# DxO Optics Pro 9 released



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2013)

DxO just announced the release of Optics Pro 9 (press release pdf link). 

Along with the usual sorts improvements in the user interface and the addition of some new tools and presets, the headline of the v9 release is their PRIME noise reduction algorithm. 

[quote author=DxO]
Thanks to PRIME (*P*robabilistic *R*aw *IM*age *E*nhancement) denoising technology, which analyzes the structure of RAW images in depth in order to differentiate between noise and fine details, DxO Optics Pro 9 offers a gain in image quality of up to one full stop over the best noise reduction algorithms currently on the market.

"In contrast to the usual approach of finding a better compromise between image quality and execution speed, we have created a tool whose sole purpose is to obtain the best image quality possible, "explained Frédéric Guichard, Chief Scientific Officer of DxO Labs. "For each pixel, more than a thousand neighboring pixels are analyzed. This vast exploration allows DxO Optics Pro to identify similar data that can serve to reconstruct image information. Several minutes may be required to do this, but this process takes place in the background, so users can work on other images and projects while they wait for the results."

PRIME technology results in truly spectacular images: noise is suppressed, and textures, details, and color saturation are preserved, particularly in shadows, for a beautifully natural look.
[/quote]
I can say from personal experience that this new NR algorithm does an *excellent* job of preserving detail while removing noise, particularly with very high ISO settings (ISO 6400 and up). The trade off is time - they state that 'several minutes may be required' and they aren't kidding - processing a batch of images with PRIME will max out all of your processor cores for quite a while, although the coding is effective at keeping it in the background, so I don't find my MacBook Pro bogging down while the batch processing is proceeding. 

As usual for DxO, there's a free 30-day trial activation period, with a fully functional version of the software. From now through November 20th, they're offering a discount of $70 off the Standard version and $100 off the Elite version (the latter is needed for Canon full frame bodies).


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 24, 2013)

I upgraded last night and while I didn't have a lot of time to play with it, I have to say it's pretty amazing on ISO 12,800 photos and it must use a lot of RAM or GPU to work because I have lots of both and PRIME didn't seem to add much time to the previews or processing.

I find Adobe's RAW processors easier and faster to use, but took the time to really learn DxO a few years back and use it for all my photos now because the results are worth the extra effort. I'm curious to try the new export feature to drop my photos into PhotoShop as I still use that for PP on many of my photos.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Along with the usual sorts improvements in the user interface and the addition of some new tools and presets, the headline of the v9 release is their PRIME noise reduction algorithm.



Thanks for the information - it's great news that Adobe has some actual competition left, and that'll most likely ensure ACR will also get enhancements to noise reduction, people not shooting raw will probably think again now.

I'll probably give dxo a try to see how this works on high iso noise, but the main problem remains - it breaks the ACR raw workflow, so if you want to continue in the very good LR you'll end up with a 100MB tif instead of a 20MB dng...


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 24, 2013)

Yes, workflow is always an issue with DxO, but I was never happy with Lightroom's speed or it's database(s) and I've found that Photomechanic solves my asset management for me. My flow is to ingest with Photomechanic, select, label, and keyword my photos with it as XMP sidecars, drag & drop into DxO, output as TIFFs, then perform final edits as needed in PhotoShop and save the TIFF. I'll then save as JPEG, print, or whatever from there. When I do my monthly archive, I just do a batch process convert the CR2s to normal DNGs with Adobe's DNG tool and store the CR2, DNG, and final TIFF on my backup media.

Maybe it's not an elegant workflow, but it works better than it sounds and I don't have to worry about corrupt databases or anything else.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 24, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Yes, workflow is always an issue with DxO, but I was never happy with Lightroom's speed or it's database(s) and I've found that Photomechanic solves my asset management for me. My flow is to ingest with Photomechanic, select, label, and keyword my photos with it as XMP sidecars, drag & drop into DxO, output as TIFFs, then perform final edits as needed in PhotoShop and save the TIFF. I'll then save as JPEG, print, or whatever from there. When I do my monthly archive, I just do a batch process convert the CR2s to normal DNGs with Adobe's DNG tool and store the CR2, DNG, and final TIFF on my backup media.
> 
> Maybe it's not an elegant workflow, but it works better than it sounds and I don't have to worry about corrupt databases or anything else.



You have plenty of redundancy built in to prevent loss. I am interested to see how it works and will download the upgrade tonight if I remember.


----------



## etg9 (Oct 24, 2013)

I'm in the minority that LR just doesn't do anything really worth it to me. I use this and photoshop to accomplish what I need. I will be updating to ver 9 soon to see what the new noise correction can do. I'd like to see more about the software but the website is currently dead.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 26, 2013)

I downloaded it once again, in the past, it was really slow, but now it seems much faster. As before, it seems to do a good job of setting all the parameters automatically. I tried it with some difficult images which had a horrible backlighting, and by using the one shot HDR setting, I got fairly good corrections without any further editing. Correction of CA's was slightly better than Lightroom, but there was still a lot for unsupported lenses.
Now, how do I upload them to Smugmug? I do it directly in lightroom using Jeffrey Friedls plug-in? I do see a upload to Flickr function, so there is probably a add-in that does it.

The main difference that I see is that DXO does a nice job of automatically correcting images, while it takes a bit more work in Lightroom. Lightroom has many more tools so I can do many things that DXO does not do, but its really good for someone who just wants a quick solution.

Here is the Lightroom version. I like the warmer tone, so I kept it.







Here is the DO version. It uses their one-shot HDR function.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 27, 2013)

LR definitely has a lot more tools and is easier to work with in terms of uploading to Smugmug and such (I just used Smug's own uploader or Photomechanic's FTP), and DxO is fairly frustrating when you first to try replicate the results you get out of LR / ACR. All very true. It took me a long time, a lot of experimentation, and reading the manual, but you can get the same AND better results with DxO if you put in the time. How much better depends on your needs, but for my work, it's worth it. It's not very workflow friendly or easy to learn the advanced features, though.

Also, etg9, I'm not in love with LR, either and have tried every version of it, but still don't like it. ACR is PhotoShop does what I need when I need it...

Finally, PRIME is mind blowingly good on my old Panasonic LX-5, which is noisy from ISO 400 and up. I used it on some concert photos and stuff like that at ISO 400, 800, and 1600 and the results were unbelievable. Will post some samples of this and my earlier points sometime...


----------



## lol (Oct 27, 2013)

I really need to download and try this myself some time. I've been a paid user since version 6 so have seen it improve, although there's still plenty of room for more.

What caught my attention is a statement to the effect they have also improved clipped highlight handling. In the past, comparisons of raw converters found this to be a weak spot as they didn't do synthesis using unclipped channels. So if they now also do this, that's another plus even if it is a catchup feature.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 27, 2013)

Fyi: The new PRIME noise reduction only works on *original* cr2 raw files, not on linear files (tiff) or if they were converted to raw dng via acr - so the backwards compatibility with Adobe is very limited if you didn't chose to keep the cr2 format :-\ ...

Let me know if anyone finds a workaround for this, it seems a bit strange to me since the dng afaik contains the same raw mosaic data as the cr2 file, just in a different container...


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 27, 2013)

I'm far from an expert on the topic so was looking for some insight.

So this post prompted me to download and use the trial of DxO. I currently use LR5 and CS6 for basically everything. After processing the same CR2 files in both DxO and LR5 for noise reduction, I found that I was unable to see any advantage to the PRIME noise reduction processing. PRIME was set to value 40. Also, on a few of the high ISO images I tried to process that had a lot of edges in the shot, PRIME processing at 40 caused the lines/edges to look very jagged.

Any info on whether I'm just doing it all wrong would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2013)

I did a image taken in almost total darkness with my 5D MK III at ISO 51200. I was actually checking its ability to autofocus in low light, so I had my 50mm f/1.4 on it.

I processed the images in DXO, using the prime NR but no other adjustments, in DPP with adjustments to NR & sharpening, and in Lightroom with adjustments to NR and Sharpening and clarity.

I tried to get the test as readable as possible while maintaining and detail in the red shield on the left.
I went in and checked just now, its red and not magenta or purple. There is gold inside a black scroll on the shield, the gold is totally lost at this high ISO.

DXO did the best at retaining any detail in the shield and was the only software to show it the correct color. DXO also showed the image the darkest, so it looks dull.

Finally, I cropped the image to just the shield and some text so it could be viewed at about 1:1.

I was surprised and pleased that DXO was able to render the color correctly, and keep lots of detail, better than my efforts with LR and DPP.

I'm pretty well convinced.

I am wondering why it took DXO well over a minute to save the file as a full sized jpeg when LR does it in 10 sec or less.

I imported the rendered jpg images from DPP and DXO Pro 9 into Lightroom merely to upload them to smugmug. I did not change anything, and they look the same to me.

1. DPP






DXO





Lightroom


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 27, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I processed the images in DXO, using the prime NR but no other adjustments, in DPP with adjustments to NR & sharpening, and in Lightroom with adjustments to NR and Sharpening and clarity.



Thanks for the test - from what I see, I'd call DxO's PRIME rather "reconstruction" than "noise reduction", just as OneOne "perfect resize" uses special (fractal) algorithms to add data that wasn't in the original shot. Still, as long as it works it's a great step forward and I hope Adobe will follow suit in their ACR workflow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

Thanks, Mt. Spokane. I ran comparison tests with earlier versions of v9, and saw results consistent with yours (the most recent improvements seem to have been in processing time...if you think PRIME takes a while _now_...).

This past Thursday, I took my daughters to a Halloween event. One part was storytelling by a 'witch' in a room lit only by a fireplace and a few jack-o-lanterns on the mantle, and I'm interested to see how PRIME does with those shots, which ranged from ISO 25600 to H1 (102400). I don't have high hopes, mostly because at f/2.8 the shutter speeds were 1/10 - 1/15 s. As a side note, the center point of the 1D X did a good job of locking focus in that very dim light.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> This past Thursday, I took my daughters to a Halloween event. One part was storytelling by a 'witch' in a room lit only by a fireplace and a few jack-o-lanterns on the mantle, and I'm interested to see how PRIME does with those shots, which ranged from ISO 25600 to H1 (102400). I don't have high hopes, mostly because at f/2.8 the shutter speeds were 1/10 - 1/15 s. As a side note, the center point of the 1D X did a good job of locking focus in that very dim light.


Don't you hate it when you realize that the f/2.8 lens(es) you brought are WAY too slow for the event? I think we've all done that one before. I hope you're able to get something out of the shots in post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Don't you hate it when you realize that the f/2.8 lens(es) you brought are WAY too slow for the event? I think we've all done that one before. I hope you're able to get something out of the shots in post.



Oh, I knew that going in - I have f/1.4 and f/1.2 primes I could have brought, and a 600EX-RT on the camera that I chose not to use, despite several iPhone, P&S, and Rebel-on-full-auto lights/strobes disturbing the ambiance. I hadn't planned on any keepers from that activity (one of several, others are better lit, it's an annual event we attend). FWIW, I brought the 35/1.4L last year, and didn't get any keepers from the fireside stories, either. I grabbed a few shots this time on a lark, just to see how PRIME would handle them (I think it's the first time I've taken any non-test shots above ISO 25,600).


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you hate it when you realize that the f/2.8 lens(es) you brought are WAY too slow for the event? I think we've all done that one before. I hope you're able to get something out of the shots in post.
> ...



Neuro, I'd be very keen to see some of your shots from your daughter's Halloween event (including 'before and after post processing' comparos, both to see the detail of the IDX at high ISO's, and what DxO v9 can do with them).

I've been using DxO since v5, and love what it can do, particularly with its useful batch post-processing improvement capabilities. So when the DxO Optics Pro 9 came up in my email telling about PRIME, I became interested.... and there are still some weeks the upgrade offer is valid till. 8)

Will keep an eye out... 

Paul


----------



## drjlo (Oct 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> FWIW, I brought the 35/1.4L last year, and didn't get any keepers from the fireside stories, either.



How come? Shutter speeds still too long or wrong focal length?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2013)

drjlo said:


> How come? Shutter speeds still too long or wrong focal length?



Shutter speeds still too slow (but I didn't go above ISO 25600). IIRC, the fire was mostly embers last year.


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 30, 2013)

I tried the latest version of this today and I think I may actually buy it. Not sure why but I just do not light room for anything but importing my photos and putting them into the correct directories, but I think I may actually like this one and the interface now as well.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 31, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> I tried the latest version of this today and I think I may actually buy it. Not sure why but I just do not light room for anything but importing my photos and putting them into the correct directories, but I think I may actually like this one and the interface now as well.


I picked up the Elite trial... I'll see how I like it, so far the little I played around with it, it seems pretty seamless, solid. 

I wish I didn't need the Elite version, it's likely I'll end up with it too! I have some images that were way to noisy that I've held on to for several years, hoping for a day that technology would save them! I'll find out soon enough!


----------



## Pi (Oct 31, 2013)

I tested the new "PRIME" NR on a ISO 6400 image from my 5d2. I do not get anything that I cannot do with LR, for a few seconds. The trick in LR is to keep the chroma NR low, and apply tons of lumina NR. The overall look of the LR image - color, etc., is still better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2013)

Anybody got Topaz DeNoise that they can compare DxO to?

I have never liked LR's noise reduction for troublesome images, works great for standard low iso well exposed stuff but more than that and Topaz comes out.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> I tested the new "PRIME" NR on a ISO 6400 image from my 5d2. I do not get anything that I cannot do with LR, for a few seconds. The trick in LR is to keep the chroma NR low, and apply tons of lumina NR. The overall look of the LR image - color, etc., is still better.


I tested the same image in both LR5 and Optics 9 Elite. Side by side, I liked the Optics 9 slightly better, the transitioned image seemed just a bit smoother, butteryer... (have fun with that one all you lingual aficionados). The LR5 image still looked a little on the posturized side, not quite has smooth, not quite satisfying for me... 

That being said, I think none of my critics, fans or clients would see any difference, somehow they just don't notice the noise as much as I do... I'm not always pleased with the way my 5d3 handles noise, though I'm thrilled with the ISO levels that I can use and dare to go too. 

I just took some really severely noisy images last week and I'm looking forward to seeing if DxO can do anything more than LR can with them. With LR, there are no keepers. It'll be interesting.

One thing I'm interested in trying is to hit an image lightly with LR NR and then move it into Optics 9 to see if I can get a better finish on the NR in an image that way...

The only thing I don't like so far is that DxO automatically gives it's own interpretation of the newly uploaded image immediately. I'd rather it just accept the image the way I've already processed it and just let me work with NR only, not all the other options. I'm sure it can be set up not to auto process the photos, I just haven't had a chance to dig further into it yet... 

So far, I like it. Not sure I like $199 worth...


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> The only thing I don't like so far is that DxO automatically gives it's own interpretation of the newly uploaded image immediately. I'd rather it just accept the image the way I've already processed it and just let me work with NR only, not all the other options. I'm sure it can be set up not to auto process the photos, I just haven't had a chance to dig further into it yet...
> 
> So far, I like it. Not sure I like $199 worth...


Choose the "No correction" preset - the "Preset" button is at the top right of the screen. Also, the price isn't cheap, but they've had me hooked since their early versions, so the upgrades aren't bad - this one was $60 or $70 - but I'm scared to think about how much I've spent.

Also, some random DxO tips:

Set white balance first
Use the Curves tool to set black & white points
If you expose to the right (ETTR), best results are generally obtained by using Highlight Priority Medium or Strong followed by a boost to the Shadow slider (or Curves)
Use the HSL sliders to correct color casts - vs. auto white balance and other tools in ACR
Use the dust eraser like you would use the healing tool in PS
If you have more than 2 cores/processors, change the Preferences to match - it sets it to 2 by default
Shutdown any other Adobe products (especially PS and Premiere) while using it to make sure it has plenty of GPU and system RAM
The DxO Perspective correction is amazing but make sure you leave plenty or room around the building/object as the correction will shrink the image considerably
The best way to use the horizon and perspective correction is to draw the initial line / parallel lines / rectangle at "Zoom to Fit" and then zoom in to 50-100% to adjust it perfectly. Eyeballing at "Zoom to Fit" isn't very accurate.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I don't like so far is that DxO automatically gives it's own interpretation of the newly uploaded image immediately. I'd rather it just accept the image the way I've already processed it and just let me work with NR only, not all the other options. I'm sure it can be set up not to auto process the photos, I just haven't had a chance to dig further into it yet...
> ...


Thanks for the great tips Mack! I appreciate your help. I do have DxO ViewPoint and I like it a lot. The new LR5 corrections aren't bad but I think ViewPoint is a bit better. I wish they would give me the upgrade fee from the ViewPoint purchase toward the Optics Pro 9 Elite vers... That won't happen though! ha ha! 

Anyway, I really appreciate you telling me those items above, it will definitely speed up my learning curve and shorten my workflow, thank you! 

I'll likely end up with it after the trial expires. As I mentioned, clients don't seem to pick up on the noise at all but it makes a big difference to me and I like the final results so far with the couple of images I processed... Just kind of stinks that the one version doesn't work for crop and FF... Seems like they could make it so it did! But they are a profit center, not a charity and I get that! 

All the best!


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> The DxO Perspective correction is amazing but make sure you leave plenty or room around the building/object as the correction will shrink the image considerably



Is there any difference between DxO Optics and Viewpoint? I tried Viewpoint (79$) and this is indeed amazing, beats Adobe's new "Upright" hands down, of course an as usual and unfortunate at the loss of the ACR raw workflow.


----------



## Krob78 (Oct 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The DxO Perspective correction is amazing but make sure you leave plenty or room around the building/object as the correction will shrink the image considerably
> ...


Yes, I have ViewPoint too. Optics can process the photo start to finish, ViewPoint does not. Not from my viewpoint anyway! lol...

I don't find the wait time for the NR processing to be that much of an issue. It's quicker than I expected, after reading comments from others...


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Just kind of stinks that the one version doesn't work for crop and FF... Seems like they could make it so it did! But they are a profit center, not a charity and I get that!
> 
> All the best!


They explain it as the difference between pro (FF) and amateur (crop) users, but I agree it's painful. If you go back to the start, though, they used to charge for the software and EACH module was another was another $99 with a discount for multiple modules! You can read about it here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/optics-pro.shtml


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 31, 2013)

Just wanted to post a edit I did in the new dxo. Just imported this and did the standard preset, then the new noise reduction and outputted to jpg. Downsampled to 50% size.
This was at iso 10k, which in this lighting...looks bad.


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 31, 2013)

Here is another one processed with new DXO and the other one ACR. Both resampled to 50%.
Again just std preset in DXO and auto with ACR - some exposure that it wanted to auto.
Not scientific I know but better then nothing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Is there any difference between DxO Optics and Viewpoint? I tried Viewpoint (79$) and this is indeed amazing, beats Adobe's new "Upright" hands down, of course an as usual and unfortunate at the loss of the ACR raw workflow.



Optics Pro is a full RAW converter, Viewpoint is only for correction of perspective-related distortions. The corrections in Viewpoint are available in Optics Pro, but the implementation is different (easier and in some ways more powerful) in Viewpoint. Apparently, the coding engines are different enough that they can't (won't) incorporate Viewpoint-like tools (particularly the Loupe) in Optics Pro v9, but perhaps v10 - it was decsribed as a 'major undertaking'.



Krob78 said:


> Just kind of stinks that the one version doesn't work for crop and FF... Seems like they could make it so it did! But they are a profit center, not a charity and I get that!



The Elite version does work for FF, APS-H and APS-C bodies, the Standard works only for APS-C. Other than the sensor-specific correction modules, they are exactly the same.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> Here is another one processed with new DXO and the other one ACR. Both resampled to 50%.
> Again just std preset in DXO and auto with ACR - some exposure that it wanted to auto.
> Not scientific I know but better then nothing.


I think it would be interesting to see 100% crops of the area around the (very tired and cute) baby's ear. The skin texture, hair (midtone and shadow) detail, & blanket texture and detail would be a good comparison.


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 31, 2013)

Ok i'll try again.
Here is an original raw, one dxo converted with regular preset and the new noise reduction, and one with ACR auto - some exposure compensation with neat image noise reduction.
Again not perfect I know. Sorry for that.

Maybe I should of did them with no correction only neatimage vs new dxo noise reducer.
Let me know. lol

Scott


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> Ok i'll try again.
> Here is an original raw, one dxo converted with regular preset and the new noise reduction, and one with ACR auto - some exposure compensation with neat image noise reduction.
> Again not perfect I know. Sorry for that.
> 
> ...


Interesting comparison - thanks. I'll see if I can post some tonight, too.


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 31, 2013)

NP. Im not really sure what to make of any of them. Not sure which NR I like better. I will say that for some reason I do like the application DXO v 9. Never really liked lightroom for whatever but I am enjoying the trial, even if it does take longer to do things.


----------



## lol (Oct 31, 2013)

Finally got round to installing it. Did a very quick look so far, comparing:
1: Output image with normal NR
2: Output image with Prime
3: #1 ran through Neat image at 50% luminance reduction

1 is obviously noisier, with 2 and 3 looking very similar, so I was thinking, is Prime really worth 2m23s processing time compared to 9s with normal process? As I looked further, there really wasn't anything of note in detail retention or excessive smoothing. However there was a slight benefit to Prime, in that I saw less local bursts of colour noise. These are rather large scale and I guess missed by normal NR, but Prime is able to deal with it. Also colour retention in darker areas seemed better with Prime, were other NR would start killing real colour as if it were noise. If I have time later I could do some crops to demonstrate the above.

Since I'm already a DxO user I'll upgrade to keep things going. But I wouldn't rate this as a game changer if you already use something else. Maybe I'll change my mind after more testing, but I doubt it.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

lol said:


> Finally got round to installing it. Did a very quick look so far, comparing:
> 1: Output image with normal NR
> 2: Output image with Prime
> 3: #1 ran through Neat image at 50% luminance reduction
> ...


I'm not surprised by your results with NeatImage. I worked with Vladimir from ABSoft (one of the original NeatImage coders) back when they first started to help them write their manuals in English. Those guys are all a bunch of math and programming geniuses and they truly know how to get blood out of a turnip when it comes to using computer resources. I'm happy, but not shocked, to see that their software still holds up so well.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any difference between DxO Optics and Viewpoint? I tried Viewpoint (79$) and this is indeed amazing, beats Adobe's new "Upright" hands down, of course an as usual and unfortunate at the loss of the ACR raw workflow.
> ...





> The Elite version does work for FF, APS-H and APS-C bodies, the Standard works only for APS-C. Other than the sensor-specific correction modules, they are exactly the same.



Well, you're certainly right about that! One version does handle all! I like it quite a bit so far. Not having a crop camera anymore, I'll be opting for the Elite version. Thanks for the original post mentioning it!


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

It was Christmas photo time at my house last night so still no time to play with v9 for the CR forum, but I can report 2 things:

1. The new Portrait preset is pretty amazing in terms of getting you very close to ideal settings in one click
2. *DON'T* try PRIME on ISO 100 photos! I thought DxO was going to have a heart attack as it spent 3:34 processing one photo! Most of my PRIME shots have processed in less than 30s, but my "experiment" at ISO 100 was a hilarious failure. Yes, I had to try...


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> It was Christmas photo time at my house last night so still no time to play with v9 for the CR forum, but I can report 2 things:
> 
> 1. The new Portrait preset is pretty amazing in terms of getting you very close to ideal settings in one click
> 2. *DON'T* try PRIME on ISO 100 photos! I thought DxO was going to have a heart attack as it spent 3:34 processing one photo! Most of my PRIME shots have processed in less than 30s, but my "experiment" at ISO 100 was a hilarious failure. Yes, I had to try...


I think the presets are pretty amazing too! Almost wonder if they're too good! Don't want to take all the fun out of processing! lol!

I was going to try an ISO 100 image as well but hadn't had an opportunity yet, perhaps I'll pass! ha ha!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> The new Portrait preset is pretty amazing in terms of getting you very close to ideal settings in one click



But is the ideal look still the ideal look if everybody who can click once is able to get it  ?


----------



## candc (Nov 1, 2013)

Also, some random DxO tips:

If you have more than 2 cores/processors, change the Preferences to match - it sets it to 2 by default
[/quote]

I don't see anything in the preferences for setting the number of cores, just the cache size and GPU acceleration? I like optics pro but would like it to work faster. That is something I like about DPP, it just pops open and is good for quick sorting and deleting.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 1, 2013)

Anyone using this new version after applying preset/doing your thing....do you notice color fringing around the edges at all?
By edges I mean like around a person with a bright sky. It seems to be messing up for me, on more then one photo.
I read on their forum that it is clipping shadows by default...could that be what im seeing?


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The new Portrait preset is pretty amazing in terms of getting you very close to ideal settings in one click
> ...


Good point, and probably not in terms of style, but in terms of portrait basics like desaturating reds, softening skin imperfections while sharpening eyelashes and such that you probably want to with any portrait, it works great. It's a great start and from there, you can tweak to your heart's content to make it your own 



candc said:


> Also, some random DxO tips:
> 
> If you have more than 2 cores/processors, change the Preferences to match - it sets it to 2 by default





I don't see anything in the preferences for setting the number of cores, just the cache size and GPU acceleration? I like optics pro but would like it to work faster. That is something I like about DPP, it just pops open and is good for quick sorting and deleting.
[/quote]

It's under Preferences>Advanced and there should be a slider to adjust the number of cores/processors, but DxO cautions:
"DxO Optics Pro uses all of your computer’s core processors to process one or several images. However, if you increase the number of images you want to process, make sure that you have enough RAM available so that you can take full advantage of your processors, rather than risking being slowed down because of the rate of data exchange between the RAM and the hard drive."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> It's under Preferences>Advanced and there should be a slider to adjust the number of cores/processors...



Not on the Mac OS X version.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 1, 2013)

That option is nowhere to be found on my win version either.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> That option is nowhere to be found on my win version either.


I just checked mine last night (in Windows) - that's odd to hear. What kind of CPU are you running?


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 1, 2013)

Third Gen i7 in my photoshop machine.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> Third Gen i7 in my photoshop machine.


Okay, that's crazy, it should be showing up. I'll double-check my screen later to make sure I wasn't imagining things.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 1, 2013)

Only option I saw was to switch how many images can get rendered at one, and the cache setting.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 1, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> Only option I saw was to switch how many images can get rendered at one, and the cache setting.


Ok, that's it, the number of images at once used to be labeled as the number of cores/threads used and I'm sure it's the same function. It's still set to 2 by default I think.


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

they must have changed what that setting does because i tried it with 4,2 and 5 in order and exported the same image. it didn't make any difference, just a bit slower each time from everything heating up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2013)

candc said:


> they must have changed what that setting does because i tried it with 4,2 and 5 in order and exported the same image. it didn't make any difference, just a bit slower each time from everything heating up.



Each core will process one image at a time, so using >1 core for 1 image offers no benefit. Try it again with >4 images.


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

ok, so i guess that means it will do better processing multiple images if you set the value higher but there will not be any improvement on single image processing time. i tried raising the max cache value and that didn't seem to matter either?

i have just done some experimenting so far but it sounds like that prime actually performs faster with high iso images and slows down with lower iso ones?


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 2, 2013)

candc said:


> ok, so i guess that means it will do better processing multiple images if you set the value higher but there will not be any improvement on single image processing time. i tried raising the max cache value and that didn't seem to matter either?
> 
> i have just done some experimenting so far but it sounds like that prime actually performs faster with high iso images and slows down with lower iso ones?


The performance stuff only applies to processing more images at once, and PRIME slows every image down, no matter the ISO, but there is so much data and so little noise for it to work with at ISO 100, it really kills it.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 2, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > ok, so i guess that means it will do better processing multiple images if you set the value higher but there will not be any improvement on single image processing time. i tried raising the max cache value and that didn't seem to matter either?
> ...



I must be doing something wrong, I haven't had an image take over 45-60 seconds yet... hmm... ???


----------



## candc (Nov 2, 2013)

i am running it on an a 64bit asus i7 q740 laptop with 6gb ram and ati radeon hd 5870, its a couple years old but photoshop and everything else runs pretty quick on it. maybe its the 64bit version? sometimes that can be slower than the 32bit version? i really like optics pro and will continue using it but i would like to speed it up.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 5, 2013)

Okay, so I'm going to upload 5 images... 1 is the original saved as a jpeg, no editing. 2nd will be a crop of the noise factor after hitting "auto tone" in the "basic" section of LR5. 3rd will be my LR5 edit, 4th will be the DXO auto edit and lastly I took my LR5 edit and sent it through DXO as a tiff file and let it do what it would to the already edited image.

I don't know if this is helpful or not or anyone is interested for sure, but here it is, this is an image I thought about tossing after seeing the severely underexposed original... 

All the best!


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 5, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Okay, so I'm going to upload 5 images... 1 is the original saved as a jpeg, no editing. 2nd will be a crop of the noise factor after hitting "auto tone" in the "basic" section of LR5. 3rd will be my LR5 edit, 4th will be the DXO auto edit and lastly I took my LR5 edit and sent it through DXO as a tiff file and let it do what it would to the already edited image.
> 
> I don't know if this is helpful or not or anyone is interested for sure, but here it is, this is an image I thought about tossing after seeing the severely underexposed original...
> 
> All the best!



I had to run the last two through DPP to resize in order to upload. They are DXO auto edit first, then LR5, DXO auto edit combination 2 lastly... 

Like to hear your thoughts...


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 5, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so I'm going to upload 5 images... 1 is the original saved as a jpeg, no editing. 2nd will be a crop of the noise factor after hitting "auto tone" in the "basic" section of LR5. 3rd will be my LR5 edit, 4th will be the DXO auto edit and lastly I took my LR5 edit and sent it through DXO as a tiff file and let it do what it would to the already edited image.
> ...



For the record, I prefer the last image, the Lr5 & DXO combo image... I like the way it handled the background better... Colors of the Heron aren't quite as flat...


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

I agree. I like the dual edited version. The top one seems too "hard".


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 5, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> I agree. I like the dual edited version. The top one seems too "hard".



Agreed. Just in case, the first edit in DXO took 11mins 15s to process out to hard drive. The dual processed image took 38 seconds to process...

I think DXO handles the Chrominance better than LR5 too...


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

I think with time, you'll figure out how to get the photo 95-100% the way you want it in DxO, at least in terms of global edits. Like I've said before, DxO is much harder to get used to in terms of how the controls work, mainly because adjusting one control often results in (auto) changes from the others. Take some time to read the manual (which isn't half bad and has some good tips) and practice. After reading the manual, my method was to take one of my favorite and most challenging shots I had processed in Adobe and try to duplicate and then improve it in DxO. It's not as easy as it sounds, but after about three rounds of that one one photo and few others, I really had the hang of DxO and have consistently been able to get the results I want.

I still use PS for retouching, local edits (usually with Nik), composites, and other complex edits, but DxO gets me most of the way there and with most photos, it's all I use.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

I do like the new DXO I just wish it was a bit snappier. Hopefully they will do some optimization patches here soon and get it running a little bit better.
I actually am considering building a new photoshop machine with a [email protected] 4.5ghz and a Asus Maximus VI Impact "Baby"build to speed it up some since I did purchase DXO after trying it.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> I do like the new DXO I just wish it was a bit snappier. Hopefully they will do some optimization patches here soon and get it running a little bit better.
> I actually am considering building a new photoshop machine with a [email protected] 4.5ghz and a Asus Maximus VI Impact "Baby"build to speed it up some since I did purchase DXO after trying it.


That should be plenty of horsepower! I build my own PCs (since 2000) and I'm running a old Core i5 3GHz with 32GB RAM, and a Quadro K5000. The CPU is definitely the limiting factor, but the RAM and Quadro work very well, even though DxO doesn't optimize for Quadro as far as I know. With Adobe apps, the Quadro is unbelievable.


----------



## Krob78 (Nov 5, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I think with time, you'll figure out how to get the photo 95-100% the way you want it in DxO, at least in terms of global edits. Like I've said before, DxO is much harder to get used to in terms of how the controls work, mainly because adjusting one control often results in (auto) changes from the others. Take some time to read the manual (which isn't half bad and has some good tips) and practice. After reading the manual, my method was to take one of my favorite and most challenging shots I had processed in Adobe and try to duplicate and then improve it in DxO. It's not as easy as it sounds, but after about three rounds of that one one photo and few others, I really had the hang of DxO and have consistently been able to get the results I want.
> 
> I still use PS for retouching, local edits (usually with Nik), composites, and other complex edits, but DxO gets me most of the way there and with most photos, it's all I use.





> Take some time to read the manual (which isn't half bad and has some good tips) and practice



Best advice of the day!! Thanks!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I think with time, you'll figure out how to get the photo 95-100% the way you want it in DxO, at least in terms of global edits. Like I've said before, DxO is much harder to get used to in terms of how the controls work, mainly because adjusting one control often results in (auto) changes from the others. Take some time to read the manual (which isn't half bad and has some good tips) and practice. After reading the manual, my method was to take one of my favorite and most challenging shots I had processed in Adobe and try to duplicate and then improve it in DxO. It's not as easy as it sounds, but after about three rounds of that one one photo and few others, I really had the hang of DxO and have consistently been able to get the results I want.
> ...



If you need to read the manual, then the software is badly written. The greatest breakthrough of Steve Jobs was to make sure that Apple software was intuitive.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

AlanF said:


> If you need to read the manual, then the software is badly written. The greatest breakthrough of Steve Jobs was to make sure that Apple software was intuitive.


You don't _need _to read the manual for most software (DxO included) but as a former technical writer, I can tell you that you _should _read the manual if you want to get the most out of it. There's a difference between being able to use software, being proficient at it, and being an expert with it. I've never seen anyone become an expert without ever looking at the manual, Apple or otherwise. Not dissing Apple or Steve Jobs, but even Apple stores offer classes on how to use their products.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

I build all my own stuff too. Have a massive OC x79 extreme gaming rig, I just don't want to build another monster case machine for my graphics pc...want the little form factor so it can sit beside my dell u3011.

When exactly was v9 dxo released? Just a week or 2 ago?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > If you need to read the manual, then the software is badly written. The greatest breakthrough of Steve Jobs was to make sure that Apple software was intuitive.
> ...



We have all experienced software and manuals that are fare more difficult to penetrate than others that have been devised from the point of view of of ease for the user.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

What is this software manual that you speak of....   ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> What is this software manual that you speak of....   ;D


Here's the link to download it and trust me, it's written better than most manuals:
http://support.dxo.com/entries/27749247-Dxo-Optics-Pro-9-User-Guide


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

Thanks for the link...I'll have a look at it.
What I really was trying to say though was, who honestly reads manuals anymore...lol ???


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> What I really was trying to say though was, who honestly reads manuals anymore...lol ???


I guess just nerds like me  I don't do it for most software, but I'm always trying to get the most out of my photos and after referencing the manual a couple of times, I realized it was pretty good so I read the whole thing!


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

haha, it does look like a pretty good one. I'll have to have a in depth look at it since I payed for the software...may as well get the most out of it.
I do HATE that they only let u register on one pc...so If I build a new pc....I gotta get a new activation code from them....dumb.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 5, 2013)

I cant edit posts but btw...what preset do you like the most? I read mention that the portrait preset is good but which one do you guys prefer out of the box portrait wise.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 5, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> I cant edit posts but btw...what preset do you like the most? I read mention that the portrait preset is good but which one do you guys prefer out of the box portrait wise.


I have my own preset - it's the Standard one with a few tweaks, with lens softness set at 1.25, contrast at 30, microcontrast at +10, vibrancy at 10, and protect saturated colors turned off. Protect saturated colors is an awesome tool, but I like to adjust it manually.

I usually open an image, set white balance (if needed) and then set the black & white points using the curves too while I watch the highlight/shadow warnings. I do this by dragging the white point straight to the left at the top of the screen and black point straight to the right until there's a touch of clipping. I'll usually tweak the shadows and highlights sliders as well and sometimes I'll use the curves to tweak the photo as well. I often adjust the contrast & vibrancy sliders for each photo as well. I'll correct dust as needed (my 5DII is a nightmare most days), correct horizon and crop as needed, and move to the next photo.

If I expose to the right, which I usually do, and it's a bright image, I'll use the highlight priority - medium or strong settings right after white balance. I'll bump up the shadows slider and that usually gives me great results.

That covers about 90% of my photos, but I'll correct perspective, turn off vignette correction, or use portrait presets and such as needed.


----------



## wsgroves (Nov 6, 2013)

See thats the funny thing, I need to look at the manual as I cant even figure out in there how to do the white balance change you say is the first thing you do.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 6, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> See thats the funny thing, I need to look at the manual as I cant even figure out in there how to do the white balance change you say is the first thing you do.


It's the first slider (p. 28 of the manual)


----------



## AlanF (Nov 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> wsgroves said:
> 
> 
> > What is this software manual that you speak of....   ;D
> ...



Thanks Mac. Downloaded the software and the manual. It is useful!


----------



## cayenne (Nov 12, 2013)

Does the DxO Elite package, come also with plug-ins for PRIME and other functionality withing LR like NIK does, or do you have to use only the stand alone version in your work flow?

I thought I'd read once ont he DXO site that it was a combo of plugin or stand alone, but with subsequent trips to the site I can't find this out again for sure....they don't give a lot of info on that site.



Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Does the DxO Elite package, come also with plug-ins for PRIME and other functionality withing LR like NIK does, or do you have to use only the stand alone version in your work flow?
> 
> I thought I'd read once ont he DXO site that it was a combo of plugin or stand alone, but with subsequent trips to the site I can't find this out again for sure....they don't give a lot of info on that site.



Optics Pro is a RAW converter, not a plugin. You're likely thinking of FilmPack or Viewpoint, which are available as standalone apps and plugins. 

Standard and Elite are both full featured and have exactly the same features, the only difference is you need the Elite version for FF cameras.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


I don't have the fastest pc in the world, but it takes about 5 sec for the prime to do its thing. Its saving a jpeg image to disk that seems to take forever for me. 

When I open a image with it set to 8 cores, all 8 of my cores are used at 90% for a bout 3-5 seconds.. When I select Prime NR, 6 cores are used, and two of them are used near 100%while the other 4 only jump to 25% . Changing the setting seemed to have no impact.

I've been testing it with some worst case D800 high ISO images that run 50+ MB compressed and open to well over 100 MB.

I'm still hanging on to my wallet, but I am impressed. I'll look for a upload to smug add-in.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 12, 2014)

Fyi:* DxO Pro Optics 9.5 *has been released with supposedly tighter integration with Lightroom.

In practice, this just means that DxO accepts that cannot compete against LR's library management and have to integrate with it, but this could be done before. Let me know if there's really anything wortwhile new here.

The big joke is that even with the official LR integration, DxO _still cannot read dng raw files_ but is happy to export linear dng. In practice, this means that the workflow offer is still a big fail for a lot of people who have converted their raw files to dng for one reason or another (there are a couple of good reasons).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> In practice, this just means that DxO accepts that cannot compete against LR's library management...



I don't know that they've ever tried. Personally, I use Aperture for that (for now...).


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't know that they've ever tried.



Well, at least they tried to ignore that there is a thing such as Adobe or Lightroom, and this has changed now.



neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I use Aperture for that (for now...).



Aperture? The program recently abandoned by its manufacturer? Well, we might have you join the LR users group at last then :->


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Well, at least they tried to ignore that there is a thing such as Adobe or Lightroom, and this has changed now.



Not really, they have had FilmPack plugins for LR and CS for years.



Marsu42 said:


> Aperture? The program recently abandoned by its manufacturer? Well, we might have you join the LR users group at last then



Doubtful. I suspect Apple's replacement app (Photos) will meet my needs for library management. Does Lightroom have face detection? I find that to be a handy feature, a few clicks and I can build a slideshow/movie of one of my kids, for example...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 12, 2014)

Hi wsgroves. 
Good news, copied from the manual. Thanks Mackguyver a big help for a noob! 
"NOTE
Your activation code allows you to activate the software on two different computers."

Cheers Graham. 



wsgroves said:


> haha, it does look like a pretty good one. I'll have to have a in depth look at it since I payed for the software...may as well get the most out of it.
> I do HATE that they only let u register on one pc...so If I build a new pc....I gotta get a new activation code from them....dumb.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not really, they have had FilmPack plugins for LR and CS for years.



Ok, thanks for the information, I was thinking of their refusal to import raw dng files (Adobe standard) and the position they take in their forums on this issue - Adobe? What's that? 



neuroanatomist said:


> Does Lightroom have face detection? I find that to be a handy feature, a few clicks and I can build a slideshow/movie of one of my kids, for example...



I'm positive Adobe will keep adding features with their upcoming releases, for example focus peaking (Capture One has it) - LR6 is about to be released, and they won't stop there. I do hope Apple replacement app will be competitive though, any manufacturer having a monopoly is never good from the users' perspective.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

The only major thing I've noticed about the 9.5 release is that PRIME has gotten a little slower. I don't know if they've been able to pull out a bit more quality, but it does seem slower than it was when they first released it. I'm happy to wait for it given the results, of course.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The only major thing I've noticed about the 9.5 release is that PRIME has gotten a little slower. I don't know if they've been able to pull out a bit more quality, but it does seem slower than it was when they first released it. I'm happy to wait for it given the results, of course.



Let me/us know if you discover anything or read about changes in the PRIME output. Or is there already some tutorial available when PRIME makes sense?

I tried it with a DxO trial version back then and discovered that it takes 15min to process a 20mp file on my laptop so I didn't have the time to experiment with it. In hindsight, the output didn't seem to be always that superior to Lightroom/ACR *if* not going for 100% output resolution, but downsizing and sharpening a bit. PRIME is certainly overkill for your average iso3200 shot. It might be better for extremely noisy shots like iso 12800 underexposed - it's just that I don't do these anyway.

For some of my shots, PRIME turned out to be rather mushy, my preference in these cases would be to keep a little "nice" 6D noise in LR as it looks better to me. Probably the same reason mpeg4 asp videos sometimes look better than mpeg4 avc with stronger deblocking.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The only major thing I've noticed about the 9.5 release is that PRIME has gotten a little slower. I don't know if they've been able to pull out a bit more quality, but it does seem slower than it was when they first released it. I'm happy to wait for it given the results, of course.
> ...


I find that PRIME does two things really well - it keeps colors saturated and retains detail. It isn't as slow on newer machines - my shots typically process in around 90-180 seconds on my PC, which is a Intel Core i7 I7-4770K 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor with 64 GB of RAM that I built. That's in comparison to about 10 seconds for an average shot without PRIME.

I take a lot of photos in poor light (see this 100% crop example 9 minutes before sunrise - taken at ISO 4000) so PRIME does wonders for me. There's no way I could get that level of detail from LR and had I been closer, it would have been a perfectly usable shot for me. While ISO 4000 isn't that high, the shot is equivalent to what I was getting with ISO 400-800 with older cameras and plain DxO processing. 

I've also been doing more long exposure work lately and it really helps the noise levels on those, too. Also, in terms of shots turning to mush, you can use the slider to make it a little more grainy, which is what I did with the owl photo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I find that PRIME does two things really well - it keeps colors saturated and retains detail. It isn't as slow on newer machines - my shots typically process in around 90-180 seconds on my PC, which is a Intel Core i7 I7-4770K 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor with 64 GB of RAM that I built.



Agreed. I generally use it for shots at ISO 3200 and higher. 

It will be getting faster soon. On my >3 year old 17" MBP (I really wish Apple would bring the 17" back!), with a 2.53 GHz Core i5 (dual-core) and 8 GB of RAM, the _current_ version of DxO (as in, double-digit, that I use to process images of birds like *N*ightingales, *D*ucks, and *A*nhingas) takes less than 2 minutes per 'typical' image (in the ISO 4000 - 12800 range; higher ISOs take a bit longer).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I find that PRIME does two things really well - it keeps colors saturated and retains detail. It isn't as slow on newer machines - my shots typically process in around 90-180 seconds on my PC, which is a Intel Core i7 I7-4770K 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor with 64 GB of RAM that I built.
> ...




I have the current i7, and prime takes only about 5 seconds to update the display. However, exporting seems to take forever. 


I'm planning on a upgrade this fall if the new processors are significantly faster. I have the i7, 24GB Ram, and a 500 some GB Samsung SSD along with a 3TB Hard Drive. Its not the fastest, but no slouch either.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 15, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


It sounds like your rig is is plenty fine and I'm also hoping for bigger improvements in the next line of CPUs. The current generation only improved around 10%, but it was time for me to upgrade.


----------



## asmundma (Jul 17, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The only major thing I've noticed about the 9.5 release is that PRIME has gotten a little slower. I don't know if they've been able to pull out a bit more quality, but it does seem slower than it was when they first released it. I'm happy to wait for it given the results, of course.
> ...



I believe Lightrooms noise reduction algorithm was updated 1-2 years ago. I stopped using Topaz denoise, as I hardly could see any difference. Tested Dxo now, can hardly see much difference, alltough it might be there. 
Reverting to ligthroom with the pitcure, it puts it in another collection....! Not like other plugins which does it properly in same. 
You really must want to get rid of 5% more niose to go through all this, given that Ligthrom is your core tool.


----------

