Still loving the M6II, even more with new DXO

I upgraded to DXO PL6 when they offered the Black Friday discounts (not as big as last year, but still quite good). I had read conflicting things about how much of an improvement Deep Prime XD is over regular Deep Prime. So far, I am liking DPXD a lot. Some people say they are seeing artefacts with it, and turn down the noise model slider (it's very customizable), but I can't say I've seen any yet. Here are some comparisons from last night. We went to see a friend in an opera (Amahl and the Night Visitors), and took her out for a drink afterwards to a very dimly lit bar. Here are one each of her, my wife, and our son, first with regular Deep Prime, followed by Deep Prime XD:

Deep Prime

Deep Prime XD

Deep Prime

Deep Prime XD

Deep Prime (ISO 25,600!)

Deep Prime XD

And one at the comparatively low ISO of 5000:

Deep Prime

Deep Prime XD

I'm very impressed with DPXD. The main advantage over Deep Prime seems to be in reducing shadow noise. If you view the indoor shots at 100% (they are already reduced to 2000 pixels on the long side for the web), you'll see quite a difference in the noise in the background shadows. I think I'm also seeing a bit more detail in the XD versions, though, as I said, that can be fine-tuned with sliders. The main drawback is processing time. Exporting 6 files to JPEG (2000 pixels on the longer side) took 51 seconds with Deep Prime, and 91 seconds with Deep Prime XD, so that's 8.5 seconds per file compared with 15.2 seconds. I think ultra-high ISO shots take longer (wouldn't be surprising). I timed a different batch of 25 exports in Deep Prime XD, with files in the ISO 1000-3200 range, and that averaged 11 seconds per image. For me, the gain in IQ is worth a bit of an extra wait. I think it's quite remarkable that I can get perfectly usable shots from a crop sensor camera at ISO 25,600.

TiltShiftR wrote:

I must be so far gone from the game. What is Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD?

I was equally far gone a bit over a year ago. DXO Optics has a RAW processor called Photolab, with lots of neat features, including several different noise reduction and lens correction settings. They release dedicated modules for numerous combinations of camera and lens, including all the ones I use, or have ever used. A couple of years ago, they released a version of their noise reduction software called "Deep Prime", which was truly revolutionary, in that it not only reduced noise amazingly well, but it actually preserved detail better than pretty much any other RAW processor (that is largely down to the dedicated lens modules). I think that was released with version 4 of Photolab. I bought version 5 last year, which included Deep Prime, and have been using it ever since. Mostly, I only need to use Photolab, but sometimes I export a file from Photolab to Lightroom, when I want to use some Lightroom (or Photoshop) features that don't have a counterpart in Photolab. The latest version of Photolab, PL6, has a further enhanced version of Deep Prime, called Deep Prime XD (it still has the regular version too, so you can choose). In my experience, and that of numerous others who pushed me to try it last year (R2D2 especially), Deep Prime, and now Deep Prime XD, gives you at least a 2 stop high ISO advantage over what you can get with Lightroom alone, DPP, or just in-camera JPEGs. I am now comfortable shooting my M6II and R7 at ISO 25,600 and my R at ISO 51,200.

On Mac OS ventura you have to pick GPU for Deep Prime.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

TiltShiftR wrote:

I must be so far gone from the game. What is Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD?

I was equally far gone a bit over a year ago. DXO Optics has a RAW processor called Photolab, with lots of neat features, including several different noise reduction and lens correction settings. They release dedicated modules for numerous combinations of camera and lens, including all the ones I use, or have ever used. A couple of years ago, they released a version of their noise reduction software called "Deep Prime", which was truly revolutionary, in that it not only reduced noise amazingly well, but it actually preserved detail better than pretty much any other RAW processor (that is largely down to the dedicated lens modules). I think that was released with version 4 of Photolab. I bought version 5 last year, which included Deep Prime, and have been using it ever since. Mostly, I only need to use Photolab, but sometimes I export a file from Photolab to Lightroom, when I want to use some Lightroom (or Photoshop) features that don't have a counterpart in Photolab. The latest version of Photolab, PL6, has a further enhanced version of Deep Prime, called Deep Prime XD (it still has the regular version too, so you can choose). In my experience, and that of numerous others who pushed me to try it last year (R2D2 especially), Deep Prime, and now Deep Prime XD, gives you at least a 2 stop high ISO advantage over what you can get with Lightroom alone, DPP, or just in-camera JPEGs. I am now comfortable shooting my M6II and R7 at ISO 25,600 and my R at ISO 51,200.

Thanks for your posts and comments. I always find your posts informative and helpful.

I also upgraded to DxO PhotoLab 6 this Black Friday. At first I did not really see a difference between Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD, but continued to use XD anyway. After processing some images of the Moon I did some comparisons and found that indeed XD did a better job reproducing deep shadow detail on the lunar images and so was a worthwhile upgrade for me. Lunar images are challenging, contrast and microcontrast are boosted to bring out maximum detail and great de-noise can make or break the image.

Like you I find the newer Deep Prime XD denoise more of a performance hit. But you get what you pay for, in money and in time. The fact that there's not a huge difference between Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD is a sign that the original Deep Prime was already so good.

Your comment that you're comfortable shooting the M6ii at 25,600 jibes with my experience. I am also interested that you find the R gets you about a stop better ISO performance, which matches my impression that full-frame would gain about another EV in ISO.

KEG wrote:

On Mac OS ventura you have to pick GPU for Deep Prime.

Does that apply to Deep Prime XD as well? That sounds like a reason not to upgrade to Ventura, at least not yet. When I compared exporting with the Neural Engine versus the GPU, the difference in time was dramatic. 15 seconds per image with the Neural Engine, but 91 seconds per image with the GPU.

Larry Rexley wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

TiltShiftR wrote:

I must be so far gone from the game. What is Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD?

I was equally far gone a bit over a year ago. DXO Optics has a RAW processor called Photolab, with lots of neat features, including several different noise reduction and lens correction settings. They release dedicated modules for numerous combinations of camera and lens, including all the ones I use, or have ever used. A couple of years ago, they released a version of their noise reduction software called "Deep Prime", which was truly revolutionary, in that it not only reduced noise amazingly well, but it actually preserved detail better than pretty much any other RAW processor (that is largely down to the dedicated lens modules). I think that was released with version 4 of Photolab. I bought version 5 last year, which included Deep Prime, and have been using it ever since. Mostly, I only need to use Photolab, but sometimes I export a file from Photolab to Lightroom, when I want to use some Lightroom (or Photoshop) features that don't have a counterpart in Photolab. The latest version of Photolab, PL6, has a further enhanced version of Deep Prime, called Deep Prime XD (it still has the regular version too, so you can choose). In my experience, and that of numerous others who pushed me to try it last year (R2D2 especially), Deep Prime, and now Deep Prime XD, gives you at least a 2 stop high ISO advantage over what you can get with Lightroom alone, DPP, or just in-camera JPEGs. I am now comfortable shooting my M6II and R7 at ISO 25,600 and my R at ISO 51,200.

Thanks for your posts and comments. I always find your posts informative and helpful.

I also upgraded to DxO PhotoLab 6 this Black Friday. At first I did not really see a difference between Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD, but continued to use XD anyway. After processing some images of the Moon I did some comparisons and found that indeed XD did a better job reproducing deep shadow detail on the lunar images and so was a worthwhile upgrade for me. Lunar images are challenging, contrast and microcontrast are boosted to bring out maximum detail and great de-noise can make or break the image.

Like you I find the newer Deep Prime XD denoise more of a performance hit. But you get what you pay for, in money and in time.

The fact that there's not a huge difference between Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD is a sign that the original Deep Prime was already so good.

Deep Prime is amazing, I stayed with PL5 for now, will look at PL7 when it comes out, on a future black Friday

Your comment that you're comfortable shooting the M6ii at 25,600 jibes with my experience. I am also interested that you find the R gets you about a stop better ISO performance, which matches my impression that full-frame would gain about another EV in ISO.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I upgraded to DXO PL6 when they offered the Black Friday discounts (not as big as last year, but still quite good). I had read conflicting things about how much of an improvement Deep Prime XD is over regular Deep Prime. So far, I am liking DPXD a lot. Some people say they are seeing artefacts with it, and turn down the noise model slider (it's very customizable), but I can't say I've seen any yet. Here are some comparisons from last night. We went to see a friend in an opera (Amahl and the Night Visitors), and took her out for a drink afterwards to a very dimly lit bar. Here are one each of her, my wife, and our son, first with regular Deep Prime, followed by Deep Prime XD:

I'm very impressed with DPXD. The main advantage over Deep Prime seems to be in reducing shadow noise. If you view the indoor shots at 100% (they are already reduced to 2000 pixels on the long side for the web), you'll see quite a difference in the noise in the background shadows. I think I'm also seeing a bit more detail in the XD versions, though, as I said, that can be fine-tuned with sliders. The main drawback is processing time. Exporting 6 files to JPEG (2000 pixels on the longer side) took 51 seconds with Deep Prime, and 91 seconds with Deep Prime XD, so that's 8.5 seconds per file compared with 15.2 seconds. I think ultra-high ISO shots take longer (wouldn't be surprising). I timed a different batch of 25 exports in Deep Prime XD, with files in the ISO 1000-3200 range, and that averaged 11 seconds per image. For me, the gain in IQ is worth a bit of an extra wait. I think it's quite remarkable that I can get perfectly usable shots from a crop sensor camera at ISO 25,600.

Very nice write-up Alastair.  I did the same on Black Friday!

My findings are that DPXD yields at least as clean results as DP, but with improved detail retention.  Quite a bit more detail in many cases, but without the typical artifacts that sharpening produces (halos, crunchiness, etc).

There are instances however where the drawing out of detail does cause a loss of smoothness in say the eye (basically right where you want smoothness).  So ideally (for me) it would be DPXD for the entire image, and DP for just the eyeball. 

R2

DXO newbie here - just bought v6 to use with M6II and 6D. Are default settings a good starting point? Recommended settings for high ISO images? Recommended tutorials or dive in with trial & error? Any help appreciated .... thanks.

R2D2 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I upgraded to DXO PL6 when they offered the Black Friday discounts (not as big as last year, but still quite good). I had read conflicting things about how much of an improvement Deep Prime XD is over regular Deep Prime. So far, I am liking DPXD a lot. Some people say they are seeing artefacts with it, and turn down the noise model slider (it's very customizable), but I can't say I've seen any yet. Here are some comparisons from last night. We went to see a friend in an opera (Amahl and the Night Visitors), and took her out for a drink afterwards to a very dimly lit bar. Here are one each of her, my wife, and our son, first with regular Deep Prime, followed by Deep Prime XD:

I'm very impressed with DPXD. The main advantage over Deep Prime seems to be in reducing shadow noise. If you view the indoor shots at 100% (they are already reduced to 2000 pixels on the long side for the web), you'll see quite a difference in the noise in the background shadows. I think I'm also seeing a bit more detail in the XD versions, though, as I said, that can be fine-tuned with sliders. The main drawback is processing time. Exporting 6 files to JPEG (2000 pixels on the longer side) took 51 seconds with Deep Prime, and 91 seconds with Deep Prime XD, so that's 8.5 seconds per file compared with 15.2 seconds. I think ultra-high ISO shots take longer (wouldn't be surprising). I timed a different batch of 25 exports in Deep Prime XD, with files in the ISO 1000-3200 range, and that averaged 11 seconds per image. For me, the gain in IQ is worth a bit of an extra wait. I think it's quite remarkable that I can get perfectly usable shots from a crop sensor camera at ISO 25,600.

Very nice write-up Alastair. I did the same on Black Friday!

My findings are that DPXD yields at least as clean results as DP, but with improved detail retention. Quite a bit more detail in many cases, but without the typical artifacts that sharpening produces (halos, crunchiness, etc).

There are instances however where the

drawing out of detail does cause a loss of smoothness in say the eye (basically right where you want smoothness).

interesting, agree with people photos at high iso

So ideally (for me) it would be DPXD for the entire image, and DP for just the eyeball.

R2

Alastair Norcross wrote:

KEG wrote:

On Mac OS ventura you have to pick GPU for Deep Prime.

Does that apply to Deep Prime XD as well? That sounds like a reason not to upgrade to Ventura, at least not yet. When I compared exporting with the Neural Engine versus the GPU, the difference in time was dramatic. 15 seconds per image with the Neural Engine, but 91 seconds per image with the GPU.

there is a bug with both with neural engine.

-- hide signature --

“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

KEG wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

KEG wrote:

On Mac OS ventura you have to pick GPU for Deep Prime.

Does that apply to Deep Prime XD as well? That sounds like a reason not to upgrade to Ventura, at least not yet. When I compared exporting with the Neural Engine versus the GPU, the difference in time was dramatic. 15 seconds per image with the Neural Engine, but 91 seconds per image with the GPU.

there is a bug with both with neural engine.

Yes, your post prompted me to look online, and I spent a while on DXO forums. It looks like DXO is still working on it. I am certainly not going to upgrade my iMac to Ventura until it's fixed. Thanks for alerting me. I was vaguely aware that some people were getting color casts, but since I'm not, I didn't worry about it. If you hadn't posted what you did, I might have upgraded to Ventura when made aware of its existence (your post was my first time even seeing the name). Now, I know to wait.

JRET wrote:

DXO newbie here - just bought v6 to use with M6II and 6D. Are default settings a good starting point? Recommended settings for high ISO images? Recommended tutorials or dive in with trial & error? Any help appreciated .... thanks.

Larry Rexley started a DxO tips thread here...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4599001#forum-post-65475049

Lots of leisure reading.  Have fun!

R2

Great post, thanks! I'm liking DXO PL6 too - but not so much for the deep prime XD but for some of the other enhancments and somehow the colours look nicer from camera too.

Deep Prime XD - yes it is great but some times I do find it give an unnatural look. In your shots the Deep Prime ones still have some noise - but being softer kind of works too. The XD ones have to me some over sharpened looking "detail" next to smoothed out areas - example your son's beard and one area of blue fabric in your wife's photo - these shots somehow dont look natural.

Also the difference in noise level in your shots is the most I have seen - I must try my M6II with it.

Taste I know and I am nitpicking - somehow often I prefer Deep Prime to Deep Prime XD. I think it depends on the image - and if one is that bother can export both and then stack and choose best part of image in photoshop for those "problem" areas in XD.

KevinRA wrote:

Great post, thanks! I'm liking DXO PL6 too - but not so much for the deep prime XD but for some of the other enhancments and somehow the colours look nicer from camera too.

Deep Prime XD - yes it is great but some times I do find it give an unnatural look. In your shots the Deep Prime ones still have some noise - but being softer kind of works too. The XD ones have to me some over sharpened looking "detail" next to smoothed out areas - example your son's beard and one area of blue fabric in your wife's photo - these shots somehow dont look natural.

I know what you mean. I'm never quite sure whether what I'm seeing with lower NR is actually more detail, or just noise that's tricking the eye into thinking it's seeing detail.

Also the difference in noise level in your shots is the most I have seen - I must try my M6II with it.

Yes, I think you'll see the most difference at really high ISO levels, like 20,000 or 25,600

Taste I know and I am nitpicking - somehow often I prefer Deep Prime to Deep Prime XD. I think it depends on the image - and if one is that bother can export both and then stack and choose best part of image in photoshop for those "problem" areas in XD.

That would certainly do it. I'm also still playing around with the different settings with Deep Prime XD. I think you can probably get the best of both worlds (Deep Prime, and Deep Prime XD) with the right slider values. Also, adjusting the contrast differently in the shadows, midtones, and highlights can have good effects (this is something you can only do, if you also have Film Pack installed).

I'm getting really good results from Photolab v6.1.1 now (new update just came out).

Awesome NR, great detail, no artifacts, very smooth eyes. Loving it.

Sample from R5 + RF 100-500 @ 500mm, 1/500 sec @ f/10, ISO 4000. Full size image (jpeg converted at 90% Quality). Large file! Click on "original size"

Deep Prime XD. DPXD Luminance: 45. Lens Sharpness: Global 1.75, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

And the closest I could come in NR and detail with just Deep Prime. DP Luminance: 75. Lens Sharpness: Global 3.00, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

DPXD can really extract those finer details! More smoothly and less harshly.

I'll be finding an M6ii example next.

R2

ps. This was shot during a Coopers Hawk netting and banding operation with a wildlife biologist. No critters were harmed in the process!

R2D2 wrote:

I'm getting really good results from Photolab v6.1.1 now (new update just came out).

Awesome NR, great detail, no artifacts, very smooth eyes. Loving it.

Sample from R5 + RF 100-500 @ 500mm, 1/500 sec @ f/10, ISO 4000. Full size image (jpeg converted at 90% Quality). Large file! Click on "original size"

Deep Prime XD. DPXD Luminance: 45. Lens Sharpness: Global 1.75, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

And the closest I could come in NR and detail with just Deep Prime. DP Luminance: 75. Lens Sharpness: Global 3.00, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

DPXD can really extract those finer details! More smoothly and less harshly.

I'll be finding an M6ii example next.

R2

ps. This was shot during a Coopers Hawk netting and banding operation with a wildlife biologist. No critters were harmed in the process!

Nice results!

Oh man, does this mean I go back yet again re-processing a lot of my favorite 'best' images (a lot of low-light ones) the way I did after first discovering Photolab and Deep Prime? 

Larry Rexley wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

I'm getting really good results from Photolab v6.1.1 now (new update just came out).

Awesome NR, great detail, no artifacts, very smooth eyes. Loving it.

Sample from R5 + RF 100-500 @ 500mm, 1/500 sec @ f/10, ISO 4000. Full size image (jpeg converted at 90% Quality). Large file! Click on "original size"

Deep Prime XD. DPXD Luminance: 45. Lens Sharpness: Global 1.75, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

And the closest I could come in NR and detail with just Deep Prime. DP Luminance: 75. Lens Sharpness: Global 3.00, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

DPXD can really extract those finer details! More smoothly and less harshly.

I'll be finding an M6ii example next.

R2

ps. This was shot during a Coopers Hawk netting and banding operation with a wildlife biologist. No critters were harmed in the process!

Nice results!

Oh man, does this mean I go back yet again re-processing a lot of my favorite 'best' images (a lot of low-light ones) the way I did after first discovering Photolab and Deep Prime?

ask yourself, at the image level, are you really seeing a difference?

The quintessential basketball photo that turned the tide for me!

Canon M6 Mark II + EF-M 32mm. 1/1600 second @ f/1.4, ISO 1600.

DxO Photolab 5, Deep Prime Noise Reduction (the original processing).

Full size image (jpeg converted at 100% Quality). Large file! Click on "original size"...

DxO PL 5, Deep Prime. Luminance: 45. Lens Sharpness: Global .23, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

DxO PL v6.1.1, Deep Prime XD. Luminance: 50. Lens Sharpness: Global -.50, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM. Full size image (jpeg converted at 90% Quality)

The DPXD settings I used resulted in noticeably less noise, yet a bit more detail here (check the player in white's face, and the stippling on the ball).  Using other settings can give you about equal noise, but substantially more detail.

I've noticed that the balance between noise and detail (Luminance and Lens Sharpness) will vary depending on the type of scene captured and the intended look that you're after.  It pays to experiment.

Overall, DPXD sets the IQ standard a notch higher (IMHO), and gives you one more tool in the toolbox that can be utilized as needed, or not. 

R2

R2D2 wrote:

The quintessential basketball photo that turned the tide for me!

indeed!!!

Canon M6 Mark II + EF-M 32mm. 1/1600 second @ f/1.4, ISO 1600.

might have been able to go ss1/800 or ss 1/1000, but iso 1600 worked with the faster ss

DxO Photolab 5, Deep Prime Noise Reduction (the original processing).

Full size image (jpeg converted at 100% Quality). Large file! Click on "original size"...

DxO PL 5, Deep Prime. Luminance: 45. Lens Sharpness: Global .23, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM

DxO PL v6.1.1, Deep Prime XD. Luminance: 50. Lens Sharpness: Global -.50, Details 50, Bokeh 50, no USM. Full size image (jpeg converted at 90% Quality)

The DPXD settings I used resulted in noticeably less noise, yet a bit more detail here (check the player in white's face, and the stippling on the ball). Using other settings can give you about equal noise, but substantially more detail.

I've noticed that the balance between noise and detail (Luminance and Lens Sharpness) will vary depending on the type of scene captured and the intended look that you're after. It pays to experiment.

Overall, DPXD sets the IQ standard a notch higher (IMHO), and gives you one more tool in the toolbox that can be utilized as needed, or not.

I couldn't tell at the image level

so I pixel peeped in photoshop using the side by side comparator at 300%

well, unfortunately I found more artifacts on the face of the player with the ball when dpxd was used

and for the closest player in maroon on the left, I'm see to much watercolor like blur with dpxd vs dp

so for my tastes, I don't see the extra benefit at the image level and I'm not preferring the DPXD when I pixel peep on the faces  - and the extra time to process would be an added negative

but I did see more stipple detail in the ball as you said -- so for a photo of objects where one wants more detail the upgraded version may be the one to use, but for faces, I dunno ...

for me I stay with PL5 for now

R2