It leaves you checkin the EXIF data to make sure they are actually the same image. It’s at medium-high ISO settings that the differences become obvious, and at super-high ISOs where Lightroom’s now processing can produce noise like marbles, DxO’s processing is uncannily sharp and noise free. The worse your camera gear, the bigger the potential gain! DxO’s lens corrections are extremely good too, so that even if you don’t notice any difference in distortion correction, for example, a closer look at the edges of the image will often reveal sharper detail in the DxO version. (Image credit: Rod Lawton/Digital Camera World)Įven at low ISO settings, you can often see the difference between PureRAW’s Linear DNG files and Lightroom’s own raw processing, often as reduced noise in blue skies and other areas of even tone. The DxO DeepPRIME version (right) is dramatically superior. This photo was shot at ISO 3200 on a Sony A6000 and you can see how noisy the default Lightroom version is (left). You keep all your edits, even if you use the PureRAW conversion after you’ve made them. If you’re converting a whole folder of images you can get on with something else while it’s at work, and if you’re sending an image from within Lightroom, it just means a short delay while you wait for it to come back.īut what happens if you’ve already done some editing in Lightroom and only then decide that you need a superior Linear DNG version? This is where it gets clever – the original (unedited) raw file will be send to PureRAW 2 for processing, and when it returns the editing metadata applied to the original will be applied to the DNG. You can expect to wait up to, say, a minute for each image to be processed – but this will vary considerably depending on your hardware. All you have to do is tell it which images you want it to convert and the conversion options you want – typically either JPEG or Linear DNG, and where you want the new images to be saved – and set it to work.ĭxO’s DeepPRIME processing is certainly faster, but still not fast. PureRAW 2 is extremely simple to use, partly because it doesn’t offer any image adjustments, just a conversion process. (Image credit: Rod Lawton/Digital Camera World) Ahum ahum.Īnd thks for DxO link: I just wont upgrade but I am tempted with Topaz's Photo AI for my old jpg genealogical photo.The processing options are super simple – you can choose the processing method (DeepPRIME is slowest but best), the output format (JPEG or Linear DNG) and the location where you want the new files saved. "I was skeptical of PureRaw VERSION 2 when it was first introduced, but particularly with this latest VERSION 3 installment, have come to appreciate it." "I was skeptical of PureRaw when it was first introduced, but particularly with this latest installment, have come to appreciate it." I probably mistook some other review for Thom's opinion. You'll have to use those controls on your images to see if they help. The other thing was the ability for the user to choose the levels of the lens corrections or disable them. It's been shown in previous threads here that the difference with that is very subtle, and sometimes the difference is worse. Only two things were added that might be 'better' for some images:ĭeepPRIME XD might produce higher detail. I must be doing/thinking something wrong. Where did he say that? The only post I found is this, and there's no mention of it being better than V2. Many reviewers, including Thom (whom I respect a lot), say that version 3 is clearly better. Well the difference seems far from obvious.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |