Denoising high ISO images // Test: darktable vs Neat Image (Linux user)

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

Rightsaidfred wrote:

I always thought Neat Image did a great job (still does) but, for me, Topaz DeNoise (with a little fiddling) does a significantly better job of retaining and enhancing fine detail. I'm a Windows guy, so issues for me on that count...

*Edit: I couldn't help warming Pedro up a bit..

Not bad Erik.

Thanks for warming up Pablo. I like the 'retracted' colors. I love Classic Chrome

So we need a direct comparison. Sitting in front of a Windows machine.

• Same tiff source file (darktable export).
• Standard settings, more or less.
• Effort about 1 minute each.

12800 ISO. Screenshot from a Windows machine. Left: Topaz DeNoise AI test version v3.7.0 standard settings. Right: Neat Image v9.0.2 standard settings. Both processed from exactly the same tiff exported from darktable. Topaz provides a smoother image. Neat Image maybe a little more vivid an image.

12800 ISO. At 109 % we see a clearly better result of Topaz (left) vs Neat Image (right). I do not know whether this shows the full performance each. But if it needs to be quick, in this case, yes, Topaz is the winner.

The respective section in the user interface of Topaz AI. Left: original (tiff), right: preview. "Severe noise" was auto detected from Topaz. I did not change the settings.

12800 ISO. Topaz DeNoise AI v3.7.0 test version. Standard/auto settings.

12800 ISO. Neat Image v9.0.2. Standard settings, sharpen, mid details slightly enhanced. Same image as in parent thread. Second copy for convenience of the readers.

So indeed, Topaz produces an excellent result.

Regards,

Martin