Drone shots from my Mavic 2 Pro also looked incredible. The older the image, the higher the ISO, the more dramatic the difference. Without question, DxO PureRAW did a better job than Adobe Camera RAW at processing every RAW image I tested. The ACR image does appear sharper and less noisy, but still nowhere near as good as the DxO PureRAW image. No other adjustments have been made.Īdobe Camera RAW w/ Noise Reduction and Sharpening (Left), DxO PureRAW (Right) Detail and distortion correctionīelow is a 1-1 comparison of the same straight-out-of-camera RAW file processed using Adobe Camera RAW (using DJI’s built-in profile) on the left, and DxO PureRAW on the right. I also processed drone images (shot using a DJI Mavic 2 Pro) since those especially typically suffer from distortion and a lack of corner sharpness and detail. For comparison, I intentionally used RAW photos captured using older digital cameras. I decided to put DxO PureRAW to the test by processing a variety of RAW files from different cameras (and a drone). The resulting DNGs may then be imported into any RAW processing software (eg, Adobe Lightroom) for further processing.ĭxO claims that by fixing and improving issues when data is demosaiced, PureRAW can achieve levels of clarity and sharpness that cannot be achieved using other software. PureRAW also intelligently sharpens images edge-to-edge to create even and appropriate detail throughout the entire image. PureRAW denoises and fixes chromatic aberration, distortion, vignette, and other anomalies as data is demosaiced unlike Adobe Camera RAW or other RAW processing utilities that apply these adjustments afterward. PureRAW uses nearly two decades of camera and lens optimization data ( nearly 60,000 lens and camera combinations), plus artificial intelligence that has studied millions of photos, to demosaic RAW files. Disclosure: DxO provided me with a copy of PureRAW for feedback and review.
0 kommentar(er)
