Mark, I can second this. With Prime, the extra lens sharpness and 20 Fine Contrast used to create some nice gritty film grain. With DeepPrime Lens Sharpness and 20 Fine Contrast together, just make the image less sharp. I’m experimenting with either leaving Lens Sharpness on (rolling it back from 0.65 to 0) or 20 Fine Contrast on. Sometimes I now turn both of them off. With DeepPrime I get an image with greater perceived sharpness and less artifacts.
@OXiDant Thanks for the notes about the beta testing for those of who didn’t take part. I was surprised the PrimeNR/DeepPrime calibration matched so well and now we know why. That’s great as it makes it much easier to switch back and forth between the two. I’ve found for the most detail and still very little noise, it’s better to lower DeepPrime to between 7 and 15. Prime was almost always best at 12, unless the image was horribly noisy (I throw those away). Above 12, PrimeNR/DeepPrime start to smear (as Topaz historically has done). I don’t like smeary NR. Excessively smooth images look plastic to my eye.
Setting up my new general preset for v4.0 i am activating deepprime alway’s and the “blue want” aka “magic Want” is default 40(%), thinking of people who are at 7-10% or 20% i am thinking of defaulting mine to 30%.
The Magic in this auto mode is just the preset “recomended by DxO”
Same as in prime earlier.
BUT, because Deepprime is turned down a notch on our behave, we asked because of reason’s i explained above, as 25% of the old line it’s already denoise vs detail in favor of detail changed.
I could make a “highiso” partial preset which only sets Deepprime to 60 to quick change the highiso image’s and lower base to regualair iso image’s to 30 or lower preset. But hence its also 1 click on the tool.
I noticed that lens sharpness didn’t seem to have as big an impact on noise with DeepPrime. So I did some more comparison testing with lens sharpness and DeepPrime. Unlike Prime, where disabling lens sharpness allows for better noise reduction, with DeepPrime the noise is about the same, but the sharpness / local contrast is improved with lens sharpness on.
I’m also really impressed by “DeepPrime” - but on older hardware it comes for a pretty high “price”: On my Mac Mini “Late 2012 core i7” it’s 23s for Prime using all 4+4 cores versus 3:44 with DeepPrime using only the 4 ‘real’ cores.
So it looks like I “want” to have a dedicated graphics card
I don’t have the original camera jpeg.
Picture has been shot with a Sony A7RII 42 MPix.
It has a length of 55 cm at 300 dpi.
I find the result impressive et give me a new interest for high ISOs !
Of course, processing on my old Mac Book Pro 2012 is too slow, but I can do it in the background.
I must add that DxO doesn’t reinvent the pictures.
Why does I say that ?
I have just seen a video about a Microsoft software, based on AI, that is able to remove scratches from old pictures ; but it is also programmed to recognize eyes or hair for instance and to recreate detail that don’t exist in the picture.
It is amazing but not the real picture.
DxO just extract and process existing information as its challengers, but probably better.
I am not paid by DxO !
One could argue that the data straight from camera is not the real picture because it necessarily converts the light into a spatial and spectral box that it can handle. We know from all the sliders provided by PL4 and others that camera sensors are far inferior to the human eye.
DeepPRIME is still inferring information that is not there. We interpret that as being what should have been there in a perfect world.
