Denoise in LR - a step backward

[kers]

The denoise information is stored in the xmp as a very large chuck of unreadable data (binary) with the tag "Table". You don't need to keep the catalogue, although your process is quite unorthodox.
I'm wondering why you don't use ACR instead.

I'm not sure what you mean by "now I can just dump the NR DNG's to the trash after I have developed my photos". The new process does not generate DNG's

thank you for the answer:
is this new enormous chunk called 'Table' as large as the previous DNG file that was rendered with NR on? so say 100MB for one 50MB original Raw file? makes 150 MB total?

PS I work with LR instead of ACR because it is easier to handle say 100 files at a time. And it works a bit differently: faster. I use the cataogue at that point to filter lenses and ASA etc.
After lightroom i go to photoshop to do additional editting and the endpoint is a large layered PSB file.

[fdisilvestro]

I just tested with a few images and the size depends on the content. For example 36MPx NEF, original file about 40MP. I got xmp files from 16MP to 38MP.

What seems to be a better option is to export as DNG. Instead of 40MP + 38MP for NEF + xmp, I get 61MP for the DNG, which includes de denoise information. These DNGs are undemosaiced, so they are considerably smaller than the Linear DNG generated in the previous version.

[kers]

thanks again,

I cannot use the latest and am stuck on Monterey ,
my question is now: can you reverse the NR ( like i could throw away the DNG) or is it final?

The idea is that in a few Years NR will be better and AI has grown up)

Topaz has an interesting development : they say bring your file here to our servers and we do the NR for you:
 much better and faster for we have supercomputers.
an other idea is that you can say this area contains little faces so AI knows that they should not be turned into little monsters as is happening at the moment.

[PeterAit]

thanks again,

I cannot use the latest and am stuck on Monterey ,
my question is now: can you reverse the NR ( like i could throw away the DNG) or is it final?

Just uncheck the denoise box and you are back to the original.

[fdisilvestro]

Just uncheck the denoise box and you are back to the original.

Yes, but it will not delete the denoise data in the catalogue.

[PeterAit]

Yes, but it will not delete the denoise data in the catalogue.

So? Storage is cheap.

[fdisilvestro]

So? Storage is cheap.

Good luck with a LR catalogue in the order of TB

[digitaldog]

Good luck with a LR catalogue in the order of TB

I've got TBs of image data, why should I worry about the catalog and need 'luck"?
You know, I could wipe History and save space. But I want that data too.
A great way to save space would be to convert all my raws to JPEG; I'm not doing that either.
My first HD was 48MB and cost $1000. Today, storage is cheap.

[fdisilvestro]

I stand corrected. Lightroom does not store the denoise data in the catalogue. The catalogue does not increase its size by denoising images.
It creates blob (bynary large object) files for each image in the folder <catalogue name>.lrcat-data

The name of the blob files does not relate directly with the images

When you delete history steps, these blob files don't get deleted.

If you delete or lose the blob files, Lightrooms issues a warning and you can recreate them.

[kers]

So, you store an original Raw file with a huge XMP file that contains the NR-part called "Table". The catalogue remains the same.

That 'Table Part" part: will it be a pure waste of space when a future better NR arrives? ( next year probably)
Do we get an added 'table 2" or will it be updated?
Anyway for the way i work it is a pure waste of space anyway for I only want the develop data to be saved separate from the original raw file.

Maybe with a program like BBedit you can batch trash the 'Table part" but it is more work.
Now I just say  "find .DNG"  and throw them in the Trash

[digitaldog]

That 'Table Part" part: will it be a pure waste of space when a future better NR arrives? ( next year probably)

Good thing you added that question mark.
Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don't know.

[kers]

Good thing you added that question mark.
Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don't know.

Those who are cynical ... write cynical

[digitaldog]

Those who are cynical ... write cynical

In the absence of substantiating evidence, pundits resort to absurdity.

That 'Table Part" part: will it be a pure waste of space when a future better NR arrives? ( next year probably)

[Paul2660]

After using this implementation now for a while I prefer it. Easy to uncheck the box if you don’t want it and you can now copy Denoise setting to other images. So for focus bracketing and exposure bracketing it a plus.

Paul

[pflower]

I've got TBs of image data, why should I worry about the catalog and need 'luck"?
You know, I could wipe History and save space. But I want that data too.
A great way to save space would be to convert all my raws to JPEG; I'm not doing that either.
My first HD was 48MB and cost $1000. Today, storage is cheap.

Ah, I must be a bit older than you.  My first HD was a 10MB disk in days when I used floppy disks on an early IBM PC.  Photoshop and the concept of serious digital photography was a pipe dream and all of my work then was on MS Word or Wordstar and documents were measured in a few KBs (anyone remember those?).  It probably cost me about the same as your disk and I remember thinking that 10MB should last me a lifetime.  Now a single tiff from a Hasselblad X2d comes in at 600MB.  I store most recent work on ssds and backup and archive on HDs.  I just bought 2 8 TB Seagate drives for less than £120 each.  How times have changed.

[digitaldog]

You must be older; my first HD was 44MB and cost $988.00. But I had to share that space with my wife.

[dgberg]

Respectfully to anyone that disagrees with me. Why is $9.95 a month such a road block for Lightroom and Photoshop combined?
When the average skilled photographer has between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of equipment.
I may be the odd bird but that pittance is the best investment you could ever imagine.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Ah, I must be a bit older than you.  My first HD was a 10MB disk in days when I used floppy disks on an early IBM PC.

Luxury (said in a Yorkshire accent: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE). Mine held 5MB, connected to a Mac Plus. Huge thing it was, but so much better than endlessly swapping floppy disks.

Ah, nostalgia. Not what it used to be.

Jeremy

[PeterAit]

Respectfully to anyone that disagrees with me. Why is $9.95 a month such a road block for Lightroom and Photoshop combined?
When the average skilled photographer has between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of equipment.
I may be the odd bird but that pittance is the best investment you could ever imagine.

I agree 100%. It is the best deal in photography, IMO.

I recall back when Adobe was first changing to subscriptions, there were some real doom-and-gloomers here on LULA predicting all sorts of drastic price hikes and other nastiness.

[degrub]

Luxury (said in a Yorkshire accent: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE). Mine held 5MB, connected to a Mac Plus. Huge thing it was, but so much better than endlessly swapping floppy disks.

Ah, nostalgia. Not what it used to be.

Jeremy

ON
My old RK04 drive was the best ! Fast and removable hard platter .
  OFF

Cheers !