Any Interest in DXO's PureRaw?

BDR-529

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
971
And here's the 1:1 comparison:

I think the DxO processing is really OTT. I can't find any controls to tone down its behaviour. Based on this test, I won't be splashing out on it!

Yup, it's sharp but it also looks more like a screencapture from Fortnite™ than a real world image.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
5,104
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew L
This may go without saying, but please everyone go to DXO's support page and provide feedback about the sharpening in PureRAW. I just did, perhaps if enough of us do, we'll get an update or a new version sometime soon. They might not listen, but if enough of us do it, it just might work! Critiquing a Frenchman historically doesn't accomplish anything but I'm hopeful.
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,807
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
This may go without saying, but please everyone go to DXO's support page and provide feedback about the sharpening in PureRAW. I just did, perhaps if enough of us do, we'll get an update or a new version sometime soon. They might not listen, but if enough of us do it, it just might work! Critiquing a Frenchman historically doesn't accomplish anything but I'm hopeful.
I wrote to them, said the sharpening was too much, asked them to consider a slider to be able to turn it down.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
5,104
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew L
I already received a reply to my message of this morning, the support person recommended trying HQ instead of DeepPRIME (not sure why that would help), but also said he'd passed along my interest in the capability to the design team for their consideration. Here's to hoping!
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,792
Location
France
I already received a reply to my message of this morning, the support person recommended trying HQ instead of DeepPRIME (not sure why that would help), but also said he'd passed along my interest in the capability to the design team for their consideration. Here's to hoping!
The oversharpening comes from the optical corrections... not from the noise reduction.
However, what's the interest of PureRaw with a non customizable Hq correction?
Even in Lightroom you can get better results.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
950
Location
Springfield, Illinois
The oversharpening comes from the optical corrections... not from the noise reduction.
However, what's the interest of PureRaw with a non customizable Hq correction?
Even in Lightroom you can get better results.
Yeah, I'll reexamine PureRaw in a year, or so, but for now, I think I'll pass. I wonder why something like this made it past testing.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
170
Location
Northwest Arkansas, USA
Real Name
Mike
To me it makes 100% sense to use a deep learning model for demosaicing. Also denoising. And in practice this implementation seems to work well in DeepPRIME. I'm sure DxO's profiled optical corrections are pretty good, other than the fact that your sample of a lens may be different from theirs.



Also sent in a note to support regarding default sharpening and adding a slider.

I mean, the PureRAW default looks great on some images. It just goes so far it makes textures rather shouty and even shows some noticeable haloing. Not great for what is supposed to be a optical correction!
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California
DXO is 'flashy', but in the end, there isn't enough 'meat' on those bones.
Why 'flashy?

IMO, the two top automatic noise reduction tools are DxO and Topaz Denoise AI. I own both and am using them both when needed.

DxO is much, much better than Topaz. The only disadvantage of DxO is that it does not support all cameras. In those cases, I use Topaz Denoise AI.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California
I'm not talking about the time involved, I'm talking about the workflow overall. I don't want to give up the high degree of manual control I would lose going to Photolab4 or PureRaw.

But for me, it's a moot point anyway, the more I test with it, the less enthusiastic I am about it. Like Photolab 4, there are some nice things about it, but is it better, overall, than my ACDSee/Topaz workflow? I don't think so. They are a flashy set of products, but in the end, they offer no more than anyone else.

I suspect the value returned for the amount of money spent is not enough for me.
I am not familiar with ACDSee.
DxO PhotoLab 4 integrates very well with Adobe's tools (LrC, PS). DxO can be used just for initial demosaicing and noise reduction, while all other processing is done as usual in LrC/PS. I find that PhotoLab integrates better in Adobe software than PureRAW.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
950
Location
Springfield, Illinois
Why 'flashy?
I'm talking about PureRaw, not PhotoLab 4. It's impressive, at first. But once I started pixel peeping, looking at the output it was REALLY generating. I began to think it was all about style and a look, and less about providing a usable image with which to procede further.
IMO, the two top automatic noise reduction tools are DxO and Topaz Denoise AI. I own both and am using them both when needed.

DxO is much, much better than Topaz. The only disadvantage of DxO is that it does not support all cameras. In those cases, I use Topaz Denoise AI.
Of course, you may feel it is much, much, better for you, but MY investigations indicate it isn't ready yet. PureRaw needs some additional fine tuning control.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California
I'm talking about PureRaw, not PhotoLab 4. It's impressive, at first. But once I started pixel peeping, looking at the output it was REALLY generating. I began to think it was all about style and a look, and less about providing a usable image with which to procede further.

Of course, you may feel it is much, much, better for you, but MY investigations indicate it isn't ready yet. PureRaw needs some additional fine tuning control.
It was apparently a misunderstanding. By DxO, you meant only the PureRaw app. I have no real experience with it.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
950
Location
Springfield, Illinois
I am not familiar with ACDSee.
DxO PhotoLab 4 integrates very well with Adobe's tools (LrC, PS). DxO can be used just for initial demosaicing and noise reduction, while all other processing is done as usual in LrC/PS. I find that PhotoLab integrates better in Adobe software than PureRAW.
This is the problem with any dialog with DXO users, they always want to tell me how much better PhotoLab 4 is than ANYTHING else, including PureRaw. I get it, DXO lovers LOVE PhotoLab 4 and they are unwilling to try anything else.

I have tried PhotoLab 4 and while it is competent software, it does NOT offer enough to make it worthwhile for me to switch to it.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California
This is the problem with any dialog with DXO users, they always want to tell me how much better PhotoLab 4 is than ANYTHING else, including PureRaw. I get it, DXO lovers LOVE PhotoLab 4 and they are unwilling to try anything else.

I have tried PhotoLab 4 and while it is competent software, it does NOT offer enough to make it worthwhile for me to switch to it.
I would not suggest switching to PhotoLab 4, and I have not switched to it. Some like it for complete workflow, and it works for them. The nice thing about DxO PhotoLab 4 is how well it integrates into my workflow based on Adobes software (file transfer, linear DNG).
Yes, there is general happiness about improving the usability of m43 cameras with DeepPrime. Happy people can be quite annoying :).
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,792
Location
France
This is the problem with any dialog with DXO users, they always want to tell me how much better PhotoLab 4 is than ANYTHING else, including PureRaw. I get it, DXO lovers LOVE PhotoLab 4 and they are unwilling to try anything else.

I tried it... didn't like the results.
My order of preference (all processed in Lightroom):
Linear DNG (PhotoLab) > RAW > Linear DNG (PureRAW).

It's only my conclusion with my perception :)

I have tried PhotoLab 4 and while it is competent software, it does NOT offer enough to make it worthwhile for me to switch to it.
So why are you interested in PureRAW?
It's only doing a part of what PhotoLab is doing (Linear DNG export) with less parameters and a simpler interface.

It makes sense to choose PureRAW if you prefer lack of parameters or the price, but it PhotoLab does not offer enough to you, PureRAW won't either.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
170
Location
Northwest Arkansas, USA
Real Name
Mike
I use darktable but recently switched to using PhotoLab for linear DNG export (demosaic+denoise through DeepPRIME + lens corrections) before processing the rest in darktable (exposure, and tone mapping via filmic rgb, contrast, crop, etc.).

So I didn't switch to PL4 really, only for the part that PureRAW covers.
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
950
Location
Springfield, Illinois
So why are you interested in PureRAW?
It's only doing a part of what PhotoLab is doing (Linear DNG export) with less parameters and a simpler interface.
Good question! First, I am a software nerd. Secondly, While I like my ACDSee centric workflow, I am not particularly impressed with its denoising capabilities. And the auto correction for lenses sounds convenient.
It makes sense to choose PureRAW if you prefer lack of parameters or the price, but it PhotoLab does not offer enough to you, PureRAW won't either.
I have found the lack of the ability to fine tune the results problematic. We all are aware of PureRaw's aggressive sharpening tendency.

Another example, I encountered a situation where BOTH PureRaw and ACDSee's automatic lens correction failed. A brick wall, due to the angle at which the photo was shot, made it impossible to reconcile the distortion correction with a desired straight line of the mortar between the bricks.

ACDSee had the ability to manually 'tweak' the lens correction with a manual control to adjust/override the correction to a point where we could reach an acceptable visual compromise.

I feel, for me, the Topaz AI tools seem a better fit. I do think PureRaw has potential though, and I will revisit in a year or so.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
117
Location
California
Good question! First, I am a software nerd. Secondly, While I like my ACDSee centric workflow, I am not particularly impressed with its denoising capabilities. And the auto correction for lenses sounds convenient.

I have found the lack of the ability to fine tune the results problematic. We all are aware of PureRaw's aggressive sharpening tendency.

Another example, I encountered a situation where BOTH PureRaw and ACDSee's automatic lens correction failed. A brick wall, due to the angle at which the photo was shot, made it impossible to reconcile the distortion correction with a desired straight line of the mortar between the bricks.

ACDSee had the ability to manually 'tweak' the lens correction with a manual control to adjust/override the correction to a point where we could reach an acceptable visual compromise.

I feel, for me, the Topaz AI tools seem a better fit. I do think PureRaw has potential though, and I will revisit in a year or so.
Why are you discarding DxO PhotoLab as an option? Price?
With PhotoLab, you can use only the denoising and lens correction part (first step) and do the main processing in ACDSee. PhotoLab can export in TIFF as well, in case ACDSee cannot handle linear DNG. I use PhotoLab more as a plug-in (like Topaz tools) than as an editor.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,792
Location
France
Good question! First, I am a software nerd. Secondly, While I like my ACDSee centric workflow, I am not particularly impressed with its denoising capabilities. And the auto correction for lenses sounds convenient.

I have found the lack of the ability to fine tune the results problematic. We all are aware of PureRaw's aggressive sharpening tendency.
Exactly, that's why I prefer PhotoLab to generate Linear DNG.
Photolab's integration in Lightroom's workflow is also better.


ACDSee had the ability to manually 'tweak' the lens correction with a manual control to adjust/override the correction to a point where we could reach an acceptable visual compromise.
You can do with PhotoLab, but the best is to do the least in the preprocessor, and to keep the most in your main program.
For instance I do my persepctive correction in Lightroom... except for very difficult situations.

I feel, for me, the Topaz AI tools seem a better fit. I do think PureRaw has potential though, and I will revisit in a year or so.
Yes, it's really a personal choice, as taking Lightroom or ACDSee, or Capture One, or whatever :)
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
950
Location
Springfield, Illinois
Why are you discarding DxO PhotoLab as an option? Price?
With PhotoLab, you can use only the denoising and lens correction part (first step) and do the main processing in ACDSee. PhotoLab can export in TIFF as well, in case ACDSee cannot handle linear DNG. I use PhotoLab more as a plug-in (like Topaz tools) than as an editor.
ACDSee handles. Linear adng just fine! If ACDSee handles all my pp just fine, with the possible exception of denoising, WHY would i choose to replace it wit something else? I am bewildered by DXO users seem unwilling to accept that people could prefer something else.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom