Cheezr: Here is my test. I took an image at ISO 12800 in decent light and converted it in Adobe Camera Raw CC, Aperture (latest), DxO8 and DxO9. Below are the links to the dropbox files, enjoy.PS in both DxO I used default but smart lighting to medium and luminance to 15Aperture was apple defaults and ACR adobe defaults
ACR https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836PS.JPGAperture https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836Aper.jpgDxO8 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836_DxO8.jpgDxO9 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836_DxO9.jpg
Original DNG (Pentax K5IIs) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31373150/K5211836.DNG
also btw, DxO8 took 11 seconds to export and DxO9 took 2 minutes 7 seconds (both as reported by the software). Both on a Mac Mini i7 w/8GB ram and SSD
Define works after extraction right?
And what camera and ISO levels were your shots taken with? And how were they extracted from raw to tiff/psd?
jkokich: Striped down?! $3,000?!?! Who are they, Leica?
You may want to look into the the new retail and used pricing of the Epson RD1 bodies.
Ronald A Yorko: All comments could be posted in the DXO Forum- tech support does read them and reply, and it might help to get this program changed to what users want-http://forum.dxo.com/index.php
Great feedback from everyone. I like the features on V.8, and don't think the redesigned interface, controls, and functions would be to my liking in V.9. I use Topaze Denoise, which works well and relatively fast, and don't think V.9's Prime would be a significant improvement.
Boring. And calls in to question your "familiarity with TopazLabs' Denoise and high ISO raws in general.
I'll just repeat myself from above:
"Now I'm not actually sure that DXO 9 is better than PhotoNinja and PN of course does Fuji Xtrans files, however I'm sure that DXO 9 is better than ACR8 at noise reduction and much better at NR than TopazDenoise."
I think you need to remember the amount of calculating PN and DXO9 do to achieve those results, whereas Topaz Denoise not so much. And I don't think that DXO would simply want to waste CPU and GPU capacity to equal the not very good Topaz software.
Denoise doesn't come anywhere near ACR 7 or 8 either.
Like me, you can make any assertion you wish about Denoise, but I can't challenge your judgement about your satisfaction with Denoise--there are people who claim RawTherapee is good at extracting raws; it isn't.
naththo: Here are samples of noise reduction.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2733374/dxonoisereduction Default auto noise reduction with no prime at all though as it is useless when taking too long to process. I sharpened it with Photoshop. Sharpened not done in DxO software.
Compare to this here:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2733373/acrrawnoisereduction In ACR Camera RAW I set Lum NR to 25% and Color to 25% without sharpened, open up into photoshop then sharpened.
Notes both are sharpened at 100% amount and radius 1.0 and threshold 0.
It shows that Photoshop noise reduction + sharpened retains more details than the DxO so far. And Photoshop dynamic range is better than DxO software.
The problem is that I tested at least 3 raw file types and was getting better results with DXO9 than ACR.
Now I will say that the ACR extraction of ISO 25,800 NEFs was close to that from DXO9 (used a D4 body).
cabgeo: FF or APS-C? What ever it is, I hope it uses existing lens mounts and not some Nikon version of the E, EF or NX. I think MFT would have failed save for the open/shared system. All those clicking noises as he changes settings, those sounds and dials will come at a premium, it is not like the Coolpix A is this tremendous value.
How about the Nikon SP mount from their film rangefinder, would that count as "existing"?
There was a limited release in 2005.
ThomasSwitzerland: Here is a quick take. You can see the comparison in my dpreview gallery.
I evaluated it by personal “fit for use” preference.
1. DxO9 with prime comes first, but had automatic lens correction applied, no further adjustments made. Slightly lacks in detail might be caused by denoising. But, I find the overall vivid impression outstanding.
2. Out of the box TIFF with Nikon’s proprietary View NX
3. Adobe PS6 NEF to TIFF comes close to Nikon’s propr. SW.
DxO is great. With Adobe I had to work on it. I got no time. And I don’t know whether Adobe can achieve the shadow improvements, clarity, and reality impression like DxO “out of the box”.
Disclaimer: This is a quick personal opinion without scientific relevance taken under circumstances not being repeatable and traceable. I cannot be held liable for wrong buying decisions. It is not a general judgment on vendors.
Hope it contributes. Have a great weekend.
Just to be clear, Nikon NEFs only right?
No I didn't look at your gallery, lowspeed connection.
carlos roncatti: finally, those fashion photographers now will shoot raw... :)if it takes the phone 2 to 3 seconds (?) to take another shot, how long once you shoot raw?
No "serious" photographers were certainly beginning to try out digital as, even starting in the 1980s.
And one of the limitations to digital was the slow shooting rate. And it's still a limitation with this camera and others.
Making assertions and then citing those examples, but the examples don’t back up your assertions, what’s up?
Thank you for telling me that the photo was taken in a cave, but that means it is unlikely to be one colour of rust brown.
It’s not like I didn’t do my own testing of DXO 9 with high ISO raws before coming to the conclusion that yes DXO 9 is better than ACR 8 at high ISO NR (Lightroom has nothing to do with extraction based NR).
And I’ve never been impressed with DXO’ NR in previous versions, so there’s no loyalty here.
The original image doesn’t appear to be in focus, so that’s not helping.
However on my very good monitor, the DXO example does a better job of preserving detail and colour differentiation.
Not sure about the dynamic range claim either, again my monitor is really good.
Clearly I can’t test this on a printer with an image only 800 dots square and not a tiff.
So besides the focus thing, I don’t think this example is making the point you think it does.
Houseqatz: Who here has actually handled this camera? by that i mean, actually touched it, with their own hands, and seen it with their own eyes? NOT one of the other similar, non android, NX bodies, but this one.. the Galaxy NX.
how does it handle? balance, weight distribution, any thoughts on the lack of physical buttons, or the touch screen? how is the eye cup, and evf, does the eye cup provide adequate isolation?
Only the physical features of the camera itself. no comparisons. i'm not interested in the gc110, or the zoom, or any other android cameras.. JUST the Galaxy NX
All right I tried it, and the Samsung Galaxy NX has all the predicted problems, slow to start from fully off, silly touch screen, not bad menus, just a dumb idea.
On a positive note: Photographyblog reviewed the image quality as excellent, I'd expected that. And a nice unexpected surprise: the raw buffering problems are gone. Very good EVF.
Finally stupid; it uses microsd cards.
GPW: What the HELL is going on at Nikon? Do anyone think that this camera will have a better profit margin than a D400. NIKON seems to have their head up their A#$ when it comes to what their customers really want.
Do a Wikipedia search for the Nikon SP rangefinder (film), so: "them already", not "me too".
Why this clamoring for the still only hypothetical D400, will it have the sensor from the D4? The D7100 is a very good camera and I assume the D610 solved the oil spots problem of the D600.
Quoting Emacs23 from a comment above, he/she has changed her/his tune:
"I got my words back: Prime is the BEST commercial denoiser right now.Here is the test, the D800E at
And high resolution sensors, such as one used in D800(E) or A7r will obviously benefit from it: put an NR, downsample. Profit!" (the comment box forced me to break it up that way for clarity.)
Now I'm not actually sure that DXO 9 is better than PhotoNinja and PN of course does Fuji Xtrans files, however I'm sure that DXO 9 is better than ACR8 at noise reduction and much better at NR than TopazDenoise.
It's not like I think TopazDenoise (there are other Denoises) is bad, it's just not particularly good.
Emacs23: I tried Prime and I must say one can better buy Topaz Denoise instead of upgrade to the new version (as I did), it just doesn't worth it. The luminance NR was already best built in NR on the market in v8, the new one advanced it even further, but it is too painfully slow. Topaz denoise is faster (and better in detail preservation). Just my $0.02.BTW, it was my last purchase of DxO stuff. These improvements don't worth new major version. +0.5 at best, definitely not +1.0
DXO 9 is a good bit better at NR than ACR8, and is staggeringly better than DXO8 at NR.
So there's a reason for the jump in the numbering system.
Leandros S: As a noise reduction software, it's not price competitive.
Adobe Bridge wins as a central platform.
The screen name Emacs, above and two comments down, is certainly cheering Denoise, and even claiming it's pretty much as good as doing NR during raw extraction with say ACR.
It has its uses, but that selective application during raw extraction brush, ACR only, is a way around it.
I like the selective focus thing of TopazLabs' LenEffects, though it can be tricky to use well.
ThomasSwitzerland: Since the beginnings I used Photoshop and DxO in parallel, processing all in RAW. Up to now, Photoshop had the lead. The prior edition of DxO went on par with Adobe and had a lead in fine tuning the pictures. Some time I thought that DxO is a gimmick. Today, I believe in their future. Smart algorithms are more important than “glass” and physical sensor limitations. SW trumps HW.
I will support everything which is contrarian to the Adobe cloud rip off. The cloud is the biggest danger at present for mankind with the outlook of total communication control and exploitation. Therefore: thumbs up for DxO. You get my money.
Don't understand those who shoot jpeg either, in camera memory cards are fast and big now. So the only reason to shoot jpeg is if you need to send the jpeg somewhere immediately.
DXO 9 has real curve control so that should help with dynamic range and other shading. As best I can tell: No DXO doesn't have the really powerful colour control of ACR 8--example no 8 colour saturation control during extraction and no area of application selection brush.
I suggest you try either PhotoNinja or DXO 9 (or even ACR 7) before commenting.I feel perfectly assured in saying Topaz Labs’s Denoise is kind of a joke compared to working on noise control from the raw.
Yes I have the latest Denoise running in PhotoShop CS6.
Given that I have Topazlabs’ Denoise and have used it extensively, I know of what I speak.
You can make any claim you want, but clearly working from the raw files with either ACR8 or DXO9 and reducing noise creates less blurring than working after the fact on a tiff with Denoise. That means that raw extraction software has some method (algorithm) of seeing noise in the file during extraction.
If you read through the press release from DXO above about version 9 you can make a guess what that method would be, and why DXO 9 is better at high ISO noise problems than ACR, but I’d posit that ACR works in a similar way–if less intensively. PhotoNinja clearly uses methods like those of DXO 9.
In short: No, you’re wrong. And I’d posit that either you’re not particularly familiar with extracting raws or haven’t used Tlabs’ Denoise very much.
Have you tried DXO 9? Or are you just commenting without trying the trialware?Someone from DXO has posted comments here in the past.
Topazlab's Denoise is a well and good, but it’s a joke compared to fixing high ISO noise problems during raw extraction with ACR, so Denoise is nothing compared to high ISO raw extraction with DXO 9. Denoise does a lot of blurring to achieve lowered noise levels–not so much DXO 9, sort of DXO 8.
DuxX: Why to buy this after Nikon releases 58mm 1.4G almost 3x less money and WITH AF!?
I shot some sample shots with this lens today, the photos have the right look and it appears very sharp. But I’m not sure it’s the best full framed 50ishmm lens, you see I also tried out the new $7000 Leica F2.0 M mount lens on the M 240, and that may be a better lens. I was using a Samsung NX body to test the Zeiss 55mm, so a better test would be say a D800E body shooting raw below ISO1600, but that Samsung sensor is excellent.
So perhaps if you need a better lens than this new, heavy+big, Zeiss you can consider the much lighter Leica. Irony at nearly twice the price.
Don’t forget you’ll need an M body or a mirrorless body and an adapter; one can’t use this Leica on a Canikon DSLR. And the Leica is still manual focus.
DuxX: DxO Optics bring the best lens correction engine but Lightroom is still better in overall image quality. I made some studio test shots with my D800 and DxO gives me much warmer skin tones. Lightroom is more natural and also much better in small details rendering.New version 9 don't make any difference in that regard.
Are you willing to share raws and tiffs?