I made this comparison previously using DJI DNG's and converted to TIFF via Adobe Camera RAW https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=273430&pid=2842227  the results showed for low ISO at least 48MP was going to give a clearer more detailed image.

So I thought I had better repeat the test using the new processing option of DXO Photolab 5 Elite or DXO Pure Raw2 (both can deliver the same result but Photolab 5 can be tweaked) for purposes of this test I just used the defaults that would apply in Pure Raw 2 but via the Photolab 5 Elite software...

Here is the over all test view, not full resolution but the full view...


Here is the centre comparing the 12MP and 48MP option default DXO Pure Raw 2 settings global lens sharpening off...



Here is the lower left corner comparing the 12MP and 48MP option default DXO Pure Raw 2 settings global lens sharpening off...



Here is the upper left corner comparing the 12MP and 48MP option default DXO Pure Raw 2 settings global lens sharpening off...



I think it's pretty obvious at 100 ISO if you are wanting best quality DXO processing and choosing 48MP mode will give the best results.

There has been some comment that the 48MP images picked up some magenta/green artifacts which you can see very subtely on the stones in this shot. It's really subtle but I'm pretty sure apply the Moire filter in DXO Photolab 5 toned this down, albeit slightly. The nuance of detail may be lost here but I could see a slight improvement on my Laptop screen.

Moire

Hope this may be helpful.

Cheers

Bussty

Do you think  DXO Photolab 5 is worth trying over the combination of pureraw and Lightroom Bussty?

Quite the difference!

Hello, Bussty. Thank you for sharing this information with us. This will help our fellow DJI Pilots that currently searching for a 3rd party editing software to use. Should you have inquiries or concerns, please don't hesitate to reach us. Thank you for your valued support.

DAFlys Posted at 9-25 23:23
Do you think  DXO Photolab 5 is worth trying over the combination of pureraw and Lightroom Bussty?

Hey DAFlys

I'm a little biased here as have never really gelled with Lightroom. Having all those virtual edits did my head in so I now have a RAW file, usually in the case of panos etc export to an interim TIFF then create a jpeg then just keep the RAW as my negative and the jpeg as my print deleting the TIFF's

If you are really super happy with Lightroom and feel very comfortable using it as an editor then I would go with Pure Raw 2 and Lightroom. If you are wanting to simplify your workflow and capitalize on the tweaking that Photolab 5 Elite can do plus take advantage of U-Point technology (the Control Line looks really interesting here) I would consider Photolab 5 Elite.  I used to use Nik Viveza and Nik Silver efex pro and loved it how you could local edit with control points and that is something DXO have transferred over from Nik to Photolab 5 Elite but made it even better.

Would be worth watching some Youtube vids on Photolab 5 Elite.

The other tool I like on Photolab 5 is the DXO Smart lightinh which is a bit like Luminar AI's AI Adjust which lowers highlights and raises shadows but DXO seems to lose the halos you could get on Luminar AI.

I do think Photoshop and Lightroom have way too many options and DXO really just focuses on editing images but there are things you can't do in Photolab 5 you can do in Photoshop but end of day if you just want well exposed images with local adjustments in an intuitive way then Photolab 5 Elite seems hard to beat.

Good luck in deciding.  

Cheers

Bussty

DJI Paladin Posted at 9-26 01:30
Hello, Bussty. Thank you for sharing this information with us. This will help our fellow DJI Pilots that currently searching for a 3rd party editing software to use. Should you have inquiries or concerns, please don't hesitate to reach us. Thank you for your valued support.

Always welcome DJI Paladin

Montfrooij Posted at 9-26 01:09
Quite the difference!

Yes indeed Montfrooij even more sold on the 48MP images for low ISO work (which with a f1.7 aperture s most of the time unless getting dark

Bussty Posted at 9-26 02:18
Yes indeed Montfrooij even more sold on the 48MP images for low ISO work (which with a f1.7 aperture s most of the time unless getting dark

I totally get that!

Excellent comparison Bussty.    The 48mp shot with low ISO seems to be a great way to go.  However, I'm still a newb and trying to learn as much about photography as possible.  

DowntownRDB Posted at 9-26 02:52
Excellent comparison Bussty.    The 48mp shot with low ISO seems to be a great way to go.  However, I'm still a newb and trying to learn as much about photography as possible.

The great thing about photography.... always something new to learn    

Bussty Posted at 9-26 03:17
The great thing about photography.... always something new to learn

No doubt about that but can be a bit overwhelming when starting from the no knowledge.

I'll stick with 12MP and upscale later.
Thanks for the tip about DXO Photolab 5 Elite. I've been used just PureRAW2.

48M edited with DxO Photolab 5 Elite.  Downscaled to 6000*4500.
Flickr

MS Posted at 9-26 06:57
I'll stick with 12MP and upscale later.
Thanks for the tip about DXO Photolab 5 Elite. I've been used just PureRAW2.

Hey MS

You get to the same place with both, it's just that you can tweak the results a bit more with Purelab 5 but if starting with Pure Raw 2 you can do the tweaking with any software really but if wanting to simplify the number of tools you are using PL5 is handy.

Cheers

Bussty

iHarri Posted at 9-26 07:58
[view_image] 48M edited with DxO Photolab 5 Elite.  Downscaled to 6000*4500.
Flickr

Checked that out on Flickr... incredible detail! Made feel like I was looking at a DSLR image. Very nice and thanks for posting

Bussty Posted at 9-26 01:45
Hey DAFlys

I'm a little biased here as have never really gelled with Lightroom. Having all those virtual edits did my head in so I now have a RAW file, usually in the case of panos etc export to an interim TIFF then create a jpeg then just keep the RAW as my negative and the jpeg as my print deleting the TIFF's

I may take a look when I get through the process of coping my catalog to shutter stock.   I have to stay they are doing my head in,    reject for brand logos or boat names but their catalog is full of branded images.   

DAFlys Posted at 9-26 22:41
I may take a look when I get through the process of coping my catalog to shutter stock.   I have to stay they are doing my head in,    reject for brand logos or boat names but their catalog is full of branded images.

You have thousands of images from memory. Gulp!  Good luck

Bussty Posted at 9-26 23:24
You have thousands of images from memory. Gulp!  Good luck

I also found that you can submit the same image twice and get It approved the second time so it seems to depend on who's doing the reviews.    But the boat names one bugs me the most.  

Bussty Posted at 9-26 11:08
Checked that out on Flickr... incredible detail! Made feel like I was looking at a DSLR image. Very nice and thanks for posting

48M pictures are better after some tweaking.  Amazed of the quality of pictures from this tiny camera.

DxO vignetting + DxO NIK Color Efex Pro contrast + Topaz Sharpen AI

Topaz sharpen AI pictures have more detail when looking 1:1(6k), Flickr resolution is now 4k.
DxO Photolab 5 Elitte only is good enough, and fast to edit.

DAFlys Posted at 9-26 23:34
I also found that you can submit the same image twice and get It approved the second time so it seems to depend on who's doing the reviews.    But the boat names one bugs me the most.

Wow thought that was a bot checking. Tough crowd I had lots of trouble getting them to accept any Black and Whites maybe I'll try that trick :-)

iHarri Posted at 9-27 10:33
48M pictures are better after some tweaking.  Amazed of the quality of pictures from this tiny camera.

DxO vignetting + DxO NIK Color Efex Pro contrast + Topaz Sharpen AI

Thanks iHarri

What do you think about the Topaz AI Photo?  Still undecided but can see how using one rather than three has merit  

iHarri Posted at 9-27 10:33
48M pictures are better after some tweaking.  Amazed of the quality of pictures from this tiny camera.

DxO vignetting + DxO NIK Color Efex Pro contrast + Topaz Sharpen AI

Just checked out that link...incredible from that tiny sensor!!

Bussty Posted at 9-27 11:18
Thanks iHarri

What do you think about the Topaz AI Photo?  Still undecided but can see how using one rather than three has merit

I am not going to buy/use it.

DxO Photolab 5 + NIK Collection + Affinity Photo + Topaz Sharpen/Denoise must be enough for me.


Edit. Seems to be free for me, I Will try it someday.

iHarri Posted at 9-27 11:35
I am not going to buy/use it.

DxO Photolab 5 + NIK Collection + Affinity Photo + Topaz Sharpen/Denoise must be enough for me.

I also have the Gigapixel AI from Topaz, if you have all three they give you access to Photo AI I think it might become their flagship product.

Cheers

Bussty

Bussty Posted at 9-27 11:43
I also have the Gigapixel AI from Topaz, if you have all three they give you access to Photo AI I think it might become their flagship product.

Cheers

I was not really convinced by the YouTube tests of Photo AI so far. The program seems a bit too simplistic to me. One gets the impression that Topaz itself has noticed to have overloaded Sharpen, Denoise and Gigapixel AI a bit. Which is the reason for me to stay with Sharpen AI 2.2.4, Denoise AI 3.2.0 and Gigapixel AI 5.7.3. They don't give worse results than the current versions, but are not as bloated from the many models.

Me, as always slightly different :-)

Bernd

iHarri Posted at 9-27 10:33
48M pictures are better after some tweaking.  Amazed of the quality of pictures from this tiny camera.

DxO vignetting + DxO NIK Color Efex Pro contrast + Topaz Sharpen AI

The level of detail is really impressive. With optimal lighting conditions and a skillful optimization, the 48 MB really make a positive impact here.

Although it is noticeable on closer inspection that the sharpness decreases in the upper corners and the distortion increases. It really is a lot of work for such a small plastic lens.

SPLflyer Posted at 9-27 12:41
I was not really convinced by the YouTube tests of Photo AI so far. The program seems a bit too simplistic to me. One gets the impression that Topaz itself has noticed to have overloaded Sharpen, Denoise and Gigapixel AI a bit. Which is the reason for me to stay with Sharpen AI 2.2.4, Denoise AI 3.2.0 and Gigapixel AI 5.7.3. They don't give worse results than the current versions, but are not as bloated from the many models.

Me, as always slightly different :-)

Hey Bernd

I'm still on the fence. I had shocking results trying to smooth noise with the beta versions (that noisy house image I sent you) where Denoise did a great job, so need to test more.

But having said that with DXO now being able to process Mini 3 pro images my need for Topaz has diminished somewhat, just the really noisy images might benefit.

Cheers

Bussty

P.S. You? Slightly different?? Nooo

Bussty Posted at 9-27 13:13
Hey Bernd

I'm still on the fence. I had shocking results trying to smooth noise with the beta versions (that noisy house image I sent you) where Denoise did a great job, so need to test more.

I agree, Bussty. I first develop the complete panorama with the DxO DNG files in PanoramaStudio, then go into Photoshop with the equiretangular image and only in the last step I do the final sharpening with Topaz Sharpen AI. A little bit of denoising is also still leveled there.

Calmed, because I am normal. Yippee!
Bernd ;-)

SPLflyer Posted at 9-27 13:30
I agree, Bussty. I first develop the complete panorama with the DxO DNG files in PanoramaStudio, then go into Photoshop with the equiretangular image and only in the last step I do the final sharpening with Topaz Sharpen AI. A little bit of denoising is also still leveled there.

Calmed, because I am normal. Yippee!

Nice. I think the Mini 3 Pro currently offers the best 360 x 180 pano result of any drone and DXO just made it even better

Lol... normal is a relative thing...

Cheers

Bussty  

Bussty Posted at 9-27 11:16
Wow thought that was a bot checking. Tough crowd I had lots of trouble getting them to accept any Black and Whites maybe I'll try that trick :-)

Ive had zero luck with B&W,   Too much grain,  I mean I could have screamed.  The other trick Ive found to get past noise issues was to mask the sky and use topaz to Denoise it.   They are much fussier than Alamy but also much faster to check uploads.  

DAFlys Posted at 9-28 00:33
Ive had zero luck with B&W,   Too much grain,  I mean I could have screamed.  The other trick Ive found to get past noise issues was to mask the sky and use topaz to Denoise it.   They are much fussier than Alamy but also much faster to check uploads.

I'm glad it's not just me! B&W is supposed to have some grain, very frustrating. I do find SNS-HDR Pro gives super fine B&W grain but don't think I have tried to submit any edited in that so might try.

Cheers

Bussty

Bussty Posted at 9-28 01:35
I'm glad it's not just me! B&W is supposed to have some grain, very frustrating. I do find SNS-HDR Pro gives super fine B&W grain but don't think I have tried to submit any edited in that so might try.

Cheers

The other thing that drives me potty is no branding,    so any boat picture that shows the boats name is a no no but when you search their catalog there are loads of brand images like gas vans.

DAFlys Posted at 9-28 01:37
The other thing that drives me potty is no branding,    so any boat picture that shows the boats name is a no no but when you search their catalog there are loads of brand images like gas vans.

Thanks for the heads up, doesn't sound very fair.  

Bussty Posted at 9-28 01:44
Thanks for the heads up, doesn't sound very fair.

I have images of the evergreen boats ( Panama Canal one and its sister) but because they are labeled they dont want them.   For some crane shots I had the owners nickname was on the boom,  again it was rejected,  so I spot healed it out and then they accepted it.

I just tumbled across this post so I am late for the party but, I have a question regarding the "defaults from Pure Raw" ...I also use Photo Lab Elite for almost everything so I agree with it's usefulness... especially the "Deep Prime" noise reduction! Anyway, you mentioned that you processed with "Global Lens Sharpening" OFF for better results. I know that there is some applied (button/selector is blue .." on"..and the slider is at like 100) as default in photo lab (you can't see that global sharpening unless the image is zoomed over 75%), are you just clicking the selector off?
I haven't really messed with Dxo Pure Raw because I use the full program so maybe in Pure Raw the Global Sharpening defaults differently?
  

jmb63 Posted at 11-30 05:28
I just tumbled across this post so I am late for the party but, I have a question regarding the "defaults from Pure Raw" ...I also use Photo Lab Elite for almost everything so I agree with it's usefulness... especially the "Deep Prime" noise reduction! Anyway, you mentioned that you processed with "Global Lens Sharpening" OFF for better results. I know that there is some applied (button/selector is blue .." on"..and the slider is at like 100) as default in photo lab (you can't see that global sharpening unless the image is zoomed over 75%), are you just clicking the selector off?
I haven't really messed with Dxo Pure Raw because I use the full program so maybe in Pure Raw the Global Sharpening defaults differently?

Hi there yes I think the pure raw defaults differently havent used it since I switched to elite. From memory I think I use 50% global sharpness or 0% (sorry traveling at minute) from memory I just converted an image at 0, 50 and 100% sharpening and just compared the difference. I should do this again actually as now the mini 3 pro can be adjusted to -2 sharpening I probably need to recalibrate.