DXO ProOptics 9 "PRIME" NR program vs Nik DFine vs other

[NancyP]

Does anyone have a feel for how DXO v9 "PRIME" vs other specialized NR programs such as Nik Dfine?
Also, I am running a 2-core 2.8 GHz 8 G RAM 64-bit-processing mid-2010 MacBookPro, still on OS 10.6.8. This DXO PRIME seems like a computationally intense program. DXO v9 users, what is your experience with the program on what machine?

[robgo2]

I have put the new Prime NR engine through a torture test with some images from a Pentax K-5II shot at ISO 12,800.  There is no doubt that Prime excels at removing noise and preserving detail.  In this regard, it outperforms other programs that I have tested, including Noise Ninja 4 (part of Photo Ninja) and Topaz DeNoise 5.  However, Prime has a tendency to produce blotchiness in out of focus areas.  In some cases, it is barely noticeable at normal viewing sizes, but in others it is a problem.  In contrast, NN4 produces a fine, uniform grain pattern that is very film-like and unobtrusive.

Perhaps the biggest knock on Prime is how slow it is in operation and in rendering to output.  You had better have a very fast computer or be prepared to spend a great deal of time using this NR feature.  In general, DxO 9 is slow and unresponsive on older machines, and the UI is cumbersome, but it does deliver good results--better than ACR/LR but worse than Photo Ninja, IMO.

Rob

[Isaac]

DXO PRIME seems like a computationally intense program

fwiw On an older machine, limited by 32 bit OS to ~3GB...

Output processing 3x16 MB RAWs into - 3x984 KB jpegs, 3x80.0 KB jpegs and 3x62.1 MB tiffs - consistently took 1 minute 49s using High NR and 16 minutes 55s using PRIME NR.

YMMV

In general, DxO 9 is slow and unresponsive on older machines, and the UI is cumbersome...

Yesterday I would have completely agreed -- DxO 9 was almost unusable on my older machine. Today it seems to work well enough, processing the same photos. Yesterday I guess the program somehow created a low-memory state that persisted. Today the main process seems to take ~500MB and each of the output processes take another ~500MB -- something like 1.5GB total, while output processing for PRIME; with 4 cores at 100% utilization.

I think the DxO 9 UI is an improvement on DxO 8 ;-)

[BernardLanguillier]

I think the DxO 9 UI is an improvement on DxO 8 ;-)

Frankly, I also don't see any problem with the DxO 9 UI.

- It is very logical and clear,
- I find it much more logical that C1 Pro for example,
- It is smooth and responsive, no slow down/freeze when using controls like it used to be the case in LR4 (not sure it if it still the case in LR5),
- It is stable.

Cheers,
Bernard

[robgo2]

Frankly, I also don't see any problem with the DxO 9 UI.

- It is very logical and clear,
- I find it much more logical that C1 Pro for example,
- It is smooth and responsive, no slow down/freeze when using controls like it used to be the case in LR4 (not sure it if it still the case in LR5),
- It is stable.

Cheers,
Bernard

Trust me, on an older machine, it is not smooth and responsive.  I have a nearly 7 year old MacPro with 24MB RAM, and using DxO 9 is like driving a tractor.    In contrast, Photo Ninja and ACR are fast and easy, suggesting that DxO 9 requires an inordinate amount of computing power.  Maybe when I get the new MacPro, it will run better.

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

Trust me, on an older machine, it is not smooth and responsive.  I have a nearly 7 year old MacPro with 24MB RAM, and using DxO 9 is like driving a tractor.    In contrast, Photo Ninja and ACR are fast and easy, suggesting that DxO 9 requires an inordinate amount of computing power.  Maybe when I get the new MacPro, it will run better.

9.1 feels faster in terms of raw preview generation.

Otherwise, it seems that it remains very well parallelized code, this is one of the first I apps I notice is able to fully use the 8 cores at near 100% all the time during raw output.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Isaac]

It is smooth and responsive, no slow down/freeze when using controls like it used to be the case in LR4...

In both cases, that really really depends on the very thing you neglect to mention -- the hardware and OS.

[BernardLanguillier]

In both cases, that really really depends on the very thing you neglect to mention -- the hardware and OS.

Indeed, I am using a 6.5 years old Mac Pro 2,1 8 cores at 3.0 Ghz with 32GB RAM running OSX 10.6.8. The GPU was upgraded to a ATI 5770 and the boot disk is a OWC SSD.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Isaac]

Frankly, I also don't see any problem with the DxO 9 UI.

- It is very logical and clear,
- I find it much more logical that C1 Pro for example,
- It is smooth and responsive, no slow down/freeze when using controls like it used to be the case in LR4 (not sure it if it still the case in LR5),
- It is stable.

I'm not trying to find problems with DxO ProOptics 9; having said that, there are still things that get in the way. Some of that is to do with hidden functionality:

Yesterday I needed to make a 5x7 crop for a Xmas card, and there wasn't a 5x7 option in the crop drop-down menu, and I couldn't see anywhere to add a new option, so I ended-up messing around dividing pixel heights and pixel widths. Today I re-read the pdf user guide and learned that one of the crop drop-down menus was a combo box and I could type a new 5/7 option into it (although not 5:7 as the user guide says).

Today there still doesn't seem to be anywhere that indicates the pixel size for images I've cropped using a specific aspect ratio.

Today some exported files are suffixed with _2 in addition to the suffix I explicitly asked for in the "Export to Disk Options". Just something else I'll need to fix.


I'll download 9.1

[Isaac]

- It is stable.

fwiw DxO ProOptics 9.1 froze when I moved a 1:1 image, while it was rendering after changing CA settings. Had to use the OS to shutdown the program.

[kers]

I have never liked the DXO interface- I always was uncertain what was really happening...
on the contrary ; the interface of Photoshop ACR is very straight forward - you know exactly what you are doing- i like that one best.
In a little high iso test i did ( photoNinja 1.04, Capture one6, DXO8) I liked ACR CS6 best. i do not use any noise reduction... never needed it and now less than ever before...
You see the grain on screen but not that much in print. I always print big ( 1 meter wide) to check the results... and for screen you make the file smaller and the grain disappears...

[Isaac]

I have never liked the DXO interface...

I think the DxO 9 UI is an improvement on DxO 8.

i do not use any noise reduction... never needed it and now less than ever before...

Even with my budget camera: I've learned to set NR to 0, check if it's needed, and then check if I prefer the look with some NR whether it's needed or not.


As-much-as I like LR, both feature-set and interaction-design, I find it quite useful to keep trying DxO  ProOptics and ... because it forces me to break the habit of using very similar post-processing every time.

[MichaelEzra]

Why no image samples in this thread?
RawTherapee 4.1 is coming out in a few days with updated NR, I'd be curious to run some comparisons.

[Dr Tone]

FYI: DxO 9.1.1 has been released.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why no image samples in this thread?
RawTherapee 4.1 is coming out in a few days with updated NR, I'd be curious to run some comparisons.

Hi Michael,

I agree, some samples would be helpful. Also good news about RT 4.1, looking forward to it. Do you happen to know if the Sony A7/A7r are supported yet?

Cheers,
Bart

[MichaelEzra]

Hi Bart, for now the A7/A7r are supported via dng only, the native support is pending the update of dcraw. There has been a lot of work done in RT by Anders Torger which will lead to an easier adaptation of new cameras

[Fine_Art]

Why no image samples in this thread?
RawTherapee 4.1 is coming out in a few days with updated NR, I'd be curious to run some comparisons.

Dx0 has a great smoothness to the files. For high ISO or an image needing a lot of deconvolution it is a great starting point. Personally I like the fine detail in RT.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart, for now the A7/A7r are supported via dng only, the native support is pending the update of dcraw. There has been a lot of work done in RT by Anders Torger which will lead to an easier adaptation of new cameras

Great, thanks for the feedback.

Cheers,
Bart

[ablankertz]

I've become enamored of the NLM algorithm in Xidenoiser. In my testing of DXO 9, "Prime" was a bit better, but Xidenoiser was close enough to make buying DXO not worth the cost.

[Dynszis]

DXO v9 users, what is your experience with the program on what machine?

It certainly feels sluggish to me, more so than DXO v7.

I clocked 6:36 minutes for the processing of 4 pictures (Sony Nex-7, 24 MB each) with PRIME. This is with a 4-core 3.5 GHz CPU and 32 GB RAM, running under 64-bit Windows 7 SP1.