Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

6 Messages

 • 

124 Points

Tue, Jan 14, 2020 11:26 AM

Lightroom Classic: Demosiacing is falling behind and needs improvement

Hi there,

Maybe I am a pixel peeper, but as of 2020, my observations are that Lightroom's demosaicing is falling way behind competitors and doesn't recover as much detail as, for example, CaptureOne or RawTherapee. Together with fairly average sharpening and denoising, the final result is so mushy compared to what you can get elsewhere with just a snap of your fingers, that it's just frustrating and urges me to look for a replacement.

Here is a 200% crop of a photo taken on Nikon D5100 as demosaiced by RawTherapee's AMaZE VS Lightroom (all sharpening, denoising and corrections turned off in both). See how much crisper and detailed is the AMaZE version?



It's literally free resolution! Well, technically, the Lr's version is "lost resolution" - you are not getting from your gear what you paid for it.

Can Adobe do something about this? I mean, adopting AMaZE demosaicing from the open-source shouldn't be too hard, right? That would be already a significant improvement. Please?

Cheers!

1

Responses

7.9K Messages

 • 

114.4K Points

8 months ago

It might be useful, Sergei to compare an Enhanced Details version as part of your comparison. Have you evaluated this feature?

Adobe Photography Products
Quality Engineer: Customer Advocacy

5 Messages

 • 

284 Points

it is a great feature, which unfortunately forces everybody (even those with RTX2080 GPUs) to create massive, massive (linear+ sized) DNG files instead of letting users with powerful GPUs to do that type demosaick w/o creating intermediate DNGs... I am using on-line backups and to deal with extra huge DNGs is too much... address that first

6 Messages

 • 

124 Points

The difference between non-enhanced and enhanced is very marginal, mostly in fringing artifacts.

Here is enhanced version too:


RawTherapee is still ahead by a lot.

33 Messages

 • 

588 Points

8 months ago

Sergei, it may be that the details were lost in the translation but I don't see any difference between the RT and Lr examples you gave. At least on my monitor.

6 Messages

 • 

124 Points

You need to open the image, embedded one is downsized and it's less obvious, though still visible.

Champion

 • 

3K Messages

 • 

55.4K Points

I have to agree with Jack. The left image has a little more contrast which may make it seem a little sharper, but I do not see any difference in detail.

6 Messages

 • 

124 Points

That's the thing, it's not the contrast, if you look at the deep shadows the Lr's version has actually more overall contrast than RT's one. What you refer to is microcontrast, e.g. the ability to maintain hard edges hard and don't smudge them across several pixels, and this is exactly what we want from a good demosaicing algorithm. Lightrooms version feels like a tiny bit of additional gaussian blur on top of the image, and as far as I am aware there is no reliable way to "undo" that.

This actually makes me think that if I find a good example from a camera that doesn't have an AA-filter on the sensor the difference might be even more pronounced.

Champion

 • 

3K Messages

 • 

55.4K Points

Well, whatever we want to call it, I cannot agree with your statement that RT is way ahead. If you pixel-peep enough you may see very slight differences, but that is all I can see. Very slight differences that I am sure will not show at all if you compare the images in a normal way rather than 200% zoomed in on screen, i.e. if you would print them, for example. You are making a big deal out of nothing in my opinion.

Champion

 • 

3K Messages

 • 

55.4K Points

Champion

 • 

2.1K Messages

 • 

36.3K Points

8 months ago

Here is a 200% crop of a photo taken on Nikon D5100 as demosaiced by RawTherapee's AMaZE VS Lightroom (all sharpening, denoising and corrections turned off in both). See how much crisper and detailed is the AMaZE version?
IMHO this is a pointless comparison. All raw files need sharpening and Tone settings applied to the demosaiced image data. What does this image file look like AFTER applying ALL Develop module controls including Detail panel adjustments compared to RawTherapee? In other words your best effort editing the image in both raw converters. What camera model?

6 Messages

 • 

124 Points

What would be the point of such comparison? If I thought that RT is better in every way possible I would just use it and save myself the Lr's subscription fee. I use it as an example because it's really easy to get control over each step there and see what exactly is going on. I could use C1 as an example - it also does better than Lr - but it's not as easy to ensure that nothing else is happening under the hood.

I isolated a single step that lies in the foundation of all following processing, capture sharpening will happen later and it's irrelevant at this stage. Better inputs - better outputs and more control over editing. But if you've lost definition at that very first step - there is nothing you can do about it in future steps of the raw development pipeline. You can mask it behind a ton of sharpening, but this won't really fix it.

Champion

 • 

2.1K Messages

 • 

36.3K Points

If you're trying to convince Adobe they need to improve LR and ACR demosaicing algorithms you'll need to provide fully edited image file comparisons to make your case. This includes applying equivalent Tone, Sharpening, and Noise Reduction controls, exporting to full-size TIFF file format, and providing share links to download and compare them. You'll also need to provide the raw file used for creating the TIFFs. If what you are claiming is correct the differences should be visible when viewed at 100% and obvious at 200% view.

Just a suggestion–Don't shoot the messenger!