Have you tried launching DT from a terminal with "-d opencl"? There might
be some useful hints in the debugging output.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Ochal Christophe wrote:
> On 21-09-15 12:54, oc...@kefren.be wrote:
> >>> I just noticed that with OpenCL I get (sometimes very) different
> re
Please submit a RAW+XMP so we can reproduce.
Best wishes
Ulrich
Am 21.09.2015 um 18:32 schrieb Ochal Christophe:
> On 21-09-15 12:54, oc...@kefren.be wrote:
I just noticed that with OpenCL I get (sometimes very) different results
in Profiled Denoise output. Any idea why? I suppose this
On 21-09-15 12:54, oc...@kefren.be wrote:
>>> I just noticed that with OpenCL I get (sometimes very) different results
>>> in Profiled Denoise output. Any idea why? I suppose this isn't that
>>> normal...
>>> See the sample here:
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/101531671588795701958/posts/6wbq3TqWu
>> I just noticed that with OpenCL I get (sometimes very) different results
>> in Profiled Denoise output. Any idea why? I suppose this isn't that
>> normal...
>> See the sample here:
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/101531671588795701958/posts/6wbq3TqWufJ
>
> What hardware are you using OpenCL on th
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2015, 23:26:07 schrieb Ochal Christophe:
> Hey guys,
Hi.
> I just noticed that with OpenCL I get (sometimes very) different results
> in Profiled Denoise output. Any idea why? I suppose this isn't that
> normal...
> See the sample here:
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/1015
Hey guys,
I just noticed that with OpenCL I get (sometimes very) different results
in Profiled Denoise output. Any idea why? I suppose this isn't that
normal...
See the sample here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/101531671588795701958/posts/6wbq3TqWufJ
With kind regards,
Christophe Ochal
Le 11/09/2015 22:44, KOVÁCS István a écrit :
Even when fit to the screen (1920x1080), I find the plain
'colour'-blended version (DSC_8834.jpg) less noisy*and* sharper than
the HSV-colour-blended one (DSC_8834_01.jpg). Zoomed in, the noise
seems more 'patterned' on the HSV-blended version (shows
Hi,
I've read a few times that it's better to use the HSV-based blending
modes with profiled denoise (the latest article is a review of the
Open Source Photography Course by houz, one of dt's developers, so I
guess he knows what he's speaking about). I've tried those HSV-based
modes a couple of ti
On 04/13/15 06:09, Tobias Ellinghaus wrote:
> Am Montag, 13. April 2015, 02:02:22 schrieb Urs Schütz:
>> I did benchmark a camera noise profile [1]. My input files [2] go from
>> ISO 100 to ISO 25600, at powers of 2 (100,200,400,...,12800,25600).
>>
>> To prepare the benchmarking I did the followin
Am Montag, 13. April 2015, 02:02:22 schrieb Urs Schütz:
> I did benchmark a camera noise profile [1]. My input files [2] go from
> ISO 100 to ISO 25600, at powers of 2 (100,200,400,...,12800,25600).
>
> To prepare the benchmarking I did the following within darktable
> 1.7.0+1256~g960e920:
> Creat
I did benchmark a camera noise profile [1]. My input files [2] go from
ISO 100 to ISO 25600, at powers of 2 (100,200,400,...,12800,25600).
To prepare the benchmarking I did the following within darktable
1.7.0+1256~g960e920:
Create a hdr out of five images at camera base ISO 200.
Create two mini
On 16/11/13 12:19, Rob Dean wrote:
Since the suggested way of using profiled denoise is to use non-local
means with the lightness blend mode and then create another instance of
profiled denoise with the wavelets mode using the color blend mode I'm
wondering if this could be combined somehow to gi
Since the suggested way of using profiled denoise is to use non-local
means with the lightness blend mode and then create another instance of
profiled denoise with the wavelets mode using the color blend mode I'm
wondering if this could be combined somehow to give more of a "one
click" profiled
no changes that i'm aware of.
j.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
>
> Has the algorithm for profiled denoise changed recently? Output from my
> last group appears particularily more grainy compared to previous output
> under very similar conditions and almost exact same
Has the algorithm for profiled denoise changed recently? Output from my
last group appears particularily more grainy compared to previous output
under very similar conditions and almost exact same processing. Note that
should be considered a weighted feeling rather than objective observation.
t
Ok, the auto-interpolation button along with a preset for 50% sounds
perfect (long term). I'll tar up my profiles here.
-chris
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:29 AM, johannes hanika wrote:
> hey,
>
> the noise profiles are now decoupled from presets and selectable
> through a combobox. so you can ma
hey,
the noise profiles are now decoupled from presets and selectable
through a combobox. so you can make your own auto-applying presets
already.. but actually the plan is to store an `auto-interpolation'
mode in the params instead of the actual data, which will be the first
line in the combobox (
Hi everyone,
I've made a denoise profile for my panasonic gh3, and while the results are
fantastic below iso 1600, I prefer to have a little more noise and a little
less mush on the higher isos.
I'm able to consistently get the results I want by setting the strength at
50%, but I suspect that eve
18 matches
Mail list logo
