DeNoise 3.7.0

I don’t like denoising at the beginning of the process. first, one loses some details in the beginning. second, when you shoot in raw, you know that each camera has its own raw profile. Converting to DNG format will lose color data and profile. Dng is lossless, but it still loses the camera-specific profile. why almost every brand has its own raw file (cr2, cr3, neff, arw) because it contains this raw data that dng can never have. I don’t like the dng format. It seems like an unnecessary format to me

As I said, check out the AM video. He explains what should be edited before denoising. However, each to his own.

Any news about updated version of DeNoise??? :smiling_face_with_tear:

Your guess is as good as anyone’s! They are supposedly concentrating on the development of Photo AI for the time being. As a beta tester, you will be advised if DeNoise gets another beta.

1 Like

I looked at the video and the only thing I do differently is that I edit it directly in camera raw via adobe bridge.
This is because the library and collection system in adobe lightroom is really terrible. My procedure is exactly like this. I’ll make some basic edits and then export them. If it’s important, then in 16bit, tiff, adobe rgb. and then I’ll send that to DeNoise. if the project is unimportant, I export to jpg, adobe rgb and then upload it to DeNoise. Unfortunately, the result is still the same. artifacts appear randomly in photos.

I found a similar topic here on the forum and I’ll let you know if it helped

I’ve searched this forum and this thread and I’m not the only one with this problem. I’ll see if reducing memory to minimum will work. the problems other users have had are quite similar.

This thing happens on about 5-10% of my photos when I process them with severe or low light. I have thousands of photos with these weird squares and every time I batch process, I need to carefully look though every photo to see whether it is affected.

Clear AI on the other hand produces weird green dots in overexposed areas (when I use it to denoise jpegs). About 10-20% photos with such highlights have them.

My workflow is A5100 or A7iii → Capture One → jpeg 97% → Denoise

Try using TIFF rather than JPEG to see if it is an issue with the export process.

Enviroment: Sony A9/A1, MacBook Pro M1 w/ 16GB, Topaz Denoise 3.70

I’ve come across so many annoying bugs, that using Topaz Denoise in productivity environment is really cumbersome.
I also got those distracting random pixelated boxes, @rinooow showed us. They appear so randomly that it gave me many extra working hours.
Then the denoise quality is always try and error. Most of the time only Low light does address low amplitude color noise and gets the most natural sharpness (on TIFFs).
But then, sometime, RAW algo does the best job (on Sony RAWs). But when using RAW denoise, my DNGs suffer:

  • camera brand and model gone (lens corrections only manual)
  • light levels quite different
  • color balance different (okay, that one seems obvious)
  • loss of highlight details
  • difficult balance of denoising and sharpening - look of sharpening not very nice
  • bad debayering and bad sharpening with low ISO RAWs.
    And I have to disagree that cleaning the image before editing it is the way to go (except for pictures where the RAW algo works): I always get better results in first pushing shadows and highlights with LR and then denoise the exported TIF.

I really wish I just could throw my RAWs at Topaz Denoise and have them batch processed. Maybe with ISO adaptive parameters.

When I use the RAW processing of my original CR3s on DeNoise AI and safe it back as DNG/RAW I can’t select the original camera profiles as per my original RAW.
It shows me only the profiles “Color” and Monochrome". All other camera profiles are missing.
In the introduction video I got the impression after brining it back to Lightroom I can also select every camera profile as per my original RAWs after Denoise processing.
Any ideas?

Camera profiles are never saved when you create a DNG from your original RAW file. Anthony Morganti explains this in a recent YouTube video on DNAI (check it out) and offers a suggested workflow.

Regarding the pixelated boxes, you should report this to Support, with examples. Of course, they will only be able to look into it if they can replicate the issue. I am hopeful a new version of DNAI is on its way, so best to report your issues ASAP.
BTW, I am seeing the camera info correctly myself:

I only do very basic edits prior to using DNAI as per the Anthony Morganti advice I have already cited.

Thanks for your reply.
Can you please send me a link to the video you just mentioned?
In the tutorial video I’ve seen after opening the DNG in LRC they could select the right Camera Color profile again.
That’s what I can’t.

Let me see if the link will post (on some forums YT links don’t!)

Thanks for the video. Already watched that.
However, I’m referring to the RAW model workflow as described in their TopazLabs tutorial:

According to that video on Min 6:30 after syncing the folder with the DNG you should have all options and camera matching profiles as per the original CR3/RAW.
That’s not the case for me.
I can only select between Color and Monochrome profile.

I will check that put myself later when I have the time, however I don’t use LR. Morganti has promised a RAW workflow video too

Sorry I can’t help with that LR workflow as I can’t drag and drop images from On1 PR to the app, as you can with LR.
Could it be that the video is about an earlier version of DNAI?
You need to take this up with Support I guess. Maybe send them a video of what you are doing.

DxO PL 6 can process RAW and exports DNGs with profiles matching camera as normally in PS/LR. Pity Topaz cannot do that.

I have the same issue. I have complained to Topaz over a year ago and here is their response:

"Depending on the file size of the metadata file passed through our program, it may strip some of that data when the DNG is created. I suspect that’s what’s happening here. We are aware of this behavior and allow it to occur at the moment, because the alternative behavior would be inability to create the file at all. Basically, it allows the file to be written with metadata removed.

The root of this behavior is in a third-party software we incorporate and our development team is aware of it and seeking a permanent solution. Unfortunately, I don’t have one immediately. The inability to use those profiles in Lightroom is a direct result of that data not being transferable to the new file without other conflicts.

Again, we are aware that it occurs for some files, and we’re seeking a permanent resolution. It’s something we are eager to resolve."