Can an Enhance-NR.DNG image file be opened in third party applications like Capture One, DxO etc.?

[DdeGannes]

Is it possible to utilize the Enhance-NR.DNG created when using the Denoise feature in Lightroom Classic with other third party applications?

[Keith Reeder]

Enhanced files can certainly be opened in other programs, but the NR doesn't seem (in my attempts) to carry over - weirdly, the DNG files are as noisy in say, Capture One or On1 Photo RAW, as the native RAW files were before I applied Lr's AI Denoise.

This enhanced DNG (from a 5000 ISO Canon R7 CR3) is butter-smooth in Lr, as are Lr exports, but definitely not that when opened in Photo RAW:

100% crop:

[DdeGannes]

Thanks for that info Keith, I am presently in Europe on an extended vacation May 5th and will return home in early August 2023.

Will check out when I return home and have access to my computer. Posting from my iPad.

So I guess the other apps are accessing the raw data from the original which is included in the DNG but are unable to apply the Adobe Denoise process.

[Keith Reeder]

"So I guess the other apps are accessing the raw data from the original which is included in the DNG but are unable to apply the Adobe Denoise process."

Good call, Denis - that seems like a logical explanation.

It's a bit of a disappointment, though - I really want to be able to present AI Denoised DNG files usefully to other software, and I'd originally assumed that the denoising would be hard-written into the DNG.

As things stand, it feels a bit "closed shop" - if I want to benefit fully from Denoised/Enhanced DNGs, I have to stay within the Adobe ecosystem.

[JohanElzenga]

I don't think it's a matter of 'applying' something. Denoise is not applied each time you open the DNG. The denoised DNG contains both the raw data and the denoised data. Those external apps apparently access the raw data, but those are the wrong data in this case. Adobe added the raw data as a kind of backup, in case the denoise routines are fundamentally improved. It might be that the third party apps need a very simple fix to recognise the correct data.

[DdeGannes]

In Eric Chan's blog post he indicates in part,

"After multiplying and adding up a gazillion numbers, your computer will produce a new raw file in the Digital Negative (DNG) format that contains your denoised photo. As with previous Enhance features, any adjustments you made to the source photo will automatically be carried over to the enhanced DNG. You can edit this DNG just like any other raw photo, applying your favorite presets and custom tweaks."

No comment is made whether he refers to Adobe applications or includes other software products.

And towards the end of the blog post,

"What’s next?

Denoise is our third Enhance feature. We’re proud of what it can do today, but we’re already looking ahead to make it even better. For instance, we have some ideas on how to use additional training data to improve resolution. We’d like to support additional file formats and combine Denoise with Super Resolution. We’re even looking into ways to speed up the workflow by not needing to make a new DNG file. It’s a very exciting time, and you can expect us to continue making big strides forward in AI-powered image editing.

This leads me to believe that the feature is a "work in progress" and that we can expect to see some changes in the near future.

Just some thoughts.

[Keith Reeder]

It's a weird way to do it, Johan - I don't think there's anything unreasonable about expecting to be able to run AI Denoise, and ending up with a DNG which is denoised, regardless of the software it's subsequently opened in.

As Denis points out, Eric had this to say, which certainly doesn't fly in the face of such an expectation:

"You can edit this DNG just like any other raw photo, applying your favorite presets and custom tweaks."

No caveats about "as long as you use the file in an Adobe product..."

If I denoise a file in Photo RAW, I end up with a denoised tiff (say), and the denoising is then just there, intrinsically part of the file, and available to any software I subsequently use the file in; it just seems wilfully contrary and wrong-headed for Adobe to have gone in such an odd direction, where the benefits of AI Denoise are only available in Adobe software, unless I re-export the DNG - which adds a whole extra round of file handling and processing to my workflow.  

It's how it is - I get that - but I'm honestly baffled by some of the implementation decisions Adobe has made around AI Denoise. 

[JohanElzenga]

I think you misunderstood what I said. The denoised DNG contains two sets of data: the original raw data and linear RGB denoised data. Because this is something new, it's possible that third party software will open the raw data rather than the denoised data. It's probably something that is very easy to fix, but it is likely that is has to be fixed in the third party software. That software could be programmed to always look for raw data first, for example, and ignore linear RGB data if raw data are available too. What Eric said clearly applied to Adobe software. He cannot speak on behalf of every software maker on the planet, because he does not know or has tested all the software on the planet.

[Keith Reeder]

No, I didn't misunderstand, Johan, but the fact remains that - in effect - having two files in the DNG when there's no obvious reason for it (let's be clear - users will only actually want the denoised end-result), is a weird decision.

It's not something I'd have wanted to see suggested at the design stage, that's for sure.

"What Eric said clearly applied to Adobe software."

Calling it "clearly" is a real stretch.

Both Denis and I have noted the ambiguity of the statement, and - by any reasonable definition - being able to "...edit this DNG just like any other raw photo" implies usability beyond Adobe software: or it simply isn't "like every other raw photo" at all. 

"He cannot speak on behalf of every software maker on the planet, because he does not know or has tested all the software on the planet."

No, but he's speaking about DNGs, which are Adobe's baby, and which are intended as the very essence of a ubiquitous RAW solution - one of their key benefits is the ability to write edits (including, I had assumed, the results of AI Denoise) into them for use beyond the Adobe ecosystem.

Using Lr's manual NR, if I export a DNG, the effect of the NR is baked into the file just as I'd expect, and it's there for other programmes. It's illogical for AI Denoise not to work the same way.

[DdeGannes]

I posted this thread in an attempt to clarify how the Enhanced-NR.DNG file, created during the Denoise AI process, would function if opened with other Applications than Adobe apps.

My thoughts were that it would not be possible as other software applications could not utilize LrC / ACR edit functions.

As an example if I were to import a raw image from a digital camera to my LrC catalog using the option Copy as DNG and made multiple edits with the option Automatically save Metadata to xmp and subsequently opened the DNG in Capture One, the image file  would be opened but the edits done in LrC would not be applied.

So in the same way I do not expect the Denoise function to be applied.

I am not at home to check on my Computer.

I am just seeking clarification.

[Keith Reeder]

"So in the same way I do not expect the Denoise function to be applied."

But why? There's simply no logic to it. (Which isn't to say that there might not be perfectly good technical reasons, but none of us know that.)

As I point out, manual noise reduction is "baked in" to a DNG exported from Lr (along with pretty much any other adjustments I might care to make - that's one of the great things about Lr DNG exports) so why on earth should the same not be true of exported AI Denoised DNG files?

"As an example if I were to import a raw image from a digital camera to my LrC catalog using the option Copy as DNG and made multiple edits with the option Automatically save Metadata to xmp and subsequently opened the DNG in Capture One, the image file  would be opened but the edits done in LrC would not be applied."

But that's not a like-for-like scenario at all, Denis - my simple manual NR exported to DNG example is.

Oh - and although it's clear why you posted, this is hardly the first thread on the internet that has gone beyond the intentions of the original poster. But this subsequent discussion is still 100% on topic, if you think about it... 

[DdeGannes]

@Keith Reeder , you stated

"As I point out, manual noise reduction is "baked in" to a DNG exported from Lr (along with pretty much any other adjustments I might care to make - that's one of the great things about Lr DNG exports) so why on earth should the same not be true of exported AI Denoised DNG files?"

I do not dispute this, if I choose to export the Enhanced-NR.DNG from LrC my choice would be to create a tiff. When you export as DNG what you get is a tiff data in a DNG wrapper.

I will wait and see how the feature be further developed. Thanks for your input.

[JohanElzenga · Accepted solution]

@Keith Reeder : "Using Lr's manual NR, if I export a DNG, the effect of the NR is baked into the file just as I'd expect, and it's there for other programmes. It's illogical for AI Denoise not to work the same way."

No it's not there for other apps, except Adobe apps! That is true if you export as TIFF or JPEG, but not if you export as DNG. If you export as DNG, then you'll create a DNG with the original data intact and the edits stored in XMP. The third party app would have to know how to read Adobe develop settings xmp, but very few third party apps can do this. The few that can, usually read only a few settings like Exposure, crop and some other basic settings. I doubt there is any third party app that can read Adobe manual noise reduction settings in XMP.

This is not what happens when you use AI denoise however. The reason that AI denoise creates a DNG is that the algorithms are too slow to apply denoise non-destructively 'on the fly' like all other develop settings. Especially for people who do not have the latest and greatest GPU, it can take several minutes. Saving a new DNG with AI Denoise in XMP would not make any sense, because then Lightroom would not have to create a new file in the first place.

So this is not why a DNG is created. Adobe had no choice but to create a new file with the denoised pixels stored in that file. Despite what Eric writes (I assume for simplicity sake, because he obviously knows better), the Denoised DNG is not a raw file. It is a linear RGB file, just like panorama DNG and Merge to HDR DNG. Yes, this type of DNG behaves like a raw file in Lightroom, so you do not really see the difference, but that does not mean it is a true (mosaiced) raw file. Adobe did decide to embed the raw data in this DNG as well however, and that probably confuses those third part apps.

[John R Ellis · Accepted solution]

"It is a linear RGB file, just like panorama DNG and Merge to HDR DNG. Yes, this type of DNG behaves like a raw file in Lightroom, so you do not really see the difference, but that does not mean it is a true (mosaiced) raw file. Adobe did decide to embed the raw data in this DNG as well however, and that probably confuses those third part apps."

To build on that, in April there was an extensive discussion here about the precise contents of denoised DNGs, and I dug into the details with Exiftool. The Denoised DNGs contain two separate full-resolution image representations, stored in TIFF SubIFDs:

- The output of Denoise, encoded as Linear Raw 16-bit RGB, and

- The original Color Filter Array mosaic data, converted to Adobe's standard DNG representation (the same as you'd get by running DNG Converter).

(There are five other reduced-resolution representations as well.)

Rikk Flohr reported back from the Camera Raw team:

"The intent of the mosaic data being included in the Denoised result is not to extract an original file at a later date. It is more accurate to say the original mosaic data is included for future iterations of the tool to accurately reprocess the original data for improved models and other possible enhancements (excuse the pun).  Ultimately, there is no additional 'file' within to extract. "

When a third-party app first opens a denoised DNG, it sees the two full-resolution image representations. Even if the app knows how to interpret the Linear Raw representation (containing the denoised version), it may be choosing to open the Color Filter Array representation instead (the original version), not expecting to find both the Linear Raw and the CFA versions in the same file.

As an experiment during that discussion to verify my assumptions, using Exiftool I modified some denoised DNGs to remove the Linear Raw SubIFDs, and those modified DNGs opened in Adobe apps and a couple third-party apps.

[John R Ellis]

Oops, I forgot to include: I also modified the denoised DNGs to remove the Color Filter Array (mosaic) SubIFDs, and those modified DNGs also opened in Adobe apps and a couple third-party apps, showing the denoised image.

[infograb]

Would you please share Exiftool exact command line you used to remove SubIFDs?

[John R Ellis]

"As an experiment during that discussion to verify my assumptions, using Exiftool I modified some denoised DNGs to remove the Linear Raw SubIFDs, and those modified DNGs opened in Adobe apps and a couple third-party apps."

I used:

exiftool -subifd1:subfiletype= test.dng

[Keith Reeder]

"As an experiment during that discussion to verify my assumptions, using Exiftool I modified some denoised DNGs to remove the Linear Raw SubIFDs, and those modified DNGs opened in Adobe apps and a couple third-party apps."

Which confirms that there's nothing inherently unreasonable about an expectation that the result of  AI denoised DNG export should be visible to other programmes - it's clearly possible right now.

That is isn't - right now - is simply an arbitrary decision by Adobe, which isn't even hinted at in their official documentation.

[Keith Reeder]

"No it's not there for other apps, except Adobe apps!"

You are yet again reading meaning into Eric's words which is patently not there, Johan - your "statement is fact" is nothing of the sort, because Eric actually says no such thing. 

It boils down to this: what is the point of being able to open AI Denoised DNGs in other applications (Denis' original question) unless we get the benefit of the denoise?

There is nothing remotely unreasonable about expecting this result, despite your fervent protestations to the contrary: Eric doesn't say a single thing which undermines this expectation, despite your overly confident assertions on the matter.

It would be trivially easy for Adobe to have coded AI denoise DNGs such that they will only subsequently open in Lr/PS. They didn't, which pretty compelling eveidence that a closed shop is not the intention.

[DdeGannes]

@Keith Reeder , I have marked the thread as answered since I have received confirmation to my question.