Denoiser software for complete morons

Morris0 said:

At least in my circles, both DxO products are a last choice as it's so slow and we are dealing with a lot of images.

Tim van der Leeuw wrote:

DeNoise also has a number of toggles and sliders and operating-modes. It can require some tweaking per image to get the best results.

DxO is, in that respect, much simpler.

But it is indeed slow, especially when you have multiple images.

A couple of weeks ago I was waiting for over 3 hours for around 115 images to be processed, including DEEP Prime Noise Reduction.

So, yes, "the art of finding other things to do while your computer works on them"... indeed! :-D

Click to expand...

Let me suggest that it is not DXO that is slow, but your computers. Or more precisely DXO when run on your computers. The AI features of both DXO and Topaz run much better on a computer with a relatively new graphics card. DXO says you need an RTX2060 or higher to take advantage of the speed improvements made in PhotoLab 5. Nvidia has updated its GPU Studio driver specifically to help both products run faster (Nvidia cards let you choose between the creator-oriented Studio driver or the gamer-oriented Game Ready driver).

My sixteen-month old laptop (NVIDIA RTX 2060 with Max-Q GPU, and i7-10875H CPU) processed 40 raw images with DeepPrime in DXO PhotoLab 5 in only 4:15, or 6.375 seconds per image. PL5 was marketed as being faster than the previous version, PL4, which took 8:40 to process the same 40 images. (20 MP raw images) I've read reports by folks with newer RTX 30xx cards cutting that time in about half.

If it is taking you over 3:00:00 to process 115 images (over 1.5 minutes per image), I assume your computer must be pretty dated. If you don't want to upgrade your computer, fine. But I find DXO's DeepPrime to be absolutely amazing at eliminating noise. You can't get that benefit and quick processing speed without a relatively new GPU.

My desktop computer, with an older GTX 1080 GPU but more ram and a faster i9 processor, processes the same 40 images in about the same time as my laptop.

I have Topaz DeNoise AI v. 2.4.2, so not the latest version. I prefer DXO PL5. I do sometimes use Topaz Sharpen AI v. 3.2.2. I'd suggest to anyone interested in these programs to download the trial versions and see which you prefer. But don't expect any of them to be speedy on an old computer.

--
Brent

I batch convert with dxo pureraw2 to dng, and i process as always in LR.

To have a reference xt3/4 files are processed in about 12/13 seconds whit pureraw2 using deep prime

Morris0 said:

No, you can use DxO to strip RAW from your image and produce a DNG or TIFF that is then processed as always in the software you usually use.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. I mean, I think I know what you're saying, but you've done the demosaic step in DxO then. That's basically my point. I'm certainly aware that once you have a TIFF file, for example, you can use any software you want. But that's really beside the point.

Morris0 said:

The noise conversation regarding X-H2s has stated it's similar to that of the X-T4. Not a big deal

Click to expand...

Well according to the OP it IS a big deal. Is the OP currently using an X-T4? If not, maybe he's hate that too. The point of my comment, however, was that I'm surprised that he found the noise to be that bad. It's not for me to argue whether the noise is too much for him.

Kaoticphoto said:

I batch convert with dxo pureraw2 to dng, and i process as always in LR.

To have a reference xt3/4 files are processed in about 12/13 seconds whit pureraw2 using deep prime

Click to expand...

That's basically my point. You're using a different program for your initial raw conversion. You can do it if you want. I'm not going to.

Doug MacMillan said:

The new computer made a huge difference. I file that would take a minute to process now only took 5 seconds. They continue to upgrade their software by showing it more examples. This makes the results even better, but it has also made the software run slightly slower, which is all the more reason to make sure your computer is up to the task.

Click to expand...

I'm jealous. I have a brand new high end laptop that I bought 5 months ago. It has 32 GB of RAM, an Intel i9 processor, and a recent nVidia graphics board with 6 GB of RAM. No way I come anywhere close to 5 seconds for processing in Topaz. Sometimes the DeNoise software comes in close to 5 seconds. It depends on what denoise model I use. The standard model can come close to 5 seconds. Clear, for example, takes a while. Maybe 20 to 30 seconds?? I haven't timed it. The Topaz Sharpener tool, however, is a real dog of a performer. Again, it depends on the sharpening model I use. I might get lucky and it only takes 10 seconds. But most often it's in the 30 second to a minute range for an image.

brentbrent said:

Morris0 said:

At least in my circles, both DxO products are a last choice as it's so slow and we are dealing with a lot of images.

Tim van der Leeuw wrote:

DeNoise also has a number of toggles and sliders and operating-modes. It can require some tweaking per image to get the best results.

DxO is, in that respect, much simpler.

But it is indeed slow, especially when you have multiple images.

A couple of weeks ago I was waiting for over 3 hours for around 115 images to be processed, including DEEP Prime Noise Reduction.

So, yes, "the art of finding other things to do while your computer works on them"... indeed! :-D

Click to expand...

Let me suggest that it is not DXO that is slow, but your computers. Or more precisely DXO when run on your computers. The AI features of both DXO and Topaz run much better on a computer with a relatively new graphics card. DXO says you need an RTX2060 or higher to take advantage of the speed improvements made in PhotoLab 5. Nvidia has updated its GPU Studio driver specifically to help both products run faster (Nvidia cards let you choose between the creator-oriented Studio driver or the gamer-oriented Game Ready driver).

My sixteen-month old laptop (NVIDIA RTX 2060 with Max-Q GPU, and i7-10875H CPU) processed 40 raw images with DeepPrime in DXO PhotoLab 5 in only 4:15, or 6.375 seconds per image. PL5 was marketed as being faster than the previous version, PL4, which took 8:40 to process the same 40 images. (20 MP raw images) I've read reports by folks with newer RTX 30xx cards cutting that time in about half.

If it is taking you over 3:00:00 to process 115 images (over 1.5 minutes per image), I assume your computer must be pretty dated. If you don't want to upgrade your computer, fine. But I find DXO's DeepPrime to be absolutely amazing at eliminating noise. You can't get that benefit and quick processing speed without a relatively new GPU.

My desktop computer, with an older GTX 1080 GPU but more ram and a faster i9 processor, processes the same 40 images in about the same time as my laptop.

I have Topaz DeNoise AI v. 2.4.2, so not the latest version. I prefer DXO PL5. I do sometimes use Topaz Sharpen AI v. 3.2.2. I'd suggest to anyone interested in these programs to download the trial versions and see which you prefer. But don't expect any of them to be speedy on an old computer.

Click to expand...

Hi Brent,

Frankly once you are waiting, it's not real time and the faster GPU and CPU don't change the fact that you move on and come back. It's similar to importing your images to your computer, its something that you have to wait for. I have a very fast system so I get what you are saying yet all our computers are too slow or as a software engineer Id say the code needs to be optimized. it's all a matter of view point.

Morris

michaeladawson said:

Morris0 said:

No, you can use DxO to strip RAW from your image and produce a DNG or TIFF that is then processed as always in the software you usually use.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. I mean, I think I know what you're saying, but you've done the demosaic step in DxO then. That's basically my point. I'm certainly aware that once you have a TIFF file, for example, you can use any software you want. But that's really beside the point.

michaeladawson said:

The noise conversation regarding X-H2s has stated it's similar to that of the X-T4. Not a big deal

Click to expand...

Well according to the OP it IS a big deal. Is the OP currently using an X-T4? If not, maybe he's hate that too. The point of my comment, however, was that I'm surprised that he found the noise to be that bad. It's not for me to argue whether the noise is too much for him.

Click to expand...

In the other thread he stated the noise is not that bad yet he wants to open his possibilities by using higher ISOs.

Morris

Kaoticphoto said:

I batch convert with dxo pureraw2 to dng, and i process as always in LR.

To have a reference xt3/4 files are processed in about 12/13 seconds whit pureraw2 using deep prime

Click to expand...

Wow, 0.92 seconds! You must have some computer :-}

Morris

Morris0 said:

Hi Brent,

Frankly once you are waiting, it's not real time and the faster GPU and CPU don't change the fact that you move on and come back. It's similar to importing your images to your computer, its something that you have to wait for. I have a very fast system so I get what you are saying yet all our computers are too slow or as a software engineer Id say the code needs to be optimized. it's all a matter of view point.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you said that DXO is the "last choice" of you and your group because it is so slow, so the processing speed does make a difference to you. DXO is my first choice because it works so well, and processing speed is not an issue for me.

I get what you are saying, and everyone can make their own choice. But others who might be contemplating DXO or Topaz should understand that processing speed is relative to computer specs.

michaeladawson said:

I'm jealous. I have a brand new high end laptop that I bought 5 months ago. It has 32 GB of RAM, an Intel i9 processor, and a recent nVidia graphics board with 6 GB of RAM. No way I come anywhere close to 5 seconds for processing in Topaz.

Click to expand...

Check to see if you are using the Nvidia "Studio" driver (not the "Game Ready" driver, unless gaming is big for you), and that you have updated the driver to the latest version. Download and install the GE Force Experience program to do that, if you haven't already. I noticed that a fairly recent driver update was described as including increased Topaz compatibility.

--
Brent

michaeladawson said:

Doug MacMillan said:

The new computer made a huge difference. I file that would take a minute to process now only took 5 seconds. They continue to upgrade their software by showing it more examples. This makes the results even better, but it has also made the software run slightly slower, which is all the more reason to make sure your computer is up to the task.

Click to expand...

I'm jealous. I have a brand new high end laptop that I bought 5 months ago. It has 32 GB of RAM, an Intel i9 processor, and a recent nVidia graphics board with 6 GB of RAM. No way I come anywhere close to 5 seconds for processing in Topaz. Sometimes the DeNoise software comes in close to 5 seconds. It depends on what denoise model I use. The standard model can come close to 5 seconds. Clear, for example, takes a while. Maybe 20 to 30 seconds?? I haven't timed it. The Topaz Sharpener tool, however, is a real dog of a performer. Again, it depends on the sharpening model I use. I might get lucky and it only takes 10 seconds. But most often it's in the 30 second to a minute range for an image.

Click to expand...

Laptop CPUs and GPUs have similar numbers yet they don't have similar performance to the desktop models. If you take a look in task manager, you will probably discover that you only need 16-GB of RAM for this work flow.

Morris

brentbrent said:

Morris0 said:

Hi Brent,

Frankly once you are waiting, it's not real time and the faster GPU and CPU don't change the fact that you move on and come back. It's similar to importing your images to your computer, its something that you have to wait for. I have a very fast system so I get what you are saying yet all our computers are too slow or as a software engineer Id say the code needs to be optimized. it's all a matter of view point.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you said that DXO is the "last choice" of you and your group because it is so slow, so the processing speed does make a difference to you. DXO is my first choice because it works so well, and processing speed is not an issue for me.

I get what you are saying, and everyone can make their own choice. But others who might be contemplating DXO or Topaz should understand that processing speed is relative to computer specs.

Click to expand...

DxO adds another step to my workflow and that's time and complexity I prefer to avoid. I'm up and processing images and not having an additional culling step needed to determine what goes into DxO. For many the simplicity of DxO is an advantage, not for me as I've been using Photoshop so long it's like walking, it just happens.

Morris

brentbrent said:

michaeladawson said:

I'm jealous. I have a brand new high end laptop that I bought 5 months ago. It has 32 GB of RAM, an Intel i9 processor, and a recent nVidia graphics board with 6 GB of RAM. No way I come anywhere close to 5 seconds for processing in Topaz.

Click to expand...

Check to see if you are using the Nvidia "Studio" driver (not the "Game Ready" driver, unless gaming is big for you), and that you have updated the driver to the latest version. Download and install the GE Force Experience program to do that, if you haven't already. I noticed that a fairly recent driver update was described as including increased Topaz compatibility.

Click to expand...

The Studio Drivers are simply Game Ready Drivers that have gone through the Windows Compatibility Certification process. Identical version numbers are one and the same code.

Morris

Morris0 said:

The Studio Drivers are simply Game Ready Drivers that have gone through the Windows Compatibility Certification process. Identical version numbers are one and the same code.

Click to expand...

https://support.lumion.com/hc/en-us...-or-Studio-drivers-for-NVIDIA-graphics-cards-

brentbrent said:

Morris0 said:

The Studio Drivers are simply Game Ready Drivers that have gone through the Windows Compatibility Certification process. Identical version numbers are one and the same code.

Click to expand...

https://support.lumion.com/hc/en-us...-or-Studio-drivers-for-NVIDIA-graphics-cards-

https://www.thefpsreview.com/2019/0...r-vs-geforce-game-ready-driver-performance/8/

Click to expand...

What are you trying to say Brent?

if one likes stability they should use the best tested software.

Morris

Those two web articles state that Nvidia optimizes its Studio driver to work better/faster with graphics programs. I have seen several updates to the Studio driver that expressly stated that the updates were to increase function with specific listed programs, including DXO and Topaz. I know when I upgraded from PhotoLab4 to PhotoLab 5, Nvidia fairly quickly released an updated Studio driver that was identified as being optimized for PL5, and it did increase the processing speed.

So I have to question your assertion that there is no real difference between the Studio and Game Ready drivers. But others can do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

Morris0 said:

Laptop CPUs and GPUs have similar numbers yet they don't have similar performance to the desktop models. If you take a look in task manager, you will probably discover that you only need 16-GB of RAM for this work flow.

Morris

Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware that laptops and desktops have different performance. Intel chips, as well as GPU processors that go into laptops are modified to work well in laptops with decreased cooling, etc.

Doesn't mean I can't be jealous.

I haven't gotten around to upgrading my desktop yet. It's getting on in years. It's tolerable for Adobe processing but I avoid it if I have to run Topaz. But it's useful to point out in a thread like this, since many (most?) people these days are probably using laptops rather than desktops, that AI software for denoising and sharpening puts a hit on processing speed.

I should have clarified. DeNoise runs faster and my Sharpen AI experience is roughly the same as yours, especially with the camera shake setting. However, the results can be impressive.

AI is fascinating. My son does AI development. He once created an app to be used by parents and teenagers to help the teenagers from making poor choices. One feature was to be able to examine any photo downloaded and alert the parents if the content was inappropriate. You program the app by showing it thousands and thousands of inappropriate photos so it can "learn" what to look for.

I told my son I was concerned. He said "we don't check to see what our customers download". I told him that was not my concern, that I was afraid law enforcement might take an interest in his activities! Since he has government contracts, I didn't think running afoul of the law would be a good thing. The need of such software was driven home when I talked to my dentist, who is on the board of directors of a private high school. He went for a meeting with the headmaster to find a girl and her parents leaving the office. She sexted a friend and that photo ended up all over all the private schools in town.

Good to know. Thanks.

I'm getting about 10 to 15 seconds for DeNoise for the standard model on a high end laptop. Probably upwards of a minute if I use Clear.

I just ran a test with the Sharpener AI tool. It chose Standard/Motion Blur as the right model to use. It took 2:01 to process on a 45MP Z9 file. It might have been faster on a 26MP file.

brentbrent said:

Those two web articles state that Nvidia optimizes its Studio driver to work better/faster with graphics programs. I have seen several updates to the Studio driver that expressly stated that the updates were to increase function with specific listed programs, including DXO and Topaz. I know when I upgraded from PhotoLab4 to PhotoLab 5, Nvidia fairly quickly released an updated Studio driver that was identified as being optimized for PL5, and it did increase the processing speed.

So I have to question your assertion that there is no real difference between the Studio and Game Ready drivers. But others can do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

Click to expand...

This is what is provided by Nvidia at Driver selection:

All NVIDIA drivers provide full features and application support for top games and creative applications.

If you are a gamer who prioritizes day of launch support for the latest games, patches, and DLCs, choose Game Ready Drivers.

If you are a content creator who prioritizes stability and quality for creative workflows including video editing, animation, photography, graphic design, and livestreaming, choose Studio Drivers.

----------------

Download the latest Studio driver and also the latest Game Ready driver and do a binary compare. If you like, do that with any other pair.

Have fun,

Morris