portforms.blogg.se

1. Topaz vs dxo install#
2. Topaz vs dxo full#
3. Topaz vs dxo software#
4. Topaz vs dxo iso#
5. Topaz vs dxo windows#

The images are like a messy painting by Seurat.

Topaz vs dxo iso#

I recently made an inadvertent experiment with my OM-1: I set it to ISO 80,000 (twiddling controls in the sunlight without my spectacles) and took several indoor shots. It has fewer options than the three separate products and (still in beta?) gives unimpressive results when noise levels are high. I think that the market for Photo AI is the smart phone/social media crowd. But it varies, and PureRAW2 has given new life to files I could only take so far previously. To be safe, I sometimes process RAW files through both PureRAW2 and Iridient X-Transformer because sometimes there is just too much of a mess left behind with PureRAW2. I think that the market for Photo AI is the smart phone/social media crowd.Īnd as a point of comparison, I got PureRAW2 when DXO was finally able to handle Fujifilm X-Trans files. I ran Photo AI on a some files, and I just couldn’t see the advantage for my workflow, and figured my best course of action was to uninstall the software. I wouldn’t be surprised if Photo AI changes those file associations every time there is an update. I could see no method of changing that in the Photo AI menus.

Topaz vs dxo windows#

I don’t recall being asked, and I didn’t feel like I should have to go into Windows and change it back. First thing I noticed after I installed it was my file association for JPEGs shifted to Photo AI.

Topaz vs dxo install#

I was offered an install of Photo AI when I renewed my Topaz support (I let it expire and was just waiting around for the inevitable “discount”).

Topaz vs dxo software#

Photo AI combines the Topaz AI Triad (Gigapixel, Sharpen, and DeNoise), so the software gives you several variables for which you don’t have the same level of control that you do when using them individually. DeNoise AI can work for you, but I don’t trust it enough to just let it loose on automatic. Face melt on distant humans, and leaves turned into globs are also not uncommon. Things like communications towers, open stairway structures, strong rectangular architectural details (several stories of windows), and close parallel lines can all end up distorted. DeNoise has a habit of doing strange stuff with straight lines. While I’ve had some great results from DeNoise AI, I’ve also had some dreadful results. Remember DeepPRIME is applied as part of DxO’s superior demosaicing. It is also sharper with more vibrant colors.

Topaz vs dxo full#

Although it is zoomed out the superior retention of fine detail in DxO’s version on the right is very obvious even in this screen grab when you view it at full resolution. Here is his side by side comparison between the Topaz version and the PureRaw version zoomed out. To me, loss of fine detail in pursuit of low noise is unacceptable… And remember he was comparing the two images at 400%. I looked very carefully at his comparison on my 28inch 4K monitor and there was significantly less fine detail in the Topaz version. It is similar to a magician’s redirection so you only focus on what he wants you to see. In his so called comparison with Pureraw’s version of DeepPRIME, it is true that Topaz appears to have removed more noise, but it also removed more fine detail which he failed to mention.

Maybe a rewrite of the camera model, or a wrong value in the channel-type (or whatever field normally holds if it is raw Bayer data in inside or regular RGB data ).It may well be superior in some circumstances, but the guy presenting the video is schilling for the company since he makes a profit on the sale of Topaz products, so whatever he says or shows has to be taken with a grain of salt. Never tried topaz stuff (I’m having enough issues with their tiff output).ĭarktable isn’t really picky I’m guessing in reading dng files … so I’m surprised they even refuse to open. Dng files containing the raw Bayer data are also in essence a tiff file, but just as the input raw file, still one channel full resolution of data in it.ĭxO photolab files have worked fine forever in Darktable (and i never had colour shifts or something when importing them into Lightroom ).Īlways something different with the dng files by on1 tools. These dng files ARE in the basic form a tiff file. Demosaicing is in basic a form of upscaling, so the output is larger than the input. So it’s only normal for those files to be larger than the input. Your raw file (assuming Bayer array ) is full resolution but monochrome (or 4 channels but 1/4th of the full resolution, however you look at it ). A dng written by those tools is full resolution r, g and b.