size in MB and another in Kb?

Are you mixing file sizes on disk with pixel dimensions (uncompressed file size in Alamy terminology)

Edited June 18 by MDM

[IKuzmin]

I must be that nutz. During the last 3 years I used Nvidia GTX 1650 which was in general fine, but it was slow with the modern AI apps, including the Adobe’s AI denoise. A 20 Mp file was processed during ~2 min and a 45 Mp file during ~7 min. Therefore, I used this denoise very rarely. Last month I decided to make another upgrade, specifically for this purpose, and purchased RTX 4060. My rationale was that spending ~$300 once in 3 years does not hurt if really helps to get a better result. Now my 20 Mp files are denoised during ~8 sec and 45 Mp files during 20-30 sec. But you know what? I still use this feature only occasionally. I already mentioned earlier that I do not mind to have some noise as long as fine details are resolved. And if they are not resolved, denoising does not help. Moreover, sometimes (if not often) the denoising results make feather and fur of my subjects look somewhat plastic-like (even at the amount of 35-40) which I do not want…

[NYCat]

I also sometimes don't like an image after removing noise. Fortunately, we have choices.

 

Paulette

[MDM]

13 hours ago, IKuzmin said:

I must be that nutz. During the last 3 years I used Nvidia GTX 1650 which was in general fine, but it was slow with the modern AI apps, including the Adobe’s AI denoise. A 20 Mp file was processed during ~2 min and a 45 Mp file during ~7 min. Therefore, I used this denoise very rarely. Last month I decided to make another upgrade, specifically for this purpose, and purchased RTX 4060. My rationale was that spending ~$300 once in 3 years does not hurt if really helps to get a better result. Now my 20 Mp files are denoised during ~8 sec and 45 Mp files during 20-30 sec. But you know what? I still use this feature only occasionally. I already mentioned earlier that I do not mind to have some noise as long as fine details are resolved. And if they are not resolved, denoising does not help. Moreover, sometimes (if not often) the denoising results make feather and fur of my subjects look somewhat plastic-like (even at the amount of 35-40) which I do not want…

 

Note the question mark in the title of the thread. I wasn't calling anyone nutz. In case the pun got lost, the sample images I used were of cashews and raisins. 

 

I do find Denoise  very useful when I need fast shutter speeds and small apertures and light is limited - close-up plant photography is probably my main usage at the moment. Its ability to recognise the main subject and apply judicious sharpening to that while effectively removing background noise is still astonishing to me. It has changed the way I work and it has allowed me to upload images to Alamy that I would never have uploaded in the past because of noise. 

 

Obviously it is not perfect but it is orders of magnitude better than manual noise reduction. It can make skin tones look plastic at high ISOs (say 6400 and higher on my Nikon kit). I don't do bird photography so can't argue with your findings. 

 

 

[IKuzmin]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

Note the question mark in the title of the thread. I wasn't calling anyone nutz. In case the pun got lost, the sample images I used were of cashews and raisins. 

No problems at all, I called nutz myself! 🙂

I shared my experience, I hope not out of topic this time.

BTW, when Nikon released FW 2 for Z8, along with some narrow-focused features such as bird and plane recognition, they improved the high ISO noise, quite noticeable. Likely the same had been done for Z9. Still, I prefer not going above 2000, sometimes 3200, but I think only ~twice a year up to 6400. And that latter was for frogs which do not have feathers or fur 🙂

 

...And, I still use often the old Topaz Sharpen AI, on a Photoshop layer, mainly to reduce motion blur but it also reduces some noise. Only one AI model from that version works good enough to my taste though, preserving fine details wherever possible.

 

Edited June 29 by IKuzmin
added on Topaz

[MDM]

2 hours ago, IKuzmin said:

No problems at all, I called nutz myself! 🙂

I shared my experience, I hope not out of topic this time.

BTW, when Nikon released FW 2 for Z8, along with some narrow-focused features such as bird and plane recognition, they improved the high ISO noise, quite noticeable. Likely the same had been done for Z9. Still, I prefer not going above 2000, sometimes 3200, but I think only ~twice a year up to 6400. And that latter was for frogs which do not have feathers or fur 🙂

 

...And, I still use often the old Topaz Sharpen AI, on a Photoshop layer, mainly to reduce motion blur but it also reduces some noise. Only one AI model from that version works good enough to my taste though, preserving fine details wherever possible.

 

 

Definitely on topic. Not seen any hairy frogs lately myself but you never know. I always aim to use the lowest ISO possible and I never use auto ISO so I'm always in control. Otherwise I am letting the camera make aesthetic and technical decisions which is not for me. But I'm no longer afraid to go up to ISO 6400 if necessary, although there will be loss of detail and dynamic range.

 

I used to use Photoshop extensively for a lot of editing but I use it much less for editing than before unless I have very specific needs. WIth the latest masks and auto-selection tools in LR/ACR, I do most of what I need to do on the raw images. I open my files into Photoshop though for detailed examination as it is much easier to zoom and pan around than in LR/ACR. It's come to a point where, if I could only have LR or Photoshop/ACR, I would choose LR. I never thought I would say that. 

 

I tried an early Topaz AI denoiser but found it way too slow and it didn't work on raw images so I gave up with that and never resubscribed.

 

Edited June 29 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

According to this week's AP the new Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mk II now include AI based denoise and upscaling functions (based on "Deep learning") that can be applied during in-camera RAW conversion, or using DPP software or PS/LR plugins. I'm not sure if the DPP's denoise and upscaling functions can be applied to any Canon camera RAW file or just those from R1 and R5. It won't be long before AI based denoise is a standard part of any higher ISO or small sensor workflow.

 

Mark

Edited July 21 by M.Chapman

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

It won't be long before AI based denoise is a standard part of any higher ISO or small sensor workflow

kako zanimjlivo mate !!

 

Do you predict this will happen via
a. software update
b. firmware update
c. other, being:________

(IMC, Sony RX10 IV currently)
or will this wave of high ISO AI corrections
trigger a tsunami of new bodies…?

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Do you predict this will happen via
a. software update
b. firmware update
c. other, being:________

(IMC, Sony RX10 IV currently)
or will this wave of high ISO AI corrections
trigger a tsunami of new bodies…?

 

Looking in my crystal ball and trying the usual other forms of divination, the omens are not good for a seven year old consumer camera getting anything in the way of AI Denoising by a firmware update. My crystal ball tells me that the phenomenal processing power required for something like this will only be available in pretty high end new to newish cameras, similar to what is required of computers for these types of usages. It could be wrong of course but I'm figuring it is right this time. In any case, I question the usefulness of raw conversion and AI denoising in-camera. Even if I had that facility, I would most likely continue with the traditional computer conversion of my raw files and batch Denoising therein. Anything that sounds like it might edge a camera ahead ot its nearest competitors will be good for the marketing. The competition between Canon, Nikon and Sony at this medium to high level of pro hybrid mirrorless cameras is fierce right now. 

Edited July 21 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

10 hours ago, MDM said:

Looking in my crystal ball and trying the usual other forms of divination, the omens are not good for a seven year old consumer camera getting anything in the way of AI Denoising by a firmware update. My crystal ball tells me that the phenomenal processing power required for something like this will only be available in pretty high end new to newish cameras, similar to what is required of computers for these types of usages. It could be wrong of course but I'm figuring it is right this time. In any case, I question the usefulness of raw conversion and AI denoising in-camera. Even if I had that facility, I would most likely continue with the traditional computer conversion of my raw files and batch Denoising therein. Anything that sounds like it might edge a camera ahead ot its nearest competitors will be good for the marketing. The competition between Canon, Nikon and Sony at this medium to high level of pro hybrid mirrorless cameras is fierce right now. 

I agree. The processing power required for AI denoise will mean that most current cameras wouldn't be capable, so it's unlikely to be available as a firmware upgrade. ATM this in-camera capability is designed to appeal to news shooters who need to shoot, process and submit the best images they can, often taken under adverse conditions in the shortest possible time. But, it's very likely that AI denoise will be added into the processing software from most vendors and they will support processing older cameras RAW files. It will need a PC/MAC with power to run though. I expect that intermediate "DNG step" required by many AI denoise will disappear and it will become more seamless as processors get more powerful and plenty of RAM is available.

 

Mark

Edited July 22 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I agree. The processing power required for AI denoise will mean that most current cameras wouldn't be capable, so it's unlikely to be available as a firmware upgrade. ATM this in-camera capability is designed to appeal to news shooters who need to shoot, process and submit the best images they can, often taken under adverse conditions in the shortest possible time. But, it's very likely that AI denoise will be added into the processing software from most vendors and they will support processing older cameras RAW files. It will need a PC/MAC with power to run though. I expect that intermediate "DNG step" required by many AI denoise will disappear and it will become more seamless as processors get more powerful and plenty of RAM is available.

 

Mark

 

I'm not sure in-camera raw conversion with AI noise reduction would be a big issue for most news photographers given that content is far more important than a really clean image when viewed on a big screen at 100%, moreover because most news photos now are probably viewed on phones where noise would be invisible anyway.

 

I can't see how it is possible to get rid of the DNG as the noise reduction can't be embedded in the original raw file. With the new much smaller DNG files sizes I don't think it is a problem keeping the DNG and the original raw anyway. I keep both and export JPEG or whatever from the DNG. 

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

I can't see how it is possible to get rid of the DNG as the noise reduction can't be embedded in the original raw file. With the new much smaller DNG files sizes I don't think it is a problem keeping the DNG and the original raw anyway. I keep both and export JPEG or whatever from the DNG.

That's easy. Once processing speeds are fast enough it will be no different to applying most other adjustments in LR or ACR. There will be a slider and the adjustment will just be applied to the data in RAM and the data is only exported once all adjustments have been made.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

I'm not sure in-camera raw conversion with AI noise reduction would be a big issue for most news photographers given that content is far more important than a really clean image when viewed on a big screen at 100%, moreover because most news photos now are probably viewed on phones where noise would be invisible anyway.

Good point. I was basing my comment on the publicity Canon have released on these cameras which contain numerous features also targeted at that sector. Whether the marketing matches a real need is another matter, but given the price of these cameras I assume Canon have done their homework?

 

Mark