IDK what+s going on but right side images are awful. So much oversharpening and halo effect around edges. Did you left C1 to sharpen DxO images? I'll give you a hint: put -20 or more on STRUCTURE slider and you'll get more acceptable results. There is no "more details and texture" as you keep repeating but only artefacts. I do love DxO for many things, but they oversharpen stuff and even if sharpness is off. But gladly C1 have "dehalo" slider (a.k.a. "structure") which fixes the problem quite good. I pull the slider -20 upon import, but than adjust maybe to -40 for some images. It does not need that every pixels is "blooming" and "screeming" out. That is not the way we saw the scene. It is digital crap we introduce because we are obsessed with sharpness these days.
A couple of points: We may be seeing the difference in default settings as opposed to a difference in RAW conversion. The DNGs created by DxO are HUGE.
The DNGs that I have exported have all been 50-60% larger than the RAW files. 55MB for RAW vs 88MB for DNG. Certainly larger, but I wouldn't go as far as to say "HUGE", personally. Either are way smaller than TIFF files that C1 practically forces you to use, which were close to 150MB. Either way, if space is at a premium you want to run your files through PR after you have done your initial cull, rather than doing your entire shoot.
@@seymourecarnage I suppose there will be differences between images and RAW formats. My Fujifilm X-T4 RAW files are about 27.7 MB, and a DxO DNG of the same image is about 86.7 MB. Hence my description of HUGE. And a 16-bit compressed TIFF is about 115.2 MB! Even more huge. :)
@@bobrockefeller1348 Interesting. Are you shooting compressed RAW? I ask because my file sizes above were from an X-T3 and they are notably larger than yours.
Another good comparison. Thank you. Strange that PR3 should fall at the last fence on those last few images with such a drastic drop in sharpness. Almost seemed like PR3 may have hit a bug in its processing on those.
Yeah, that surprised the heck out of me as well especially after how it dominated through the first 11 comparisons. I need to go back and try running them through the other processes and see if that handles them better. The video was already long enough as it is, though.
When I convert my Fuji X-T5 RAW to dng using Dx0 PureRaw 3 and then try and add a film simulation in Capture One the sim doesn't apply to the image. Is it because C1 doesn't see it as a FujiFilm anymore and so won't change the film simulation?
This is good to know. I don't think I really ever tried to apply film sims to a RAW (or DNG) after the fact. Usually if I shoot something with a sim it's because I plan on just using the jpg SOOC. That would be my assumption too, though. Since the file is not longer a RAW and maybe doesn't identify as a Fuji file in the metadata anymore C1 won't apply the sim? I wonder if LR does the same thing. 🤔
I can confirm after opening a support call with Capture One support that Fuji Sims cannot be applied to a linear DNG which is what you get once you use DxO PureRAW 3, I am considering going back to Lightroom as I am a hobbyist and can make a switch back with only moderate hassle. At least now we have a definite answer from Capture one.
Sincere thanks for making this comparison video. After putting in all of this work to produce it, maybe next time you can render it at 4K (or higher) so there is more detail. Nonetheless, appreciated!
Understandable. I actually don't have or use a 4k display, and I my screen caps and live footage are all done in FHD, so I'm not sure that exporting to 4K would enhance anything for the video. I suppose it might retain even more detail after the compression? If I do another I will certainly consider it. Suffice it to say that if you're editing in 4k your results would likely see even more detail so... Bonus! Thanks for the feedback!
@@TwoTimesRmedia HMU whenever and I'd be glad to help you out. I know the Fuji tricks. I struggled for years with composing and editing and I'm just getting to the point where I feel confident enough to help others. Thus my channel. Community is important. Let's help each other.
Sorry, but I think there is a bias in this comparison. You have compared the raf directly with the processed DNG. That is not completely fair, as you should compare the processed raf from C1 with the processed raf from PureRAW. Am I right?
With PureRaw processing you can't export to RAW, and you can only view the results of the processing in the exported file (no preview). DNG is the best/closest equivalent to a RAW of your output choices. In C1 you're seeing the actual edits to the RAW file so going head to head with the DNG is the only fair way to compare, unless you wanted to export the RAWs in C1 to DNG either before or after the edits, which would make no sense or give you an advantage.
@@seymourecarnage indeed it would be better to export to jpg with both software and compare the results. Or, if you prefer, to DNG with both software! Preview of the edit is much different from the exported version in C1
Hey great video! But I'm a bit of a new comer with X-Trans. How does it compare to Iridient ? Or am I missing the fact that Iridient is left behind at this point and that is why you compare C1 and DPR ? Based on your video and others review it looks to need to switch from Iridient to DPR ... Also would you use the DX option all the time ? Thank you!
I honestly have no experience with Iridient so I can't weigh in on that. I don't hear anyone talk about it much either. It could be an excellent product but I'm afraid I have no frame of reference. Sorry! Ad far as which mode to use in DPR, they all have their claimed strengths and weaknesses, which are spelled out by hitting the ? in the processing options pane. DX may not always be the best option. I compared C1 in this video because I had previously compared PR2 to LRC before and there was no contest. C1 has a reputation for being the better processor than LR, and I wanted to give DPR3 a real challenge. Spoiler alert, though - If you're using Lightroom Classic, or are open to using it, the new X-Trans Denoise feature that just got added in this week's LRC update is an absolute game changer. I never thought I'd say it but it beats out DPR3 and C1 hands down in most situations. My jaw has been hanging ever since. I will have a video out comparing it to DPR in a few days. If you're using C1 or another editor, I still wholeheartedly endorse DPR3.
@@seymourecarnage Thank you so much for this detailed answer. I use LR yes. I didn’t upgrade it yet though. I can’t wait to see comparaison between DPR3 and LR then! But it looks I’ve invested a bit too fast into Iridient though.
I honestly haven't messed with PhotoLab, only PureRAW, but I believe PureRAW is just the denoise tool stripped out PhotoLab for folks who like other editors like Lightroom. I think you may get some more control over the Denoise parameters in PhotoLab than you do just the basic choices offered in PureRaw, but don't quote me on that.
your comparison has one fundamental flaw: you treat those programs as virtually the same. they are not. they are not intended to be the same. PureRaw only sharpens, denoises and applies lens corrections to the raw file which is THEN TO BE PROCESSED in a raw processor like capture one or lightroom. A newby would take your comparison as the presentation of two alternatives. they are no alternatives at all. either you have a raw processor (lightroom or capture) without or with PureRAW. PureRAW alone cannot replace capture one or lightroom. your comparison makes the viewer believe to have an alternative in PureRAW even if you dont say so expressively
@@martinphilipps8678 I don't think my comparison is flawed or misleading. I don't try to sell DxO PureRaw as an editing suite in any way. I don't specifically go into the differences, but I feel like I make it clear that PureRaw just does Denoise processing, while C1 is an editor. I feel that was made pretty obvious when I did the further processing of the flower cart shot in C1 vs the Pure Raw file and the unedited RAW, and I specifically called it out as a side tangent. If someone wants an editor with the power of PureRaw they can also simply get DxO PhotoLab instead, which is exactly that - an editor with the DxO engine. I wasn't trying to get into a whole shootout between editors, though. PureRaw works as a pre- or side-processor with the most popular editors, so there was no need to muddy the waters. I just wanted to analyze X-Trans handling options. It's all even more obvious if taken along with the context of my other videos on the subject.
What would be nice is if Adobe would just support Fuji like Capture One does. It’s not like they don’t have the resources to pull it off. Oh well, Pure Raw is a nice work around.
Adobe actually just completely turned the tables on CaptureOne and PureRAW with their new Denoising tool that appeared in last week's update. It's better than both the competitors by a serious margin, and nobody is more shocked than me. I'll have a video out in a couple of days.
Hm. The results from DxO to me look oversharpened, while Capture One looks way too soft. Isn't it possible to set both apps to produce a naturally sharp, organic image somewhere in the middle?
With DxO PureRaw you can choose from different methods of sharpening but you don't have control over the amount. I think if you're using DxO PhotoLab you get more granular control. As for CaptureOne I showed in the portion of the flower cart photo how you can go in and boost your sharpening and other settings to bring them up to PureRaw's level, or your level of choice.
IDK what+s going on but right side images are awful. So much oversharpening and halo effect around edges. Did you left C1 to sharpen DxO images? I'll give you a hint: put -20 or more on STRUCTURE slider and you'll get more acceptable results. There is no "more details and texture" as you keep repeating but only artefacts. I do love DxO for many things, but they oversharpen stuff and even if sharpness is off. But gladly C1 have "dehalo" slider (a.k.a. "structure") which fixes the problem quite good. I pull the slider -20 upon import, but than adjust maybe to -40 for some images. It does not need that every pixels is "blooming" and "screeming" out. That is not the way we saw the scene. It is digital crap we introduce because we are obsessed with sharpness these days.
A couple of points:
We may be seeing the difference in default settings as opposed to a difference in RAW conversion.
The DNGs created by DxO are HUGE.
The DNGs that I have exported have all been 50-60% larger than the RAW files. 55MB for RAW vs 88MB for DNG. Certainly larger, but I wouldn't go as far as to say "HUGE", personally. Either are way smaller than TIFF files that C1 practically forces you to use, which were close to 150MB. Either way, if space is at a premium you want to run your files through PR after you have done your initial cull, rather than doing your entire shoot.
@@seymourecarnage I suppose there will be differences between images and RAW formats. My Fujifilm X-T4 RAW files are about 27.7 MB, and a DxO DNG of the same image is about 86.7 MB. Hence my description of HUGE.
And a 16-bit compressed TIFF is about 115.2 MB! Even more huge. :)
@@bobrockefeller1348 Interesting. Are you shooting compressed RAW? I ask because my file sizes above were from an X-T3 and they are notably larger than yours.
@@seymourecarnage Yes, lossless compressed RAW.
@@bobrockefeller1348 OK. That makes sense then. I don't do the compression.
Another good comparison. Thank you.
Strange that PR3 should fall at the last fence on those last few images with such a drastic drop in sharpness. Almost seemed like PR3 may have hit a bug in its processing on those.
Yeah, that surprised the heck out of me as well especially after how it dominated through the first 11 comparisons. I need to go back and try running them through the other processes and see if that handles them better. The video was already long enough as it is, though.
I find that I don't like to use AI stuff unless I have to. It can be incredibly useful at times, but generally I prefer a little noise over weirdness.
When I convert my Fuji X-T5 RAW to dng using Dx0 PureRaw 3 and then try and add a film simulation in Capture One the sim doesn't apply to the image. Is it because C1 doesn't see it as a FujiFilm anymore and so won't change the film simulation?
This is good to know. I don't think I really ever tried to apply film sims to a RAW (or DNG) after the fact. Usually if I shoot something with a sim it's because I plan on just using the jpg SOOC. That would be my assumption too, though. Since the file is not longer a RAW and maybe doesn't identify as a Fuji file in the metadata anymore C1 won't apply the sim? I wonder if LR does the same thing. 🤔
@@seymourecarnage LR applies film sims, which is really annoying because I prefer C1 but the Pureraw outputs are really nice
I can confirm after opening a support call with Capture One support that Fuji Sims cannot be applied to a linear DNG which is what you get once you use DxO PureRAW 3, I am considering going back to Lightroom as I am a hobbyist and can make a switch back with only moderate hassle. At least now we have a definite answer from Capture one.
@@RandyPollock Thanks for this update. That confirms what my research had pointed towards.
Gr8 comparison but deep prime requires faster computer and takes a lot of time to process. Hoping to see dxo pure raw for iOS ipad😊
Sincere thanks for making this comparison video. After putting in all of this work to produce it, maybe next time you can render it at 4K (or higher) so there is more detail. Nonetheless, appreciated!
Understandable. I actually don't have or use a 4k display, and I my screen caps and live footage are all done in FHD, so I'm not sure that exporting to 4K would enhance anything for the video. I suppose it might retain even more detail after the compression? If I do another I will certainly consider it. Suffice it to say that if you're editing in 4k your results would likely see even more detail so... Bonus! Thanks for the feedback!
I have Photolabs so use is its equivalent features to PureRaw
I really need to get better at photography.
😮Why do you say that?
@@seymourecarnage I am not good at it at all. All I do is snap. I have no idea how to tweak my photos to even where I would like them.
@@TwoTimesRmedia HMU whenever and I'd be glad to help you out. I know the Fuji tricks. I struggled for years with composing and editing and I'm just getting to the point where I feel confident enough to help others. Thus my channel. Community is important. Let's help each other.
@@seymourecarnage sounds like a plan . Thanks a lot
@@TwoTimesRmedia Of course!
Sorry, but I think there is a bias in this comparison. You have compared the raf directly with the processed DNG. That is not completely fair, as you should compare the processed raf from C1 with the processed raf from PureRAW. Am I right?
With PureRaw processing you can't export to RAW, and you can only view the results of the processing in the exported file (no preview). DNG is the best/closest equivalent to a RAW of your output choices. In C1 you're seeing the actual edits to the RAW file so going head to head with the DNG is the only fair way to compare, unless you wanted to export the RAWs in C1 to DNG either before or after the edits, which would make no sense or give you an advantage.
@@seymourecarnage indeed it would be better to export to jpg with both software and compare the results. Or, if you prefer, to DNG with both software!
Preview of the edit is much different from the exported version in C1
Hey great video! But I'm a bit of a new comer with X-Trans. How does it compare to Iridient ? Or am I missing the fact that Iridient is left behind at this point and that is why you compare C1 and DPR ? Based on your video and others review it looks to need to switch from Iridient to DPR ...
Also would you use the DX option all the time ?
Thank you!
I honestly have no experience with Iridient so I can't weigh in on that. I don't hear anyone talk about it much either. It could be an excellent product but I'm afraid I have no frame of reference. Sorry!
Ad far as which mode to use in DPR, they all have their claimed strengths and weaknesses, which are spelled out by hitting the ? in the processing options pane. DX may not always be the best option.
I compared C1 in this video because I had previously compared PR2 to LRC before and there was no contest. C1 has a reputation for being the better processor than LR, and I wanted to give DPR3 a real challenge. Spoiler alert, though - If you're using Lightroom Classic, or are open to using it, the new X-Trans Denoise feature that just got added in this week's LRC update is an absolute game changer. I never thought I'd say it but it beats out DPR3 and C1 hands down in most situations. My jaw has been hanging ever since. I will have a video out comparing it to DPR in a few days. If you're using C1 or another editor, I still wholeheartedly endorse DPR3.
@@seymourecarnage Thank you so much for this detailed answer. I use LR yes. I didn’t upgrade it yet though. I can’t wait to see comparaison between DPR3 and LR then! But it looks I’ve invested a bit too fast into Iridient though.
thanks for the great video. Do you know, if PureRaw is fully included into Photolab 7?
I honestly haven't messed with PhotoLab, only PureRAW, but I believe PureRAW is just the denoise tool stripped out PhotoLab for folks who like other editors like Lightroom. I think you may get some more control over the Denoise parameters in PhotoLab than you do just the basic choices offered in PureRaw, but don't quote me on that.
thank you so much for answering! ❤@@seymourecarnage
Elite version of PL7 is the one from DP XD etc
your comparison has one fundamental flaw: you treat those programs as virtually the same. they are not. they are not intended to be the same.
PureRaw only sharpens, denoises and applies lens corrections to the raw file which is THEN TO BE PROCESSED in a raw processor like capture one or lightroom.
A newby would take your comparison as the presentation of two alternatives. they are no alternatives at all.
either you have a raw processor (lightroom or capture) without or with PureRAW.
PureRAW alone cannot replace capture one or lightroom.
your comparison makes the viewer believe to have an alternative in PureRAW even if you dont say so expressively
@@martinphilipps8678 I don't think my comparison is flawed or misleading. I don't try to sell DxO PureRaw as an editing suite in any way. I don't specifically go into the differences, but I feel like I make it clear that PureRaw just does Denoise processing, while C1 is an editor. I feel that was made pretty obvious when I did the further processing of the flower cart shot in C1 vs the Pure Raw file and the unedited RAW, and I specifically called it out as a side tangent.
If someone wants an editor with the power of PureRaw they can also simply get DxO PhotoLab instead, which is exactly that - an editor with the DxO engine. I wasn't trying to get into a whole shootout between editors, though. PureRaw works as a pre- or side-processor with the most popular editors, so there was no need to muddy the waters. I just wanted to analyze X-Trans handling options. It's all even more obvious if taken along with the context of my other videos on the subject.
What would be nice is if Adobe would just support Fuji like Capture One does. It’s not like they don’t have the resources to pull it off. Oh well, Pure Raw is a nice work around.
Adobe actually just completely turned the tables on CaptureOne and PureRAW with their new Denoising tool that appeared in last week's update. It's better than both the competitors by a serious margin, and nobody is more shocked than me. I'll have a video out in a couple of days.
First!
Get rid of background music,so distracting
Hm. The results from DxO to me look oversharpened, while Capture One looks way too soft. Isn't it possible to set both apps to produce a naturally sharp, organic image somewhere in the middle?
With DxO PureRaw you can choose from different methods of sharpening but you don't have control over the amount. I think if you're using DxO PhotoLab you get more granular control. As for CaptureOne I showed in the portion of the flower cart photo how you can go in and boost your sharpening and other settings to bring them up to PureRaw's level, or your level of choice.