M10-R - Noise reduction in current Lightroom Classic, at the limits ...

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adobe claims that the latest denoise function in Lightroom Classic is "AI" technology. I have no idea what they mean by that, but whatever the algorithm they using might be, it does a pretty good job. As example, I picked up the Leica M10-R, which has a fairly modern, clean sensor with RGB recording capability and up to ISO 50,000 sensitivity setting. I metered a quick view of my bookcase in the usual room light, went to -1EV setting to stress the image in-camera and snapped a photo. ISO 50000 @ I think about f/2.8 @ 1/1000 second. The resulting photo, as you might imagine, was a bit noisy. I opened the denoise dialog and set it to the middle position (50 on the scale) and let it go to work. It took about 8 or 9 minutes to perform its magic. The results are quite remarkable ... I did a quick screen capture at 200% magnification to see the difference clearly:

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

(You can look at the full resolution screen capture by clicking on the image and viewing it at max size in Flickr.)

 

That's useful, it extends the already excellent capabilities of the M10-R even further, almost to the capability of the M10-M in terms of ISO range usable.

Now I'm interested to do some tests with my beloved old (2003) Olympus E-1 photos ... The E-1 is such a delightful camera that I've been very reluctant to sell it off all this time, but it's original performance and capabilities were hampered by the ancient Kodak/Dalsa 5Mpixel CCD sensor somewhat ... with the original raw converters, I only rarely set it to more than ISO 400 sensitivity, and with later raw converters I found I could get acceptable color work at ISO 800, b&w at ISO 1600. I'm going to do a test and shoot some test exposures at ISO 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400 (the last by intentionally underexposing 3200 by 1 stop) and see how this new denoise algorithm works with it ...

enjoy! G

Edited October 5, 2024 by ramarren
make photo live

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LocalHero1953]

Denoising can be much quicker on the right hardware.  I often set LR to denoise several hundred* 24mp images as a batch: typically it takes 1-2 hours (while I sleep or have lunch). My PC was built 4 years ago with a decent graphics card. I don’t think LR denoise works remotely though - it is all done locally. Some of the latest Photoshop context-aware replacement tools can exploit remote AI engines, but it asks permission first. 

*I may take 500-1000 shots of a theatrical performance, delete at least half of them in a first cull, then process the rest before deleting more. The new AI denoise, masking and other batch processing tools are a life saver for me. 

Edited October 5, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[ramarren]

3 hours ago, Al Brown said:

The "Artificial Intelligence technology" in LR/ACR simply remotely analyzes the image via Adobe engine and creates a denoised image as a new DNG. 9 minutes is VERY long though for a 40 mpix file... What the denoise does NOT do is fix the severely compromised dynamic range captured at such ISO.

Interesting. You mean if I turn off WiFi while running LR, the denoise option is not available? Very interesting. 

A raw file from the M10-R averages 60 Mbytes @ 40 Mpixel. It's a pretty big file. And this is a fairly old machine ... new M-based Mac mini coming up a little later this year.

G

[LocalHero1953]

I did some checking. Lightroom Classic AI Denoise is done locally and its performance is determined only by local hardware. Adobe is introducing cloud-based AI tools under the name of Firefly, but those are for generative fill and object removal tools - mainly in other Adobe apps. The Lightroom Classic tool that requires a cloud connection is one of the new Remove tools for removing objects and blemishes, using object recognition and generative fill. I use this occasionally, and it is very effective. I do have fast fibre broadband and don't know how the tool would perform with a more limited connection. 

Edit: Did some testing - pulled out the ethernet cable. AI Denoise continued to work, while the AI Remove tool was greyed out.

Edited October 6, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[ramarren]

5 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I did some checking. Lightroom Classic AI Denoise is done locally and its performance is determined only by local hardware. Adobe is introducing cloud-based AI tools under the name of Firefly, but those are for generative fill and object removal tools - mainly in other Adobe apps. The Lightroom Classic tool that requires a cloud connection is one of the new Remove tools for removing objects and blemishes, using object recognition and generative fill. I use this occasionally, and it is very effective. I do have fast fibre broadband and don't know how the tool would perform with a more limited connection. 

Edit: Did some testing - pulled out the ethernet cable. AI Denoise continued to work, while the AI Remove tool was greyed out.

 (bolded) My curiosity was pushing me to that. Thanks! 

I haven't used any of the Remove tools, or generative fill at all. To my twisted way of thinking, that's not photography ... that's image creation. 🤷‍♂️ I usually prefer to do my editing of image content before I press the shutter release, and (aside from spotting operations) leave the contents alone, for the most part. Nothing wrong with it, no judgement here, it's just not what I've done very much of. I'm sure at some point I'll see something that I need such tools for.

I was thinking about the comment regarding dynamic range... Why would I even consider that a noise removal algorithm would have any effect on that? When you push ISO to stratospheric ranges, you have to work with the reduced dynamic range ... that's all. Isn't that what everyone does? 

G

[LocalHero1953]

5 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I haven't used any of the Remove tools, or generative fill at all. To my twisted way of thinking, that's not photography ... that's image creation. 🤷‍♂️ I usually prefer to do my editing of image content before I press the shutter release, and (aside from spotting operations) leave the contents alone, for the most part. Nothing wrong with it, no judgement here, it's just not what I've done very much of. I'm sure at some point I'll see something that I need such tools for.

 

I agree when photographing for my purposes. For stage/performance publicity shots it's occasionally handy to remove objects e.g. the stage manager's head poking around a piece of scenery, or a fire exit sign. And I take pity on some student actors and remove their pimples.

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, Al Brown said:

Not my point again. I merely suggested that it is senseless pushing ISO to stratospheric heights and then denoising it digitally "because you can" as the victim is always the DR. Much better keeping the ISO as low as possible and retaining more DR. No denoising algorithm will bring back lost DR, obviously.

Of course. Except when nothing will service the subject matter as much as just being able to obtain the photograph some way. Why re-state the obvious? 

G

[ramarren]

3 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I agree when photographing for my purposes. For stage/performance publicity shots it's occasionally handy to remove objects e.g. the stage manager's head poking around a piece of scenery, or a fire exit sign. And I take pity on some student actors and remove their pimples.

LOL! You're a kind person!

G

[Deejaybeephoto]

Comparing Lightroom noise reduction with that from DXO Photolab PL5 (ie not even the latest version), DXO gives better results in my view.  

[ramarren]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:44 AM, Deejaybeephoto said:

Comparing Lightroom noise reduction with that from DXO Photolab PL5 (ie not even the latest version), DXO gives better results in my view.  

Examples?

[Deejaybeephoto]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:38 AM, ramarren said:

Examples?

Valid challenge - that’s why I said “in my view”. Don’t get me wrong, Lightroom noise reduction is good - I just don’t think - in my view- it is the best option out there. 

[LocalHero1953]

There's a benefit, both practical and financial, in having integrated tools. If I already have a subscription to LR (and PS), then I need a good reason for paying for DXO as well, if it is only marginally better. The same applies the other way round, of course.

Then there is speed: if I want to denoise batches of several hundred images at a time (photography of theatre/music/dance performances). I know LR can crunch through them in a couple of hours (the figures are relative - it's hardware-dependent, of course). The only other AI denoise package I have experience of is Topaz, and I find that slower, though produces good results.

At the moment a better denoise package solves a problem I don't really have. A better sharpening package (that doesn't produce 'crunchy' edges) is another matter. I still use Topaz Photo for sharpening, but if Adobe provides it, I would cancel my Topaz sub.

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, Deejaybeephoto said:

Valid challenge - that’s why I said “in my view”. Don’t get me wrong, Lightroom noise reduction is good - I just don’t think - in my view- it is the best option out there. 

Not a challenge: I don't have DXO and have no idea what its noise reduction looks like. So examples would be nice.

I use noise reduction very infrequently so I have to say the whole topic is mostly of academic interest. But I do like to know what you mean when you say "This one is a better option than that one." 

G

[Deejaybeephoto]

23 hours ago, ramarren said:

Not a challenge: I don't have DXO and have no idea what its noise reduction looks like. So examples would be nice.

I use noise reduction very infrequently so I have to say the whole topic is mostly of academic interest. But I do like to know what you mean when you say "This one is a better option than that one." 

G

Any examples using my version of DxO PL5 would be of limited use as the latest version is PL8, which appears to be another step up in noise reduction (see latest reviews if you’re interested).

[darlesch]

It’s a nice tool for sure. If you had an M9 series camera still lying around imagine the possibilities! Or the M240. If you were to upgrade your computer you’d find you could denoise an image in 1 minute or so. 

[ramarren]

I've since done my tests using some underexposed at too high ISO raw files from my (very ancient, 2003) Olympus E-1 (ISO 3200) and also test files made with the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c at ISO 25600. Both work very well with the LR noise reduction, but the CFVII 50c files at this extreme ISO setting show the best improvement! The photo attached is a small section of a photo, at 2:1 on-screen magnification. 

G

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 8, 2024 by ramarren