Quick test of ACR's new denoise function.

Nikon P950 at ISO 6400
On the left the original RAW - on the right the denoised version.

Interesting. A question: as I understand it, the output is a DNG, which then can be exported as a JPG. Is that correct? And if there is a DNG is that linear?

The output is a DNG which can be saved as a JPG. I don't know if it's linear or not.

I can confirm the denoised version is saved as a second DNG file, saved next to the original RAW file.

In LRC most know a DNG file can be exported in jpg form.

My preliminary testing indicates it works quite well – though I cannot confirm it is the equal of the best other brand denoise programs

The output file seems to be a linear DNG as it is still scene-referred (colors not assigned) but large (demosaiced).

My .NEF files also show no color profile assigned to them.

.NEF files are raw, which are not demosaiced yet and are scene-referred (color assigned only in post-processor, not in raw file).

BTW, you can check whether the file is output-referred (color assigned) by looking at the white balance slider. If it shows an absolute number for temperature (2000K to 50000K), then it is scene-referred. Otherwise, it shows an offset (-100 to +100) and is output-referred, and the colors have already been assigned.

For most purposes, a scene-referred file (e.g., linear-DNG) has the same post-processing possibilities as a raw file.

incorrect - for example "white balance slider" for a raw file opened in ACR/LR in "as shot" mode will just show K/tint based on what relevant WB tags were written in that raw file and that can BE anything ( achieved through a process like/similar to setting UniWB )

I do not see which part you disagree with.
My point was that you have a specific value in Kelvin for scene-referred and an offset for output-referred. A raw file is scene-referred, and a tiff or JPEG is output-referred.

Edit: I do not believe that the WB value can be outside the 2000K to 50000K range, can it?

Some test of the new LrC AI Denoise feature in comparison to DXO PL6 DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD

LrC amount 70

DXO DeepPrime amount 40

DXO PL6 DeepPrime XD

I think DeepPrime XD did a better job, but Adobe is getting there.

I am sorry - I missed your point about Adobe ACR/LR UI - yes it does change slider's scale ... moral - do not read postings while doing a day job :-) !

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

André

Mmmm....AI is obviously at work here, and the results are...questionnable for me. Yes, noise is gone. But the image looks completely unreal.
I prefer some remaining noise and more true to life results. YMMV
André

What you see is the OP's personal choice of settings.
Adobe's Denoise has a slider to tune the amount of remaining noise. Adobe also suggests adding grain if the image looks too smooth.

Pretty amazing when I consider what we had 20 years ago.

Ah. OK. Thank you for the clarification!

Yes, rather unusable photo still, but the difference is in order of magnitude "better" to what we had before.
Unrecoverable is unrecoverable, but either for sentiment, or understanding or human eye recognition, it is valuable tool to have.
And while unusable by my metrics, It is greatest transformation of denoised image I have seen to date. I would not even consider such image for anything. As is, it has very close to zero information except for understanding it ś a room. So much much more is visible and understandable after AI efforts.

I was wondering about going FF, because anything over ISO800 was not liked by me from APS-C sensors. But with AI, I get usable 4k output between ISO3200-6400. That´s another three stops of "performance", and at times, it absolutely changes things or decides if shot is taken/shown. Less demanding pictures can go up to ISO12800, no problem. Yes, FF can go stop or two higher, but the real life threshold is not at that place often, if ever. APS format got relevant to me again. No need for high res FF and consequences of such choice.