bkh wrote: From the test data I used, it's fairly obvious that PL currently uses DCB with 0 iterations, so changing that to Q=5 should result in the same image quality as RT.
I'm not sure about that. Given that in RT I'm using its CA, de-fringing, sharpening, and micro-contrast controls quite heavily, I think PL will always be a little less "sharp" than RT. Here's where I am so far, with the best I can get out of RT and out of PL. These images are from the sample RAW file available on http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... le_images/
and are reproduced at 100%. The image is at ISO=80, and 28mm (35mmFormatEquivalent). The images are not screenshots, but are crops of the actual images from each program -- the PLD image in PL, and a 16-bit TIF output from RT. This is the area of the detail:
PL RT detail area.png
and here is the comparison:
PL & RT comparison.jpg
Even though this forum's posting limitations forced me to export the comparison image as a reduced quality JPG, the differences are still apparent. In general, I can get much better "edge management" out of RT. This is the main reason its images are sharper than PL. There is also some colour fringing apparent in the PL highlights at the right center.
bkh wrote: For me, the question still remains if we need anything besides Q=5 (and maybe one other value of Q) in PL, given that performance isn't much worse than even Q=0 – if I understand you correctly, then you are normally using Q=5 as well. Do you have sample images where a value of Q smaller than 5 leads to better results than Q=5?
For me, I want all the available options for DCB. Otherwise, it's like telling someone that you'll let them save JPG images only at compression ratios of 0%, or 50%, or 100%....
You're right that I've standardized on Q=5. I have not run into any images where I need to reduce the number of iterations, and that's with images ranging from ISO=80 to ISO=1600. At the higher ISO values, I need to apply significantly more noise reduction (of course) in RT, and that is much more important than any DCB iterations.
bkh wrote: As the author of DCB wrote, DCB has been optimised for speed in RT, so it's not a surprise that it's faster there (if DCB were available at about the speed of AHD in PL, I'd definitely use it as my default).
The speeds I noticed are very much in line with what you found, taking into consideration the much smaller MPx images I have. So, for me, the speed difference (in PL) of 2-3 seconds is irrelevant; but with your images, the 10 second difference is certainly something to take into account.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.