Pretty Impressed with Topaz DeNoiseAI

BlackrazorNZ

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
13
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Real Name
Daniel
Trialled DenoiseAI, and ended up buying it today because of their Black Friday thing.

Spent the evening deliberately taking terrible photos to see what it could do with them as a 'worst case scenario'. Pretty darn impressed with the results.

Below is a 25600 ISO very-low-light shot of a dusty TV stand on top of speckled carpet, on a GX9 with the Pana-Leica 25mm F1.4, posted at 100% - before & after running through DeNoise.

Given this is a deliberate attempt to create the noisiest possible photo I could with heaps of noise-like distractions like the dust and carpet, I think it's crazy what it's able to recover.

Original:
P1000173.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


After DeNoiseAI:
P1000173-DeNoiseAI-raw.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

pake

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
2,634
Location
Finland
Real Name
Teemu
What kind of sorcery is this?!! Witch! Witch!

PS. I've also bought it - with no regrets. :)
 

MarcioK

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
57
If the two images are from the before / after view of the Denoise AI, is not a very good comparison - if you open the RAW file on any editing program, the image does not appears on this way, some noise processing is probably done in the demosaic phase.

Better judge comparing the result with what you could get in Lightroom, Capture One, etc. And, in my experience (already bought Denoise AI last year), Denoise AI is much better. Less noise (not by much), but more impressive is that the final image have MUCH more detail.

I have a set of indoor photos that I've taken with a GX9 and a Rokinon 12mm f/2 for a friend who is an architect. Not so much light there, lots of noise. In the time, I was using that POS that is Luminar 4, but its noise reduction was touted as good. After a lot of work, the images were not ok, but not great.

Tried the same images with Denoise AI, and was amazed. Less noise, but a lot of details that were smudged previously were there - whitout exaggeration, looked like that the images were taken with a camera with double the resolution of the Luminar results. Redone all the photos and my friend was amazed too.

A must have product for any m43 user - and one less reason to fall to the full frame craze.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,123
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Tried the same images with Denoise AI, and was amazed. Less noise, but a lot of details that were smudged previously were there - whitout exaggeration, looked like that the images were taken with a camera with double the resolution of the Luminar results. Redone all the photos and my friend was amazed too.
I agree. I have said in other threads that I have had the best luck working with tripod hi-res photos (80MP) by first converting the RAW images to 16-bit TIF with Oly Workspace, using only noise reduction, and then working on them in an image editor. However, lately I have found that if I instead start with Topaz DenoiseAI on the RAW images (exporting to 16-bit TIF), I get better results, especially with details. It often seems that you do not need SharpenAI because DenoiseAI does such a nice job (I seem to remember several YouTube videos that show this).

SharpenAI is good (and sometimes amazing) but it seems to be unpredictable. Some images it will do a great job, whereas with others it doesn't do much and I have to go to Topaz Detail or Studio (using Detail in Studio) to sharpen.
 

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,757
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
With all the recent improvements in LR and PS. I hope Adobe will introduce some more AI in the form of denoising etc.
 

BlackrazorNZ

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
13
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Real Name
Daniel
If the two images are from the before / after view of the Denoise AI, is not a very good comparison - if you open the RAW file on any editing program, the image does not appears on this way, some noise processing is probably done in the demosaic phase.

....

A must have product for any m43 user - and one less reason to fall to the full frame craze.
The first image is from the camera RAW imported into Lightroom and just basic camera corrections applied. The second is from the same RAW imported into DeNoiseAI, processed, exported as a DNG, and them imported to Lightroom and camera corrections applied. Finally, the same crop settings applied across both.

And I agree - seeing what it can do with ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 pictures, I don't see any real advantage FF would offer, as the ISO 1600 images are essentially completely noise-free once processed and the ISO 3200 ones aren't far behind.

I think it's good enough to convince me that there's no reason not to just shoot low-light scenes at ISO 3200, process the RAW's through DeNoiseAI, and then import DNG to Lightroom from there for further processing.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
29
The first image is from the camera RAW imported into Lightroom and just basic camera corrections applied. The second is from the same RAW imported into DeNoiseAI, processed, exported as a DNG, and them imported to Lightroom and camera corrections applied. Finally, the same crop settings applied across both.

And I agree - seeing what it can do with ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 pictures, I don't see any real advantage FF would offer, as the ISO 1600 images are essentially completely noise-free once processed and the ISO 3200 ones aren't far behind.

I think it's good enough to convince me that there's no reason not to just shoot low-light scenes at ISO 3200, process the RAW's through DeNoiseAI, and then import DNG to Lightroom from there for further processing.
Have you compared processing directly through Topaz vs. through LR, then Topaz. Then processing both in LR for final comparison.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
390
Location
Brookfield, IL
My Black Friday purchase was DxO PhotoLab 5, and I started reading this thread and wondered if I also NEED :):) the Topaz trio of programs that is currently $70 (due to having an expired license of Sharpen AI).

So, I ran my own test at ISO 25400, using a hastily arranged still-life, to try out the DxO's DeepPrime NR and possibly compare it with a trial version of Topaz.

First, processed in PL5 with no noise reduction:
PB243617_DxO_with_noise-CROPPED.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Next, an out-of-camera JPEG with NR:

PB243617-CROPPED.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Processed with PL5 DeepPrime:

PB243617_DxO-CROPPED.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I also downloaded a trial version of Topaz, but the results were strange. Loading the ORF directly in Topaz resulted in a weird color cast:

PB243617-DeNoiseAI-raw-CROPPED.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I also tried using Adobe Camera Raw to convert the ORF to a DNG (with no NR or sharpening) and processed the DNG through Topaz. The colors were better, but there are still some strange artifacts (aside from the Topaz watermark!).

PB243617-DeNoiseAI-dng-raw-CROPPED.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



I'm thinking I must be doing something wrong with the Topaz software, but in any case I'm pretty happy with the PL5 result so I'll save my $$$ and stick with what I have.
 
Last edited:

BlackrazorNZ

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
13
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Real Name
Daniel
Have you compared processing directly through Topaz vs. through LR, then Topaz. Then processing both in LR for final comparison.
Yes. I discovered that Topaz has a... don't know if you'd class it as a bug or just a missing feature? It doesn't retain the in-file lens profile that my GX9 stores in its .RW2 RAW files.

I get the best de-noise results if I import the RAW direct to Topaz, de-noise it, extract as DNG, and then import to Lightroom for post-processing. However, because the DNG exported does not retain the lens profile data, Lightroom doesn't subsequently apply automatic lens correction, like it does if you import the RAW directly to Lightroom. And since Lightroom doesn't have built in profiles for Panasonic lenses (for some reason!), you can only correct this manually.

This means that if you go RAW -> Topaz -> DNG -> Lightroom, you have to manually correct the barrel distortion and vignetting that Lightroom would normally automatically correct given the embedded lens profile.

So my workflow now, which works fine, is RAW -> Lightroom -> basic corrective post-process -> TIFF 16bit -> Topaz -> TIFF 16bit de-noised -> Lightroom.

The results for the latter are very good but it's a scrappier workflow, so I've submitted a feature request to Topaz to ensure they maintain embedded lens profiles in their output files.

As an example of what I'm talking about, here's a RAW direct from the camera with no processing except automatic lens correction. You can see the lens profile information at the top right.
Screenshot 2021-11-26 082856.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



... whereas here's the same image as a DNG out of Topaz. If you remove the lens correction from the RAW, it looks identical to the DNG, but with more noise. However as you can see, the DNG has dumped the lens profile data, so the resultant DNG imports without barrel distortion and vignetting corrected - compare the lines on the dresser draws for example.
Screenshot 2021-11-26 082811.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

BlackrazorNZ

Mu-43 Rookie
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
13
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Real Name
Daniel
I'm thinking I must be doing something wrong with the Topaz software, but in any case I'm pretty happy with the PL5 result so I'll save my $$$ and stick with what I have.
Definitely something weird going on with the import settings here - but as you say if you've already got equivalent software no need to double-dip!
 
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