On 21/05/17 13:25, Moose wrote:
With four primary models, "Very Noisy" and "Very Blurry" submodes and
3-4 settings within them, the options are sort of endless. I never use
the "Auto" setting.
I never use "Auto" mode either.
I'm not sure I've ever found an image where Sharpen doesn't made at
least a small improvement in one mode/setting or other. In other cases,
the results have been magic.
There are improvement but there are also artifacts, especially for the
image containing texts, sometimes they are distorted.
On 5/15/2021 7:00 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
I tried DeNoise AI two years ago, wasn't very happy with the result
since it removed some fine details together with the noise (with
digital image), don't know if the updated version will do better.
You are WAY behind. Denoise AI has changed and improved a great deal
since then. The interface is now like Sharpen, with four windows, which
makes choosing mode/settings MUCH easier, and a new Low Light Mode. It
also has the faster engine.
I think this will show that your application of Raw Therapee is far
behind Topaz.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/TopazvsRawTherapee/TopazNR.htm>
Great! Your samples are better than the results shown on Topaz web and
it seems I don't need Denoise AI, Sharpen AI just look as good if not
better :-)
For the RawTherapee sample, it just shown how the noise removal works. I
think it do well in achieve the goal of NR. It does not sharpen the
image like Topaz did (actually the sharpness looks a little harsh to me).
BTW, shift the dark level of the RawTherapee sample a little will make
it look more "solid" although it does not improve the sharpness.
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/Topaz-Labs-Amsterdam-OriginalT-1.jpg
C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
