NEATIMAGE & HIGH ISO's

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Someone on one of the pro photo groups suggested I check out NeatImage after he
found the background in this ISO 1600 pic to be a bit noisy ( I didn't have a
prob with it):
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35429440

So anyways, I had tried it a few years ago but wasn't too impressed so I
figured I'd give it another day in court. To make a long story short, I now
have the full ver. 4.4 Pro+ edition and it works as advertised.

To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to
3200.
Here is a little test strip I made showing how each shot looks from the 20D and
with the NeatImage processing.

http://members.aol.com/annika1980/neatcomp.jpg

As you can see there is little advantage to using NeatImage at the lower ISO's
since the 20D is so clean. However, the software really kicks in the higher
you go so it's like buying two extra stops on all your shots for $79.

This one gets the ANNI 4-star rating. (It might've garnered a perfect 5-star
rating, but I had to pay for it).

-Annika ----> hates buyin software
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Annika

I'm in deep agreement Re: the goodness of NI.

I routinely use it on D70 images. As you note,
it's especially good on high ISO images. Makes
my 1600 ISO images look better than scanned
pro ISO160 film.

-- stan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging
> from 100 to 3200.

I can make a trivial de-noiser which will produce zero noise under your
test conditions: simply replace all pixels with the average value.

A better test would be to synthesize an image and then degrade it to
various degrees -- add in some white noise -- and then give it to "NI"
and compare the result to the original. One can then quantify not only
the noise reduction, but also the (necessary) detail reduction as well.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From: eawckye...@yahoo.com


> To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging
> from 100 to 3200.


I can make a trivial de-noiser which will produce zero noise under your
test conditions: simply replace all pixels with the average value.

The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the
noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the
noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look
beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene.
Kinda like film.
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,595
0
19,730
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:


>
> The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the
> noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the
> noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look
> beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene.
> Kinda like film.

Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.

--

Stacey
 

bub

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2002
10
0
18,560
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like plastic, I call it glassed over.


"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34gr9tF4bemdjU2@individual.net...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the
> > noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the
> > noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look
> > beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene.
> > Kinda like film.
>
> Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.
>
> --
>
> Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <20050110193036.06924.00000028@mb-m29.aol.com>, annika1980
@aol.com says...
> Someone on one of the pro photo groups suggested I check out NeatImage after he
> found the background in this ISO 1600 pic to be a bit noisy ( I didn't have a
> prob with it):
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35429440
>
> So anyways, I had tried it a few years ago but wasn't too impressed so I
> figured I'd give it another day in court. To make a long story short, I now
> have the full ver. 4.4 Pro+ edition and it works as advertised.
>
> To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to
> 3200.
> Here is a little test strip I made showing how each shot looks from the 20D and
> with the NeatImage processing.
>
> http://members.aol.com/annika1980/neatcomp.jpg
>
> As you can see there is little advantage to using NeatImage at the lower ISO's
> since the 20D is so clean. However, the software really kicks in the higher
> you go so it's like buying two extra stops on all your shots for $79.
>
> This one gets the ANNI 4-star rating. (It might've garnered a perfect 5-star
> rating, but I had to pay for it).
>
> -Annika ----> hates buyin software

How does it do with areas of high detail? Can it separate the wheat
from the chaff?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:

> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>>>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:34gr9tF4bemdjU2@individual.net...
>>
>>>> > Kinda like film.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.
>>>>
>>
>> You must look at the world through dirty glasses.
>
> No, it's just a different look. Some people like the smooth zero noise look
> even if some details are blured, I don't mind a little noise for crisp
> details.

I certainly find that overdoing the neatening (with various tools;
mostly Noise Ninja for me nowadays) can give rather plastic-looking
results. Generally I don't like those, but as you say, what one likes
is pretty much by definition a matter of taste!

It's not that "zero noise" looks plastic, though, I don't think. It's
that zero *variation* looks plastic, and turning up the strength on
the cleanup causes all the little variations to end up treated as
noise, along with the *real* noise.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:34gr9tF4bemdjU2@individual.net...

>> > Kinda like film.
>>
>> Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.
>>

You must look at the world through dirty glasses.
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,595
0
19,730
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

>>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:34gr9tF4bemdjU2@individual.net...
>
>>> > Kinda like film.
>>>
>>> Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.
>>>
>
> You must look at the world through dirty glasses.

No, it's just a different look. Some people like the smooth zero noise look
even if some details are blured, I don't mind a little noise for crisp
details.
--

Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050110193036.06924.00000028@mb-m29.aol.com...
SNIP
> http://members.aol.com/annika1980/neatcomp.jpg
>
> As you can see there is little advantage to using NeatImage at the
> lower ISO's
> since the 20D is so clean. However, the software really kicks in
> the higher
> you go so it's like buying two extra stops on all your shots for
> $79.

And it does so with little (or no visible) deterioration of detail.
But don't make the mistake to not recognize the benefit if you have to
significantly sharpen low ISO shots either.

Bart
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34gr9tF4bemdjU2@individual.net...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the
>> noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail
>> the
>> noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look
>> beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene.
>> Kinda like film.
>
> Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.

That's why I usually reduce the Luminance noise reduction from its
default 60% down to 45 or 50, depending on the image.

Bart
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4d0f5bc7f6a11d98a4be@news.verizon.net...
SNIP
> How does it do with areas of high detail? Can it separate the
> wheat from the chaff?

Yes it does. Added with a little operator skill it does even better,
and the Plug-in version also allows to use it on a layer, so you can
mask in/out whatever you'd want to treat differently.

Bart
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

> On areas with lotsa detail the noise isn't so problematical.

Yeah. However, the acid test of a de-noiser is not how well it does in
featureless areas (sky) or featureful areas, but how it handles the
transition, particularly abrupt ones. My "trivial" denoiser does an
excellect job on featureless places, but would clearly be unacceptable
for anywhere else.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050110193036.06924.00000028@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Someone on one of the pro photo groups suggested I check out NeatImage
after he
> found the background in this ISO 1600 pic to be a bit noisy ( I didn't
have a
> prob with it):
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35429440
>
Maybe most of us know the God awful digital noise produced by the Sony
sensors in a 100D Nikon at 400 ISO with a 1/30th shutter in low light...
Well to me, getting the noise out of these sort of pictures has always been
a challenge. NI actually does that but an even better set of Photoshop
actions exists that will kill the noise without damaging the sharpenss. They
cost $15 US. Run them first, Interpolate up to 20"x30" and then run NI. The
results are very good indeed. On 20D, 1600 ISO images you only need to run
NI and they look as good as ISO 200 stuff. It is a really good program. The
cost of the Photoshop plugin is only of value when you need to do a lot of
high ISO shooting.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050111012139.09434.00000055@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:34gr9tF4bemdjU2@individual.net...
>
> >> > Kinda like film.
> >>
> >> Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me.
> >>
>
> You must look at the world through dirty glasses.
>

Or, maybe dirty pictures ... ;-) I couldn't resist it !!
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,595
0
19,730
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>
> It's not that "zero noise" looks plastic, though, I don't think.

On this I'm not so sure. At least for me I'm so use to the look of film,
that the ultra smooth images some of the Dslr's have just look "plastic".
They don't have the resolving power of say a 4X5 film camera to get away
with the grainless look and it ends up looking weird to me. Then again
everyone has different tastes.

--

Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:
>
> In article <20050110193036.06924.00000028@mb-m29.aol.com>, annika1980
> @aol.com says...
> > Someone on one of the pro photo groups suggested I check out NeatImage after he
> > found the background in this ISO 1600 pic to be a bit noisy ( I didn't have a
> > prob with it):
> > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35429440
> >
> > So anyways, I had tried it a few years ago but wasn't too impressed so I
> > figured I'd give it another day in court. To make a long story short, I now
> > have the full ver. 4.4 Pro+ edition and it works as advertised.
> >
> > To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to
> > 3200.
> > Here is a little test strip I made showing how each shot looks from the 20D and
> > with the NeatImage processing.
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/annika1980/neatcomp.jpg
> >
> > As you can see there is little advantage to using NeatImage at the lower ISO's
> > since the 20D is so clean. However, the software really kicks in the higher
> > you go so it's like buying two extra stops on all your shots for $79.
> >
> > This one gets the ANNI 4-star rating. (It might've garnered a perfect 5-star
> > rating, but I had to pay for it).
> >
> > -Annika ----> hates buyin software
>
> How does it do with areas of high detail? Can it separate the wheat
> from the chaff?

In my experiernce, fine detail like animal fur can get blurred, but
generally it does reasonably well. I'll have to get me a website to
start posting some examples, I guess.

Colin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41e3ba38$0$6206$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, bvdwolf@no.spam
says...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c4d0f5bc7f6a11d98a4be@news.verizon.net...
> SNIP
> > How does it do with areas of high detail? Can it separate the
> > wheat from the chaff?
>
> Yes it does. Added with a little operator skill it does even better,
> and the Plug-in version also allows to use it on a layer, so you can
> mask in/out whatever you'd want to treat differently.
>
> Bart

Very interesting. I might have to invest in the full version in the
near future.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/