Just curious … does version 7 use the same tech as PureRAW 4 to process Raw files?
Yes and no, it’s the same tech, it only misses in PL7 that DeepPrime XD2 which has just been added to PR4 and will undoubtedly be in PL in the next versions.
Thanks. That’s what I thought but had to ask.
PL7 still doesn’t offer the full screen preview.
The adjustment parameters for denoising are absolutely the same* in PhotoLab and in PureRAW.
PureRAW also offers High Quality and Prime treatments. To access it, you must go to Preferences to activate the option.
- = as written above, the only difference is that PL7 does not have XD2 processing, only XD.
I am referring to the adjustments available within the XD/XD2 algorithm. Look at the snapshots I offered above!
PhotoLab has: Luminance, Low Frequency, Dead Pixels, Maze.
PureRaw4 has: Luminance and Force Details
In Optical Corrections:
PhotoLab: Global, Details, Bokeh sliders
PureRaw: a single switch [“Soft”, “Standard”, “strong”, “Hard”]
Chrom Aberrations
PhotoLab: Intensity, Size sliders and purple fringing switch
PureRaw: single On/Off switch.
These seem like different ways to “tune” the XD/XD2 algorithm.
I’m on a PC. Perhaps the Mac versions are different still.
Note that PL7 uses different sets of parameters for HQ/PRIME and DP/DPXD, so you compared apples and oranges.
As I wrote, I was only referring to the noise processing settings.
In your example with PL7, you show the High Quality processing settings, while in PureRAW, they are those of DeepPRIME.
I confirm that the High Quality and Prime settings are exactly the same in both software.
For DeepPRIME and DeepPRIMEXD/XD2, the Luminance and Force Details settings are also identical, but the Dead Pixels slider is missing (which is most likely applied with an automatic value, this setting is relatively secondary).
For other settings in PureRaw that are not part of noise processing, and therefore not related to XD/XD2 or otherwise:
- the Lens Softness settings are simplified: only the global cursor is present and the choices correspond to the values -1, +1, +2, +3 in PL.
- the Chromatic Aberrations setting is also simplified.
For the “missing” settings it is very likely that they are applied automatically, even if I have not seen any communication from DxO on this point
DxO combines denoising and optical correction technologies into the demosaicing process as per their whitepaper on Linear DNG.
What are Linear DNG files? How do you use them? - DxO
In Photolab, these two algorithms grouped on the details tab, again with a similar purpose.
From my view as a user I cannot independently split these technologies to evaluate the changes and then incrementally process these two technologies or switch products between these steps. It’s either PL or PR and you lock the results into the resulting DNG.
Even if I choose the same denoising technology, XD for example, the choice of tuning parameters is different between the two products. While similar, the parameters are different, “simplified”, or missing, forcing me to re-review what works best for my photos. There is nothing I’ve read to suggest that the PL’s numerical system for global sharpness is “same” as PR4’s descriptive system for the more general “Lens Softness”.
I would guess there are specific differences since DxO went through the development trouble to change these options.
PR4’s overall process (XD2 and optical corrections combine) is an improvement for my photos, so I am not complaining. I am simply stating there are differences other users should be aware of. It’s not as simple as XD vs XD2.
Denoising and optical correction are two very different things, even if DxO applies them during the same phase in the demosaicing chain.
The final result will of course depend on the combination of the two settings, but there is no direct relationship between noise correction and optical corrections.
To simplify :
- the noise is directly linked to the photons arriving on the sensor: the fewer there are, the greater the noise. Noise correction is denoising technologies (HQ, Prime, DeepPRIME…)
- optical defects are linked to the lens: it is this which determines vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberrations, sharpness. The correction of optical defects is the lens module.
Of course, DxO uses the same technologies in PL as in PR, why would it be any different? If I write that such a setting in PL7 corresponds to such a setting in PR4, it is because I am sure of it and that I have checked it and/or that it corresponds to DxO notes.
We cannot match everything since some settings in PR4 are a simplified version of those in PL7, but it is easy to check for specific cases by exporting and comparing a dng from PL7, and one from PR4.
It all depends on your use:
- either you want total control of all settings, you use PL7.
- either you agree not to control absolutely everything, to have a simplified and more automated workflow for finalizing the processing in PS/LR… and PR4 is made for you.
But the quality of the dngs from one or the other will not be very different… if not identical.
So we agree the settings are different. Since I used the “setting” in PL7 I expected the same level of user control in PR4. That’s all I am saying.
We agree that the purpose of denoising is very different than optical corrections even though DxO applies both (as selected) to the RAW photo.
I also noted above that the results from PR4-XD2 using the default settings exceed what I was able to do in PL7-XD with customized settings.
I have not seen verification from DxO that the Lens Correction Global settings (-1,+1,+2,+3) in PL7 are the “same” as the Lens Softness settings in PR4 (soft, standard, etc.)
Perhaps we are trying to say the same thing with language as a barrier.
Umm, surely that is to be expected? After all, XD2 is the next version of XD so you’re not comparing like with like. Only after XD2 turns up in PL (presumably in PL8) can you do this comparison.
I agree that there can be small misunderstandings due to the language, English is not my mother tongue, and automatic translation sometimes has its limits. (Note that I intentionally left the wrong automatic translation of “tongue” for “language” here!)
It is obvious that PureRAW 4 will do better with DeepPRIME XD2 than PhotoLab 7 which “only” has DeepPRIME XD. It will undoubtedly be for PL8 which arrives in a few months.
As said above, the settings possible with DeepPRIME/XD/ are the same in PL7 and PR4 (except Dead Pixel cursor absent from PR, but secondary). There is no reason not to obtain the same results with the same settings (easy to check with a comparison of dng exports).
For the other noise treatments: High Quality and Prime, the possible settings are exactly the same, as are the results.
For the Lens softness setting, I partially correct the correspondence given previously between PR4 and PL7:
Soft = 0 and (not -1, copie error), the other settings are as already said: Standard = +1, Strong = +2, and Hard= +3
This resulted from DxO data when PR3 was released and of course was verified.