DNG after using nonoise AIis almost 3x larger then my raw file. Plus it takes over 1 minute to open my picture onno noise AI
Answered
Working from lightroom and after processing on NoNoise AI the dng file is almost 3x larger than my raw file when I export them back to the original file in Photomechanic. Plus it takes over 1 minute to open my pictures in NoNoise AI from the plug in extra's NoNoise AI standalone. I have not found any information to identify and correct these issues. Thank you for any assistance you can provide.
-
There is nothing to correct, sorry. NoNoise AI does its noise removal up front, before the image is displayed on screen so it does take a bit longer than other noise reduction software.
There is nothing we (as users; you're not talking to the company here) can do about the size of the dngs that are being produced and yes, they can be much larger than the original files.
0 -
There is nothing that can be done about the file size increase. Each pixel in a Raw file contains information about either red, green or blue and are arranged in a mosaic pattern. The DNG returned from NoNoise has been de-mosaiced and now each pixel contains information about all three colours combined to give actual colour information. Thus each pixel has to be represented by at least 3 times as much information, hence the increase in file size. Same thing happens if you export a Tiff from Lightroom.
When working on RAW file NoNoise uses a new de-mosaicing process as part of how it removes noise and so must return a larger de-mosaiced file with noise removed.
NoNoise does take longer than some other similar applications when loading a file because it does most of its heavy work then, so possible to zoom in and out and move around image, and see impact of slider adjustments in real time. Whether the times you are seeing can be reduced would depend on your system and the type of RAW file you are processing.
1 -
Thank you for your quick replies.!!!
0 -
When playing around with Topaz Denoise and trials of NoNoise and of DxO PureRaw I found the DNGs generated by DeNoise were even larger than those from NoNoise, whilst PureRaw were the smallest.
0 -
Some good news I was really pleased to discover... if you are using NoNoise from within the On1 Photo Raw 2022 application (rather than as a plug-in) the resulting file size doesn't appear any bigger than the original raw file you started with. This is a huge positive over the alternatives for me. However, I did not check what happens if you export the edited file as a new DNG.
0 -
If you export a DNG then it will increase in size. As it is the file after it has been processed by On1 then it will have been converted from RAW to full colour RGB. The increase in file size is a fact of life and will happen in any post processing software, see my earlier post for the reasons why. If you export as a JPG then less increase in file size but at expense of image quality through the compression process.
Now NoNoise is incorporated in On1 it stores its information in the On1 database and, if enabled, the .on1 side car files. The original RAW file is left untouched, so no change in its size.
0 -
Are the sidecar files any larger as a result?
0 -
Sidecar file sizes are linked to what edits and particularly what masks have been applied.
I have just done a quick test - original sidecar file for an image was 69Kb with classic noise reduction. Just switching to NoNoise put it up to 140Kb. I suspect that there is an element of trade off between what information is stored in the sidecar file and time taken to display or export an image.
Looking at the sizes of other sidecar files it looks as though the number of masks and if they are brushed in has more of an impact on sidecar file sizes. One of mine with several brushed in masks is up to 777Kb.
0 -
Thanks for checking that out David. The larger size of the sidecar files is nothing compared to a DNG!. I haven’t had a chance to test it, or indeed the update, myself as I’m travelling in Europe.
0 -
One thing that can impact the speed of opening large files is the type of drive the files are stored on. If you have them on a standard HDD they will open much slower than a file stored on a SSD and PCIe NVMe M.2 drive will be the fastest. Both the Standard HDD and SSD also use higher CPU cycles when reading and or writing than a PCIe NVMe M.2 drive. I know many people can't afford to or don't have the capability to upgrade their drives and I am probably stating the obvious to many but just putting this out there in case people are thinking about upgrading.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments