Will Apple's NPU ever be used by Adobe SW?

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

No, it doesn’t. There’s twice as much waiting with Denoise.

Click to expand...

I haven't played with DXO for many years. When I tested it, it didn't actually do the Denoise until you exported the picture, so you could not actually see what the output was going to look like. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

That could explain why DXO does the Denoise DeepPRIME so fast

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

and the export so slow. Not taking sides, just being Curious George.

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

Frankly, I suspect both products are fast enough to satisfy most people.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

No, it doesn’t. There’s twice as much waiting with Denoise.

Click to expand...

I haven't played with DXO for many years. When I tested it, it didn't actually do the Denoise until you exported the picture, so you could not actually see what the output was going to look like. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

PhotoLab 8 has a larger Loupe tool that you can move around the image to preview the effect of DP on part of the image. This is obviously not as nice as Denoise's full-image preview, but, OTOH, you don't have to wait for it. You can apply the DP instruction to a large batch of images, and as you click through them you can immediately use the Loupe tool to preview the effect. You don't have to wait, because the actual full-image processing doesn't happen until export, and the Loupe preview is generated on the fly.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

That could explain why DXO does the Denoise DeepPRIME so fast

Click to expand...

It doesn't "do" DeepPRIME when you choose it. All edits to images with DxO are simply instructions that aren't actually executed until export, which is why the entire process is non-destructive, IOW you can change edits at any time. The processing happens on export, which is why exporting images with DP applied takes longer than without it.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

and the export so slow. Not taking sides, just being Curious George.

Click to expand...

On even modest Macs with Apple Silicon processors, DeepPRIME 3 is pretty quick 5-15 seconds, and even the more demanding max-detail DeepPRIME XD2s is about as fast as Denoise at 10-30 seconds.

Jacques Cornell said:

Frankly, I suspect both products are fast enough to satisfy most people.

Click to expand...

Given that "most people" are not event pros, that seems right. But, for those of us who have to produce large batches of finished images on tight deadlines (sports, event and wedding shooters), the 2x speed advantage of DxO is hard to ignore. In many cases, I can deliver on the same night rather than processing overnight and delivering the next day. Also, when I'm processing onsite between shooting sessions for same-day delivery at a conference I'm covering, 2x can be the difference between NR and no NR.

OTOH, I've found one workflow in which Denoise isn't slower and brings an extra benefit: it works on my Sony 26MP mRAW files about as fast as DeepPRIME 3 runs on my Sony 61MP RAW files from my a7RV and a7CR. DxO doesn't work with mRAW. I actually prefer 24MP-33MP files for event work, so the ability to shoot mRAW and still have access to advanced NR is an advantage of the new Denoise. OTOH, I may have to give up some other valuable DxO tools (Lens Sharpness, Distortion, Smart Lighting), so I'm on the fence about which workflow to choose. It may come down to the specific requirements of a given job.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

Jacques Cornell said:

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

No, it doesn’t. There’s twice as much waiting with Denoise.

Click to expand...

I haven't played with DXO for many years. When I tested it, it didn't actually do the Denoise until you exported the picture, so you could not actually see what the output was going to look like. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

PhotoLab 8 has a larger Loupe tool that you can move around the image to preview the effect of DP on part of the image. This is obviously not as nice as Denoise's full-image preview, but, OTOH, you don't have to wait for it. You can apply the DP instruction to a large batch of images, and as you click through them you can immediately use the Loupe tool to preview the effect. You don't have to wait, because the actual full-image processing doesn't happen until export, and the Loupe preview is generated on the fly.

Click to expand...

It's still a loop view compared to LrC where you can see entire image in real time.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

That could explain why DXO does the Denoise DeepPRIME so fast

Click to expand...

It doesn't "do" DeepPRIME when you choose it. All edits to images with DxO are simply instructions that aren't actually executed until export, which is why the entire process is non-destructive, IOW you can change edits at any time. The processing happens on export, which is why exporting images with DP applied takes longer than without it.

Click to expand...

With PL you still have to wait for it to export.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

I've tried to make to make this point many times with other posters and they never seemed to get it. Thanks for this and it doesn't matter if it is good or bad for either developer. It's just a fact.

Some like to wait for it to export. I prefer LrC with LrC that applies Denoise during development and seeing the entire file at all times. I prefer the instant LrC exports.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

and the export so slow. Not taking sides, just being Curious George.

Click to expand...

On even modest Macs with Apple Silicon processors, DeepPRIME 3 is pretty quick 5-15 seconds, and even the more demanding max-detail DeepPRIME XD2s is about as fast as Denoise at 10-30 seconds.

Zeee said:

Frankly, I suspect both products are fast enough to satisfy most people.

Click to expand...

Given that "most people" are not event pros, that seems right. But, for those of us who have to produce large batches of finished images on tight deadlines (sports, event and wedding shooters), the 2x speed advantage of DxO is hard to ignore. In many cases, I can deliver on the same night rather than processing overnight and delivering the next day. Also, when I'm processing onsite between shooting sessions for same-day delivery at a conference I'm covering, 2x can be the difference between NR and no NR.

OTOH, I've found one workflow in which Denoise isn't slower and brings an extra benefit: it works on my Sony 26MP mRAW files about as fast as DeepPRIME 3 runs on my Sony 61MP RAW files from my a7RV and a7CR. DxO doesn't work with mRAW. I actually prefer 24MP-33MP files for event work, so the ability to shoot mRAW and still have access to advanced NR is an advantage of the new Denoise. OTOH, I may have to give up some other valuable DxO tools (Lens Sharpness, Distortion, Smart Lighting), so I'm on the fence about which workflow to choose. It may come down to the specific requirements of a given job.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Since we’re now repeating things that had already been clarified, I’ll follow your lead by repeating that DxO takes half as long.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

The short answer is no I don't; they would've already done it.

My opinion? They should; wasted silicon otherwise.

The trouble? Adobe needs folks who can write MSL. C++ based. That's why this hasn't happened and probably never will.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Zeee said:

Jacques Cornell said:

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

No, it doesn’t. There’s twice as much waiting with Denoise.

Click to expand...

I haven't played with DXO for many years. When I tested it, it didn't actually do the Denoise until you exported the picture, so you could not actually see what the output was going to look like. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

PhotoLab 8 has a larger Loupe tool that you can move around the image to preview the effect of DP on part of the image. This is obviously not as nice as Denoise's full-image preview, but, OTOH, you don't have to wait for it. You can apply the DP instruction to a large batch of images, and as you click through them you can immediately use the Loupe tool to preview the effect. You don't have to wait, because the actual full-image processing doesn't happen until export, and the Loupe preview is generated on the fly.

Click to expand...

It's still a loop view compared to LrC where you can see entire image in real time.

Click to expand...

No kidding. I said as much.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

That could explain why DXO does the Denoise DeepPRIME so fast

Click to expand...

It doesn't "do" DeepPRIME when you choose it. All edits to images with DxO are simply instructions that aren't actually executed until export, which is why the entire process is non-destructive, IOW you can change edits at any time. The processing happens on export, which is why exporting images with DP applied takes longer than without it.

Click to expand...

With PL you still have to wait for it to export.

Click to expand...

No kidding. I thought we had both already agreed that with DxO you wait at the end, and with Adobe you wait at the beginning.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

I've tried to make to make this point many times with other posters and they never seemed to get it. Thanks for this and it doesn't matter if it is good or bad for either developer. It's just a fact.

Some like to wait for it to export. I prefer LrC with LrC that applies Denoise during development and seeing the entire file at all times. I prefer the instant LrC exports.

Click to expand...

Since we’re now repeating things that had already been clarified, I’ll follow your lead by repeating that DxO takes half as long.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

and the export so slow. Not taking sides, just being Curious George.

Click to expand...

On even modest Macs with Apple Silicon processors, DeepPRIME 3 is pretty quick 5-15 seconds, and even the more demanding max-detail DeepPRIME XD2s is about as fast as Denoise at 10-30 seconds.

Jacques Cornell said:

Frankly, I suspect both products are fast enough to satisfy most people.

Click to expand...

Given that "most people" are not event pros, that seems right. But, for those of us who have to produce large batches of finished images on tight deadlines (sports, event and wedding shooters), the 2x speed advantage of DxO is hard to ignore. In many cases, I can deliver on the same night rather than processing overnight and delivering the next day. Also, when I'm processing onsite between shooting sessions for same-day delivery at a conference I'm covering, 2x can be the difference between NR and no NR.

OTOH, I've found one workflow in which Denoise isn't slower and brings an extra benefit: it works on my Sony 26MP mRAW files about as fast as DeepPRIME 3 runs on my Sony 61MP RAW files from my a7RV and a7CR. DxO doesn't work with mRAW. I actually prefer 24MP-33MP files for event work, so the ability to shoot mRAW and still have access to advanced NR is an advantage of the new Denoise. OTOH, I may have to give up some other valuable DxO tools (Lens Sharpness, Distortion, Smart Lighting), so I'm on the fence about which workflow to choose. It may come down to the specific requirements of a given job.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

RLight said:

The short answer is no I don't; they would've already done it.

My opinion? They should; wasted silicon otherwise.

The trouble? Adobe needs folks who can write MSL. C++ based. That's why this hasn't happened and probably never will.

Click to expand...

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

It was enabled for about 3 months and worked great IMO. When Adobe disabled it there were discussions at the Adobe Community forums. Some said they did not see any issues and wanted user control to enable/disable it. So it did work and it was fast except for one reported quality issue.

As we know Adobe is not a one app company and no one knows what their priorities are. They aren’t sitting around. Maybe they contracted someone with experience with that code you mentioned and they could not solve it either. I don’t know if that happened but companies do that all of the time.
I still have confidence it will be enabled. I just got a new Mac Mini M4 based on that happening.

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

I LOVE the new Denoise. I am not as much concerned about speed in Denoise as the results. Adobe's Denoise has always given me natural looking images with no artifacts or plastic images. The only reason I keep Topaz now is for non-raw files.

Click to expand...

Ruud uit de Graaf said:

gscotten said:

I LOVE the new Denoise. I am not as much concerned about speed in Denoise as the results. Adobe's Denoise has always given me natural looking images with no artifacts or plastic images. The only reason I keep Topaz now is for non-raw files.

Click to expand...

Agree. I see LR denoise as the tool to reduce noise, gain sharpness without ever overdoing (artifacts) it!

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Since we’re now repeating things that had already been clarified, I’ll follow your lead by repeating that DxO takes half as long.

Click to expand...

I am curious as to how you determine that if DXO actually does the denoise as part of the export process.

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

Are you comparing the time to generate the small preview to Lightroom's time to do the entire finished image? That is probably fair as long as the preview window shows a representative portion of your image.

Do you have the current version of both products on your computer to get a valid comparison? I don't. My only hands-on knowledge of DXO is many years out of date,

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

RLight said:

The short answer is no I don't; they would've already done it.

My opinion? They should; wasted silicon otherwise.

The trouble? Adobe needs folks who can write MSL. C++ based. That's why this hasn't happened and probably never will.

Click to expand...

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

It was enabled for about 3 months and worked great IMO. When Adobe disabled it there were discussions at the Adobe Community forums. Some said they did not see any issues and wanted user control to enable/disable it. So it did work and it was fast except for one reported quality issue.

As we know Adobe is not a one app company and no one knows what their priorities are. They aren’t sitting around. Maybe they contracted someone with experience with that code you mentioned and they could not solve it either. I don’t know if that happened but companies do that all of the time.
I still have confidence it will be enabled. I just got a new Mac Mini M4 based on that happening.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

RLight said:

The short answer is no I don't; they would've already done it.

My opinion? They should; wasted silicon otherwise.

The trouble? Adobe needs folks who can write MSL. C++ based. That's why this hasn't happened and probably never will.

Click to expand...

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

It was enabled for about 3 months and worked great IMO. When Adobe disabled it there were discussions at the Adobe Community forums. Some said they did not see any issues and wanted user control to enable/disable it. So it did work and it was fast except for one reported quality issue.

As we know Adobe is not a one app company and no one knows what their priorities are. They aren’t sitting around. Maybe they contracted someone with experience with that code you mentioned and they could not solve it either. I don’t know if that happened but companies do that all of the time.
I still have confidence it will be enabled. I just got a new Mac Mini M4 based on that happening.

Click to expand...

I kinda base this on the Canon R5. When released it took Adobe a year to add Canon Color profiles. How could something take a year for that? Quite a few blaming it on Adobe's laziness. Whatever works some. I don't have an answer for that either but if someone can prove it was laziness or what my theory was I'd be happy. Possible legal issues? You know what happens when corporate giants lawyers get together.

I only say that because one day the R5 got the profiles. Adobe then added R3 RAW support and colour profiles the day the camera was released. RAW support and colour profiles were added 6 weeks before the R1 and R5II were released. I downloaded the R5II RAW files from this site long before the camera started shipping just to mess around.

Until there is actual proof of what really happened to R colour profiles or what is happening with the NE it's just guessing. Hope I guessed correctly with my Mac Mini :-D

Click to expand...

RLight said:

Zeee said:

RLight said:

The short answer is no I don't; they would've already done it.

My opinion? They should; wasted silicon otherwise.

The trouble? Adobe needs folks who can write MSL. C++ based. That's why this hasn't happened and probably never will.

Click to expand...

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

It was enabled for about 3 months and worked great IMO. When Adobe disabled it there were discussions at the Adobe Community forums. Some said they did not see any issues and wanted user control to enable/disable it. So it did work and it was fast except for one reported quality issue.

As we know Adobe is not a one app company and no one knows what their priorities are. They aren’t sitting around. Maybe they contracted someone with experience with that code you mentioned and they could not solve it either. I don’t know if that happened but companies do that all of the time.
I still have confidence it will be enabled. I just got a new Mac Mini M4 based on that happening.

Click to expand...

It's possible Adobe has changed their ways, absolutely.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

I will say as I've gotten older, I've learned people, companies, organizations, don't change their ways, they too just get older. The exception being change of leadership, from the top.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

RLight said:

The short answer is no I don't; they would've already done it.

My opinion? They should; wasted silicon otherwise.

The trouble? Adobe needs folks who can write MSL. C++ based. That's why this hasn't happened and probably never will.

Click to expand...

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

It was enabled for about 3 months and worked great IMO. When Adobe disabled it there were discussions at the Adobe Community forums. Some said they did not see any issues and wanted user control to enable/disable it. So it did work and it was fast except for one reported quality issue.

As we know Adobe is not a one app company and no one knows what their priorities are. They aren’t sitting around. Maybe they contracted someone with experience with that code you mentioned and they could not solve it either. I don’t know if that happened but companies do that all of the time.
I still have confidence it will be enabled. I just got a new Mac Mini M4 based on that happening.

Click to expand...

I kinda base this on the Canon R5. When released it took Adobe a year to add Canon Color profiles. How could something take a year for that? Quite a few blaming it on Adobe's laziness. Whatever works some. I don't have an answer for that either but if someone can prove it was laziness or what my theory was I'd be happy. Possible legal issues? You know what happens when corporate giants lawyers get together.

I only say that because one day the R5 got the profiles. Adobe then added R3 RAW support and colour profiles the day the camera was released. RAW support and colour profiles were added 6 weeks before the R1 and R5II were released. I downloaded the R5II RAW files from this site long before the camera started shipping just to mess around.

Until there is actual proof of what really happened to R colour profiles or what is happening with the NE it's just guessing. Hope I guessed correctly with my Mac Mini :-D

Click to expand...

Adobe took a very long time to add color profiles for non-legacy sensor holdouts (EOS R, RP) to CR3 and they're still half baked.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

The advent of CR3 coincided with both the termination of partnership with Canon and the great reset of the Bay Area's workforce when the quiet non-compete labor agreement between the major tech companies in the valley was dissolved. Shortly after? Adobe introduced the whole cloud-based licensing model too.

Click to expand...

RLight said:

Seems every company when they get to be too big for their britches, this sort of thing happens (raise prices, cut R&D / support)

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Zeee said:

Jacques Cornell said:

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

No, it doesn’t. There’s twice as much waiting with Denoise.

Click to expand...

I haven't played with DXO for many years. When I tested it, it didn't actually do the Denoise until you exported the picture, so you could not actually see what the output was going to look like. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

PhotoLab 8 has a larger Loupe tool that you can move around the image to preview the effect of DP on part of the image. This is obviously not as nice as Denoise's full-image preview, but, OTOH, you don't have to wait for it. You can apply the DP instruction to a large batch of images, and as you click through them you can immediately use the Loupe tool to preview the effect. You don't have to wait, because the actual full-image processing doesn't happen until export, and the Loupe preview is generated on the fly.

Click to expand...

It's still a loop view compared to LrC where you can see entire image in real time.

Click to expand...

No kidding. I said as much.

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

That could explain why DXO does the Denoise DeepPRIME so fast

Click to expand...

It doesn't "do" DeepPRIME when you choose it. All edits to images with DxO are simply instructions that aren't actually executed until export, which is why the entire process is non-destructive, IOW you can change edits at any time. The processing happens on export, which is why exporting images with DP applied takes longer than without it.

Click to expand...

With PL you still have to wait for it to export.

Click to expand...

No kidding. I thought we had both already agreed that with DxO you wait at the end, and with Adobe you wait at the beginning.

Click to expand...

I was just thanking you.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

You are the first to actually say that in any conversations I've had with others.

Click to expand...

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

I've tried to make to make this point many times with other posters and they never seemed to get it. Thanks for this and it doesn't matter if it is good or bad for either developer. It's just a fact.

Some like to wait for it to export. I prefer LrC with LrC that applies Denoise during development and seeing the entire file at all times. I prefer the instant LrC exports.

Click to expand...

Since we’re now repeating things that had already been clarified, I’ll follow your lead by repeating that DxO takes half as long.

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

Zeee said:

and the export so slow. Not taking sides, just being Curious George.

Click to expand...

On even modest Macs with Apple Silicon processors, DeepPRIME 3 is pretty quick 5-15 seconds, and even the more demanding max-detail DeepPRIME XD2s is about as fast as Denoise at 10-30 seconds.

Zeee said:

Frankly, I suspect both products are fast enough to satisfy most people.

Click to expand...

Given that "most people" are not event pros, that seems right. But, for those of us who have to produce large batches of finished images on tight deadlines (sports, event and wedding shooters), the 2x speed advantage of DxO is hard to ignore. In many cases, I can deliver on the same night rather than processing overnight and delivering the next day. Also, when I'm processing onsite between shooting sessions for same-day delivery at a conference I'm covering, 2x can be the difference between NR and no NR.

OTOH, I've found one workflow in which Denoise isn't slower and brings an extra benefit: it works on my Sony 26MP mRAW files about as fast as DeepPRIME 3 runs on my Sony 61MP RAW files from my a7RV and a7CR. DxO doesn't work with mRAW. I actually prefer 24MP-33MP files for event work, so the ability to shoot mRAW and still have access to advanced NR is an advantage of the new Denoise. OTOH, I may have to give up some other valuable DxO tools (Lens Sharpness, Distortion, Smart Lighting), so I'm on the fence about which workflow to choose. It may come down to the specific requirements of a given job.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

gscotten said:

Zeee said:

I thought this was an Apple Neural issue that affected not just Adobe. Last I read DXO found a work around but never really solved the colour shifting problem itself. Perhaps it’s easier to solve a colour shift problem with a temporary fix than a deep shadow noise quality issue. Perhaps Adobe wants to Apple to fix the actual issue instead of using a Bandaid. I’m not sure if anyone has all the answers because most companies can be tight lipped about these things.

Click to expand...

I, too, thought this was an Apple bug in the Neural engine itself. The last I heard none of the big three were using it. I had not heard that DXO had found a work-around. I would not be in too much of a hurry to criticize the Adobe programmers.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Zeee said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Zeee said:

Jacques Cornell said:

gscotten said:

Jacques Cornell said:

No, it doesn’t. There’s twice as much waiting with Denoise.

Click to expand...

I haven't played with DXO for many years. When I tested it, it didn't actually do the Denoise until you exported the picture, so you could not actually see what the output was going to look like. Has that changed?

Click to expand...

PhotoLab 8 has a larger Loupe tool that you can move around the image to preview the effect of DP on part of the image. This is obviously not as nice as Denoise's full-image preview, but, OTOH, you don't have to wait for it. You can apply the DP instruction to a large batch of images, and as you click through them you can immediately use the Loupe tool to preview the effect. You don't have to wait, because the actual full-image processing doesn't happen until export, and the Loupe preview is generated on the fly.

Click to expand...

It's still a loop view compared to LrC where you can see entire image in real time.

Click to expand...

No kidding. I said as much.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

That could explain why DXO does the Denoise DeepPRIME so fast

Click to expand...

It doesn't "do" DeepPRIME when you choose it. All edits to images with DxO are simply instructions that aren't actually executed until export, which is why the entire process is non-destructive, IOW you can change edits at any time. The processing happens on export, which is why exporting images with DP applied takes longer than without it.

Click to expand...

With PL you still have to wait for it to export.

Click to expand...

No kidding. I thought we had both already agreed that with DxO you wait at the end, and with Adobe you wait at the beginning.

Click to expand...

I was just thanking you.

Click to expand...

Ah, well, that's nice to hear. I misinterpreted your thanks as something else.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

You are the first to actually say that in any conversations I've had with others.

Click to expand...

You were the first to note that the processing happens at different stages in each app's workflow, and that's a useful clarification.

Seems we're on the same page now.

Click to expand...

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

I've tried to make to make this point many times with other posters and they never seemed to get it. Thanks for this and it doesn't matter if it is good or bad for either developer. It's just a fact.

Some like to wait for it to export. I prefer LrC with LrC that applies Denoise during development and seeing the entire file at all times. I prefer the instant LrC exports.

Click to expand...

Since we’re now repeating things that had already been clarified, I’ll follow your lead by repeating that DxO takes half as long.

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Jacques Cornell said:

and the export so slow. Not taking sides, just being Curious George.

Click to expand...

On even modest Macs with Apple Silicon processors, DeepPRIME 3 is pretty quick 5-15 seconds, and even the more demanding max-detail DeepPRIME XD2s is about as fast as Denoise at 10-30 seconds.

Jacques Cornell said:

Frankly, I suspect both products are fast enough to satisfy most people.

Click to expand...

Given that "most people" are not event pros, that seems right. But, for those of us who have to produce large batches of finished images on tight deadlines (sports, event and wedding shooters), the 2x speed advantage of DxO is hard to ignore. In many cases, I can deliver on the same night rather than processing overnight and delivering the next day. Also, when I'm processing onsite between shooting sessions for same-day delivery at a conference I'm covering, 2x can be the difference between NR and no NR.

OTOH, I've found one workflow in which Denoise isn't slower and brings an extra benefit: it works on my Sony 26MP mRAW files about as fast as DeepPRIME 3 runs on my Sony 61MP RAW files from my a7RV and a7CR. DxO doesn't work with mRAW. I actually prefer 24MP-33MP files for event work, so the ability to shoot mRAW and still have access to advanced NR is an advantage of the new Denoise. OTOH, I may have to give up some other valuable DxO tools (Lens Sharpness, Distortion, Smart Lighting), so I'm on the fence about which workflow to choose. It may come down to the specific requirements of a given job.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...