Deep Prime 3 in Photolab 8?

[Egregius ([Greg] (Micro 4/3 + Win11))]

@Sparky2006

Support is supposed to say “I don’t know”.

They are support, not marketing or sales.

It depends. As you say, they are not marketing or sales. But they are the primary agents of communication to existing customers. Marketing and sales are not. Having worked in support for years (both pre-sales and post-sales), I know the need for support to not communicate anything that hasn’t been publicly released - for example, reveal details about upcoming products. But anything that has been released through press, such as adding DeepPRIME 3 to PL8 through a free update, is their responsibility to help existing customers with.

That said, it’s normal for not all support agents to have the same knowledge. They have to check their sources before replying to customers.

[Wlodek]

So, what are the DeepPRIME 3 features which make it better than XD2s?

[Egregius ([Greg] (Micro 4/3 + Win11))]

That’s answered rather explicitly in DxO’s press releases. Not yet on the relevant pages on dxo.com, but it will probably be there come April 15.

[Wlodek]

I thought I made it clear that I was just joking about all this topic…

[platypus (Canon & Mac (Intel and M1))]

See here: Deep Prime 3 in Photolab 8? - #10 by Pat91

[Mangurian1 (Harry Mangurian)]

I would not upgrade just to go from prime 2 to prime 3. DXO noise reduction is asymptotically approaching no improvement over the previous algorithm. I often find Deep Prime and Deep Prime 2 indistinguishable.

[gerarto]

Let’s be precise:
Prime 2 never existed! And will never exist unless I’m mistaken (and I don’t think I’m mistaken)…

For now we have:

• PRIME, first “historical” version
• DeepPRIME
• DeepPRIME XD, with its variants DeepPRIME XD2/XD2s. The “2” indicates that these are improvements to DeepPRIME XD.

Later, we will have:

• PRIME, unchanged.
• DeepPRIME 3 (without going through DP2)
• DeepPRIME XD3 for X-Trans sensors (in public beta version at first).

I don’t see any information from DxO that DeepPRIME XD3 would be available soon for Bayer sensors.
I therefore deduce that initially, it will always be XD2s that will be available for these sensors.

[Egregius ([Greg] (Micro 4/3 + Win11))]

For further precision: the degree of improvement in a newer version vs. its predecessor varies by case and becomes more noticeable around 100% magnification. Also, no one has tried DeepPRIME 3 yet (unless there have been beta testers, who are restrained by an NDA), so I don’t see how anyone can declare now that its improvements are minuscule.

[Derek_K]

I am pondering this - does DPRIME work by taking things out of the image or by adding things in (probably both). Yes - might seem like a stupid question but at some point unless DPRIME is adding something in then you will basically run out of things to take out. I guess that’s why when we edit they are called adjustments. Even then there is only so far you can adjust something and enhance it.

It’s philosophical but there must be a threshold where the integrity of the original image gets lost to ai/editing over reach. That’s probably up to whom ever took the image to decide. And it’s here we could (but I won’t) introduce the premise that editing is art thus anything goes. (Oops!)

I just want the result of my editing to make me and others happy so it’s a light touch on all my images for me.

[Oldjstein ([5800X, RTX3090, 32GB DDR4, WIN10, Z72])]

I don’t really obsess about noise the way some do, and I never hesitated to set the ISO where I needed. But, the way I see it, noise is not seen in the composition, it’s not seen in the viewfinder, and I can only expose so far to the right to minimize it. It’s like a dust spot. It’s not the same as removing a wire or a stick or a person. What someone else does with their own images I couldn’t care less, but I have no patience for lies.

[Martin868 (Martin Chalifoux)]

DEEP Prime 3 was added to an Photolab 8.5 and pushed to users.

[Kyewood (Kye)]

Deep Prime 3 in Photolab 8.5 is mislabeled. It’s not “Ultimate Quality”. It shows the most detail - at the cost of also sharpening areas of bokeh, degrading the image.

But Deep Prime XD/XD2s, labeled as “Ultimate quality and extra details” creates the best overall image and doesn’t try to sharpen areas that shouldn’t be sharpened. At the expense of slightly less detail.

In reality Deep Prime XD/XD2s is “Ultimate Quality”.

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik7 / 3.3 ])]

@Kyewood

Hi and welcome here.

Don’t be guided by advertising “messages”, but check for yourself what is suitable for your needs.

DeepPrime XD2s was introduced last year with PL 8 and has been very well received by birdwatchers, for example (low-light photos, cropping required, etc.). However, it can produce artifacts and isn’t suitable for everything. I would be cautious with portraits and the like (at least with the default settings).

[BHAYT (Bryan [WIN10, PL8, VP4, FP7, G9 & EM1 Mkii, RTX 3060])]

@Wolfgang, @Kyewood As I have expressed elsewhere but will now express here DP XD should have never been removed from DxPL but left as an option and I believe that this ISO 20000 image shows the problem.

Look at the wood grain, or in the case of DP XD2 “what wood grain”, DP XD2s is smoothing images way too much and I started complaining about that during the PL8 Beta testing and haven’t stopped!?

It certainly removes a lot of noise but with the “wrong” images removes more than just the noise, detail is lost as well.

I have finally organised my 50 Brighton Pavilion image exports in a way that I can compare “NO NR” versus “HD/Standard” versus “Prime” versus “DP3” versus “DP XD” versus “DP XD2” but only 4 images at any one time (courtesy of FastStone image viewer) relatively easily.

The image above is a rather boring image taken in the kitchen which I decided to use for a comparison and up popped the issue shown above.

However we then have this

The finial looks “too fake” in the DP XD2s image, but we have a white spot on the DP XD and is that line on the headboard real or ?

Sorry the “hand” is an operator error, oops

ISO 25600

[Wlodek]

@BHAYT

DP XD2s is smoothing images way too much

That’s why I start XD2s with Luminance=30 and even less for portraits. This “oversmoothing” is seen on extremely noisy pictures in low frequency areas (seen that way on undenoised parts). However, for high frequency areas, like feathers, fabric, or microphone grid, XD2s shows more details, microcontrast, than DP3, as far as I can see from few samples.

XD2s at Luminance=15-20 behaved much like DP at defaults, so I treated XD2s as “all in one”, using DP as a failback only in few emergency cases. I’m rarely inspecting details anyway, other than Loupe at 100%, so not an expert on that…

[TheBlackbird (Merlotti Riccardo)]

Just wrote here what I think about the new Deep Prime 3 after comparing with a result from the former Deep Prime:

DeepPRIME 3 out and?

Just installed Photolab 8.5 and tested Deep Prime 3 against an older jpg obtained with Deep Prime in Photolab 4. Well, that’s a huge leap BACKWARDS. First Deep Prime result was wAY better, finest noise grain and better recovered detail. For the record, I’m talking about (and working with) CR2’s from Canon 6D mark II, with ISO values of 12800 and above. Hope something will be fixed (or I hope I’m doing something wrong).

That’s big thumbs down.

[BoxBrownie (Laurence)]

I have not tested in the ways described above…

But it comes across to me that more care is needed to choose the NR version plus amend the ‘Advanced settings’ as required to achieve the ‘look’ desired

NB I have only so far looked at a single wildlife image @ ISO 12800 and DP3 did a better/more pleasing job that XD/XD2s By pleasing I purely mean the visual look as it was a record shot and a tad soft for my liking.

[BHAYT (Bryan [WIN10, PL8, VP4, FP7, G9 & EM1 Mkii, RTX 3060])]

@TheBlackbird I think I agree but then I don’t, please see below.

@BoxBrownie XS2s is definitely soft!

Please look at the outputs of DP (PL7) versus DP3 versus XD (PL7) versus XD2s.

Sorry but the image is neither scenic nor an interesting bird or animal, it is a collection of copper pans taken at ISO 20,000.

With DP (PL7) the wood grain is more obscured by the noise when compared to DP3 which is very slightly better in this case. The shiny copper bottoms are both “tarnished” by noise.

With XD (PL7) The wood grain is much clearer that XD2s but the copper bottoms as less tarnished with XD2s!

The door frame and threshold are very different, more detail with DP than DP3 and way more with XD and DP2s has lost the wood grain and smoothed over the threshold.

As usual DxO have chosen to remove XD in the initial move to PL8 and now DP in the move to PL8.5.

In my opinion all previous versions should remain, even if that makes choosing even harder for the users, and DXO should really train the software on a mixture of images, which of course they do, but it would appear that a wider mix of images would be useful!

It is doubtful that I could have persuaded DxO to retain XD during the PL8 Beta tests but sadly I didn’t have this image and the other images from this outing to hand, because I felt XD2s was creating images that were too soft even with the images I had to hand during testing but I believe that this new batch of images really expose the weaknesses.

The “04” part of the image title is for 'Luminosity = 40", the default. I created VCs with ‘Luminosity = 0’ to 'Luminosity = 10 in steps of 10 to study the effect on the images from PL7 (DP and XD) and PL8 (now DP3 and XD2s).

The King’s bed image above shows a random white spot with XD but so much detail is gone with XD2s that it is arguable which is better, in the case of that image.

When features/options are removed the user can revert to an earlier release to solve one problem (if they own that release) but that also means that any new features are then not accessible.

I like what XD2s does with noise but I despair at what it does with detail, or rather what detail?

For those who are really “nerdy” here are the images and the DOPs

DP (PL7).zip (22.7 MB)
XD (PL7).zip (22.7 MB)

DP3 (PL8).zip (22.7 MB)
XD2s (PL8).zip (22.7 MB)

[Egregius ([Greg] (Micro 4/3 + Win11))]

@BHAYT

The King’s bed image above shows a random white spot with XD but so much detail is gone with XD2s that it is arguable which is better, in the case of that image.

The white spot you’re referring to isn’t random. It’s in the fabric, but enhanced more than it should be so that it stands out as if it were an important detail.

[BHAYT (Bryan [WIN10, PL8, VP4, FP7, G9 & EM1 Mkii, RTX 3060])]

@Egregius

The white spot you’re referring to isn’t random. It’s in the fabric, but enhanced more than it should be so that it stands out as if it were an important detail.

@Egregius Thank you for pointing that out, although the actual “flaw” in the fabric is not really noticeable until PL7 gets to work on it with the default settings or PL8 gets to work on it with ‘Force Detail’ (FD)) = 72, in fact it becomes visible before that number and remains until after that value and is never quite as bad as XD.

and comparing PL7 with PL8, both with ‘Luminance’ = 40 but with FD = 0 (PL7) and FD = 75 (PL8).

Edit:- Returning to the Copper Pans images, I tried PL8 at FD=72 but felt it wasn’t enough for the threshold part of the image so then tried 80 and then 100 and got the following

The threshold isn’t quite the same but the wood behind the copper pans is very close, possibly even better with XD2s, and the pans might be slightly less noisy with DP XD2s (L=40, FD=100) compared to DP XD (L=40, FD = 0, i.e. default setting).

and yes this is extreme pixel peeping.