Photo AI 1.0.7 - is it just me, or are the results vastly improved?

Digital Nigel wrote:

Zeee wrote:

CrisL wrote:

Zeee wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

Zeee wrote:

Docno wrote:

Digital Nigel wrote:

logatom wrote:

Hi,

Great output from DxO, but obviously it's not coming from the RAW files you linked to. Would you please share the correct file, if possible?

Sorry for the incorrect link — this is the correct file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sm5eqr025xs9bei/RX604368%20Temple%20of%20Saint%20Sava%2C%20Belgrade.ARW?dl=0

This is what I get. I processed the Raw in the standalone and noticed, with default settings, the output was about the same as what you got. Then I tried it using the Photoshop plugin. Interestingly, Photo AI defaulted to 'Strong' noise reduction, which I think is what was causing the result you got. I switched this to standard (light, or whatever the weaker version is), and I got a much better outcome. I then did a simple (auto) contrast/brighten. What do you think?

This is what I got with Photo AI opened from LrC as a plug-in and edited as RAW.

I've compared these two attempts with PL6 and my original PAI stand-alone:

Four-way comparison: Docno's version is soft and lacking in detail, Zeee's version is over-sharpened and full of ugly artefacts (look at the saints' faces). The three Photo AI versions can't even agree on colour.

Even with the help of PS and/or LR, Photo AI still can't produce the same quality as PL6 does alone, quickly and easily. There's less detail and/or more artefacts in all the Photo AI versions.

I'm seeing better detail in Photo AI however I when it came back to LrC sharpening was at the default of 40. I added a little texture and exported at screen high. I most likely pushed it a little too much which likely added some artifacts. Easily controllable.

I don't thinks so , from my test I see PAI cannot distinguish texture/ true details and noise so even with Strengh=1 it's removing a lot of texture/true details and I don't thing anything can recover what disappeared .

Looking at the glass dome I see better detail.

Artefacts are not detail. Look at the saints' faces to see some really ugly artefacts in your version. That just doesn't happen with PhotoLab.

I have a 5K screen and I do not see any artefacts in the dome, just more contrast. Yes I agree some of faces are a little rougher but I was very aggressive in sharpening. I just wanted to see what it could do. All I know is it does not look like mush compared to previous posts. That was significant difference.

However we are at the never ending point of pixel peeping and even if PL is better I don't care.

I certainly do. PL does a much better job, more quickly, in a single product, with less effort, and with no danger of artefacts. You may think none of those matters, but I disagree. You can be a masochist if you like, but I'm lazy: I like being able to get the best results, effortlessly.

It is not washed out as shown in earlier posts

That's because of the work you did in LR. Photo AI alone does a poor job with a raw image. But it can be a useful, simple way of enhancing a noisy, soft, but well-exposed JPEG.

and it is doing what I need it to do. Photo AI actually surprised me with this comparison. I keep reading about how bad it is compared to the 3 stand alone apps.

In one respect it's better than DeNoise AI. At least it makes an attempt to correct lens distortion in raw files, which DeNoise AI doesn't.

They do have more refinement options which is important.

Yes, though Photo AI is gaining more options in its frequent releases.