Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: hassiman on May 18, 2008, 06:33:00 pm
-
I am looking for recommendations as to the best noise reduction software package. I am scanning slides with SilverFast on a Nikon Super CoolScan 9000. Working on a Mac with OSX and Cs3 and LightZone.
I have heard good thing about Neat Image and Niose Ninja.
Thanks.
-
Noiseware is pretty darn awesome.
-
Lightroom 2.x
-
All-in-all how do you like LR 2.0? I was thinking of buying it when it's released... the noise reduction is that good? I heard it also has Enfuse HDR built-in...
Lightroom 2.x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Noiseware is pretty darn awesome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I second Andrew's comment. Noiseware is very effective. Noise Ninja is a worthwhile alternative but I prefer Noiseware. Lightroom (current version) is fine for light to medium noise removal but it's not in the same league as Noiseware for demanding photos.
I haven't made any comparison between Lightrrom 1.4.1 and 2.0 beta.
-
Noisware it is for me too
-
Noiseware is pretty darn awesome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As an owner of Noise Ninja, would you recommend using Noiseware instead?
The reason I ask is that I sometimes encounter more noise than I would wish for post-sharpening when I have already used Noise Ninja.
-
If you can bracket your shots or even just take a second shot of the same thing, you can also use the blending software that there's a discussion about at this site to do amazing things.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....noise+reduction (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17775&hl=noise+reduction)
This seems to do a very good job of cleaning up images without mangling the raw data much, if any.
-
I've got licensed copies of many different noise reduction products and I use Noiseware first. See some samples here (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/noiseware.html) and here (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/misc/noisechart.jpg) (bottom of chart, which I did over a year ago from a film scan sample).
-
I use to use Noiseware. (Still do occasionally.) But lately, I've started using Nik Dfine 2.0 quite a bit. It seems to do a good job of dampening noise while maintaining most detail. Plus, it does it's job on a seperate layer that you can then blend with opacity.
-
I use to use Noiseware. (Still do occasionally.) But lately, I've started using Nik Dfine 2.0 quite a bit. It seems to do a good job of dampening noise while maintaining most detail. Plus, it does it's job on a seperate layer that you can then blend with opacity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can use a duplicate image layer for applying Noise Ninja and Noiseware. This allows you to adjust opacity, do masking and selective noise reduction, etc.
I use Noiseware Pro. It has the most options for global adjustment of what the program should count as noise and how much to reduce it, where. It is arguably the best at detail protection, though all these programs do sacrifice some detail in the process of reducing noise.
-
Noiseware is pretty darn awesome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since getting the Canon G9, I've experimented more with noise reduction than ever before. I've used Neat Image in the past but based on some studies by Thomas Niemann found that ACR noise reduction was somewhat better. With either of these methods, it seems to me that I can get an acceptable 8x10 print from the G9 at ISO400.
ISO800 is a different matter.
Interested by the comments on this thread, I've compared Noiseware and Noise Ninja to Neat Image and ACR. To compare, I used all four noise reduction methods and overlaid them in Photoshop. Neat Image, Noiseware and Noise Ninja were profiled automatically. Comparison was at 50% magnification. I turned various layers on and off and examined light and dark areas. I compared ISO800 shots in good and poor light.
It seems to me that Noiseware is the best package for my needs (Canon G9); Neat Image had the poorest performance -- usually creates unsightly artifacts even if the strength is turned down to 50%. Interestingly, of these packages, I am the most experienced with Neat Image although that experience must not translate into expertise.
Anyway, I think I'll be buying Noiseware. It did not *always* produce the best noise reduction but then I haven't read the instructions yet either.
Oh yes, I can now sometimes get a decent 8x10 from G9 ISO800!
-
I just noticed I had a typo in my Noiseware URL above--it's fixed now.
-
I yanked the noise reduction software comparison from my eBook/Video on sharpening.
It compares NeatImage, Noise Ninja, Nik! Dfine, and Power Retouche Reduce Noise.
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/review...tionPlugins.pdf (http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/reviews/NoiseReductionPlugins.pdf)
I live NeatImage, Noise Ninja, and Nik! Dfine 2.0 a lot. I use NeatImage more than any. Vlad's customer service is the best of any add-in. No real complaints about Noise Ninja on customer service, but Vlad goes out of his way to notify about upgrades (which have been free for several years), etc.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
Mitch,
I read your extract. I don't know when it was written, hence whether or not Noiseware was available when you did this work. Have you since tried Noiseware and compared it with Noise Ninja?
-
Mitch,
I read your extract. I don't know when it was written, hence whether or not Noiseware was available when you did this work. Have you since tried Noiseware and compared it with Noise Ninja?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I completed the eBook last fall. That chapter was done last spring, if memory serves.
No, I have not yet reviewed Noiseware. The reason is that I have not yet purchased a copy. I only review software that I purchase.
It is on my list to purchase soon.
One thing that I will add is that I do not find the noise reduction in ACR4 or LR1 to be even close to equal with NI/NN/Dfine. Same with the Reduce Noise filter in PS. Even in CS3 it needs improvement.
The other consideration about noise reduction in the RAW processor is absence/control over surface masking. I agree with Andrew and Jeff Schewe and others that there's good reason to do global adjustments to WB and tone in RAW, and I do make those adjustments in RAW.
Noise reduction really benefits from using a surface mask to keep it away from the edges. ACR4 could be used for capture sharpening, but I avoid it there precisely because noise reduction needs to come first or it will likely clobber any capture sharpening when done after capture sharpening.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
Mitch,
No need to purchase it to review it - they've had free trials available for a couple of years. Now that you've done all the other major contenders, adding this one could be of interest.
I think the main advantage of these tools over doing noise reduction in ACR is the considerable fine-tuning features they offer for selecting what is noise and how much to reduce it. Neat Image, Noise Ninja and Noiseware all provide many similar such features. The key item of interest for me is how well they compare in terms of their (and the user's) ability to separate noise from detail and preserve the latter while mitigating the former. It is in this respect that I find Noiseware particularly strong.
As for the use of capture sharpening in ACR, of course it depends on whether or not noise reduction is needed. If one needs to reduce noise, and if one decides that using a PS plug-in is the preferred approach, then right - one wouldn't want to sharpen the noise in ACR and then try reducing it. As you say, it kind of defeats the purpose of sharpening, but it also makes noise reduction more difficult. On the other hand, where no noise reduction is needed (increasingly the case with today's high-end DSLRs up to pretty high ISOs) capture sharpening works well either in ACR or in PS.
-
Mitch,
No need to purchase it to review it - they've had free trials available for a couple of years. Now that you've done all the other major contenders, adding this one could be of interest.
Further more, just asking the company for a copy would result in a NFR as the Noiseware people are quite accommodating for those reviewers of reasonable credentials. But as you point out, there's a fully functional demo (albeit with watermarking).
-
Further more, just asking the company for a copy would result in a NFR as the Noiseware people are quite accommodating for those reviewers of reasonable credentials. But as you point out, there's a fully functional demo (albeit with watermarking).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL. You know me better than that, Andrew. I don't solicit or review copies. I know they'll give me a copy.
I also don't review demos. I find that to be really risky, especially since demos night not be as current as production copies.
Aside from paying for the Web hosting, the money from donations to my site is used to pay for software to review. It all does back to the DP community.
I sure don't *NEED* four different noise reduction packages (five, when I buy Noiseware)! LOL.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
What I like about Noise Ninja is the facility to selectively remove the noise reduction effect after it has been applied, using a variable size brush. This is useful for areas where retaining full resolution is more important than the slight but inevitable softening that always results from noise reduction. For example, a slight softening of resolution of pores on skin might be desirable, but not on eyebrows and eyelashes.
-
Mitch,
I think the main advantage of these tools over doing noise reduction in ACR is the considerable fine-tuning features they offer for selecting what is noise and how much to reduce it. Neat Image, Noise Ninja and Noiseware all provide many similar such features. The key item of interest for me is how well they compare in terms of their (and the user's) ability to separate noise from detail and preserve the latter while mitigating the former. It is in this respect that I find Noiseware particularly strong.
As for the use of capture sharpening in ACR, of course it depends on whether or not noise reduction is needed. If one needs to reduce noise, and if one decides that using a PS plug-in is the preferred approach, then right - one wouldn't want to sharpen the noise in ACR and then try reducing it. As you say, it kind of defeats the purpose of sharpening, but it also makes noise reduction more difficult. On the other hand, where no noise reduction is needed (increasingly the case with today's high-end DSLRs up to pretty high ISOs) capture sharpening works well either in ACR or in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you save your RAW conversion as a Smart Image, using ACR4 or LR2 when it's released, it will work out better than well.
It is true that I do generalize from my own experience, which is with a 1DsMkII and a 20D currently, so they are more prone to noise than the latest generation of DIGIC.
I don't apply noise reduction to every photo and when I don't, I have considered ACR for capture sharpening. My hesitation has been the added control I get by selecting and refining the edge mask, making Blend If setting decisions, etc. It's the fine art photographer tendency to obsess over the small details. I could certainly par down the file size by capture sharpening in ACR, though.
I definitely hear ya, and I think we're in 100% agreement.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
LOL. You know me better than that, Andrew. I don't solicit or review copies. I know they'll give me a copy.
So why not update your review of what is arguably the best product on the market? You can either use the demo or ask for an NFR which is perfectly appropriate? I'm not sure what your points are but the review is incomplete at best!
I also don't review demos. I find that to be really risky, especially since demos night not be as current as production copies.
hogwash.
Aside from paying for the Web hosting, the money from donations to my site is used to pay for software to review. It all does back to the DP community.
I sure don't *NEED* four different noise reduction packages (five, when I buy Noiseware)! LOL.
OK so your point is, you ask for donations to run a site to have reviews up that help the imaging community but what again is the reason you can't ask for an NFR or provide a review of Noiseware?
-
What I like about Noise Ninja is the facility to selectively remove the noise reduction effect after it has been applied, using a variable size brush. This is useful for areas where retaining full resolution is more important than the slight but inevitable softening that always results from noise reduction. For example, a slight softening of resolution of pores on skin might be desirable, but not on eyebrows and eyelashes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then you would love the Selective feature in Nik! Dfine, which is an automation add-in. You can use any Photoshop brush to selective apply/erase the effect. It is extremely well done in the latest generation of Nik! tools.
If you apply noise reduction on a layer (you always should!), you can also use a brush to selectively adjust the effect.
If you use a surface mask, you can still use a layer mask to brush the effect in/out selectively (without clobbering your surface mask). Just place your noise reduction layer inside a layer group/set. That can have it's own layer mask. That way, you can use a surface mask to restrict the effect from the edges *AND* and you can then adjust the effect on those surfaces.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
LOL. You know me better than that, Andrew. I don't solicit or review copies. I know they'll give me a copy.
I also don't review demos. I find that to be really risky, especially since demos night not be as current as production copies.
Aside from paying for the Web hosting, the money from donations to my site is used to pay for software to review. It all does back to the DP community.
I sure don't *NEED* four different noise reduction packages (five, when I buy Noiseware)! LOL.
Cheers,
Mitch
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's unlikely to be a risk the demo would anti-date the shipping version. No sensible company wanting to promote their wares would do that.
Of course no-one is begging you to review it, so if you don't need it and that determines whether you review it, all understandable. But readers of your material and your recommendations should be aware that a serious contender is excluded from your scope not for reasons related to the relative merit of the product, and I think you've explained that.
-
What I like about Noise Ninja is the facility to selectively remove the noise reduction effect after it has been applied, using a variable size brush. This is useful for areas where retaining full resolution is more important than the slight but inevitable softening that always results from noise reduction. For example, a slight softening of resolution of pores on skin might be desirable, but not on eyebrows and eyelashes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, true - the brush is a Noise Ninja feature not found in Noiseware. Because I always do noise reduction on a duplicate image layer, I have many more, and more refined controls for targeting noise reduction than afforded by Noise Ninja's brush, so I don't miss it using Noiseware.
-
So why not update your review of what is arguably the best product on the market? You can either use the demo or ask for an NFR which is perfectly appropriate? I'm not sure what your points are but the review is incomplete at best!
hogwash.
OK so your point is, you ask for donations to run a site to have reviews up that help the imaging community but what again is the reason you can't ask for an NFR or provide a review of Noiseware?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
C'mon, Andrew. We were being quite reasonable with each other. Let's try to keep it that way. None of my comments, expect the very respectful comment about adjusting WB and tone in ACR, were directed at you in any way. I think everyone is better served if you and I keep the conversation civil.
My point was quite simple. I buy the software I review. I have not yet bought Noiseware. (I do not have an unlimited budget.)
I did not claim the review was comprehensive. Quite to the contrary, I'll very flatly and dispassionately agree that the review is incomplete. It would be better with Noiseware included.
OTOH, I do believe some readers will find a comparison of NeatImage, Noise Ninja, nik! Dfine, and Power Retouche to be helpful, even if Noiseware is not yet included. I'll let them decide.
-
There's unlikely to be a risk the demo would anti-date the shipping version. No sensible company wanting to promote their wares would do that.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, that happens. Especially with small software companies. We're not talking major versions. We're talking minor revisions, bug fixes, patches, etc. The demo might very well not have the most recent changes/fixes.
In part, it depends I guess on whether the company uses an unlock code or a genuine demo. I think an unlock code is more likely to be current.
But I can tell you that I have downloaded many demos, unlocked them, and had them immediatley go to the Web and offer to download an upgrade!
You're right, the absence of Noiseware in the review does not reflect in way a judgment about its merits (technical or other). It merely reflect constraints in both budget and time.
Cheers,
Mitch
-
I'm not sure if the best noise reduction software depends on whether you are removing grain from film scans or cleaning up noise from a digital camera.
I use Neat Image to remove grain from film scans. I created noise profiles for my scanner and film types using IT-8 targets. I think the noise profiles are the key to getting optimum performance from Neat Image.
With my noise profiles I can remove virtually all film grain while retaining virtually all details.
I can't speak for other programs or for Neat Image as far as removing digital camera noise, but I can say that Neat Image, with good noise profiles, does a fantastic job of removing film grain while retaining detail.
-
I'm not sure if the best noise reduction software depends on whether you are removing grain from film scans or cleaning up noise from a digital camera.
I use Neat Image to remove grain from film scans. I created noise profiles for my scanner and film types using IT-8 targets. I think the noise profiles are the key to getting optimum performance from Neat Image.
With my noise profiles I can remove virtually all film grain while retaining virtually all details.
I can't speak for other programs or for Neat Image as far as removing digital camera noise, but I can say that Neat Image, with good noise profiles, does a fantastic job of removing film grain while retaining detail.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=198538\")
Yes, I agree with you: for mitigating film grain Neat Image does an excellent job. I wrote this up in my article on this website: [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/ndq.shtml]NDQ Article[/url] In my case it is for colour negatives.
-
I bought Noise Ninja and Noiseware, and now find myself using only Noiseware.
Excellent software!