Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Camera Raw Q&A => Topic started by: jvora on November 19, 2008, 09:43:12 pm

Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: jvora on November 19, 2008, 09:43:12 pm
Hello !

I use the Nikon D200 and D300 and only shoot in the RAW format - Noting this, does the in built Noise Reduction feature have any effect on the image ?

I ask as I can see it having an effect on a jpeg or tiff, but is the RAW format not the most un-processed set of image data ??

Kindly confirm.


Jai
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Schewe on November 19, 2008, 10:01:15 pm
Quote from: jvora
I use the Nikon D200 and D300 and only shoot in the RAW format - Noting this, does the in built Noise Reduction feature have any effect on the image ?

Not if you are using Camera Raw, yes if you use Nikon's software.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on November 19, 2008, 10:02:39 pm
Quote from: jvora
I use the Nikon D200 and D300 and only shoot in the RAW format - Noting this, does the in built Noise Reduction feature have any effect on the image ?


The Noise Reduction does NOT affect the D300 raw data. I can not state state this re the D200, but I would be very surprized if that raw data were affected by the noise reduction selection.

I don't know of any other camera beside the Sony A700, which carries out noise reduction on the raw data. Perhaps the A900 too does that.

Note, that the Long Exposure Noise Reduction DOES affect the raw data; that is a completely different matter.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: mike.online on November 19, 2008, 10:15:13 pm
Quote from: Panopeeper
Note, that the Long Exposure Noise Reduction DOES affect the raw data

not to hijack the conversation, but how does it affect the raw information?
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on November 19, 2008, 10:35:04 pm
Quote from: mike.online
not to hijack the conversation, but how does it affect the raw information?

The effect of Long Exposure Noise Reduction is, that a second shot will be made with the same shutter time but with closed shutter, after the first exposure is finished. The pixel-wise result of the second shot is then substracted from the first one; the raw data contains only the result of the substraction.

The usefulness of this feature is a different issue.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: mike.online on November 19, 2008, 11:04:15 pm
I sometimes get single red pixels (look like dead pixels almost...) sometimes in long exposures and dark images. would this negate that? (Canon 30D)
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on November 20, 2008, 12:03:27 am
Quote from: mike.online
I sometimes get single red pixels (look like dead pixels almost...) sometimes in long exposures and dark images. would this negate that? (Canon 30D)

My experience is, that the Canon in-camera substraction is brutal; the result of substracting such hot pixels can be a black hole (literally). One can achieve a better result by creating a black frame shot with the same shutter time (cover the lens AND the viewfinder), and substracting that in PS as a layer. That way one has control over the substraction.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: NikosR on November 20, 2008, 12:11:04 am
Quote from: Schewe
Not if you are using Camera Raw, yes if you use Nikon's software.

Nikon's software can honour the in camera settings (not only NR) if asked to. I thought I should clarify since your answer leaves room for misinterpretation. So the raw data are not affected as they come out of the camera but the software can apply (on request) similar adjustments as the in-camera jpeg engine would to a jpeg file.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: jvora on November 20, 2008, 03:06:43 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
Note, that the Long Exposure Noise Reduction DOES affect the raw data; that is a completely different matter.


Thanks Panopeeper -

Appreciate this important clarification !

Any verdict if one should keep NR On for Long Exposures ??


Thanks all for the replies  !!


Jai
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: edwinb on November 20, 2008, 04:11:35 am
Quote from: jvora
Thanks Panopeeper -

Appreciate this important clarification !

Any verdict if one should keep NR On for Long Exposures ??


Thanks all for the replies  !!


Jai
as noise grows with time it becomes more significant with longer exposures and noise reduction techniques more likly to be beneficial
Edwin
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on November 20, 2008, 11:51:16 am
I forgot to post a demo for the effect of in-camera long exposure noise reduction.

The shot was only a few seconds long IIRC. The crop is from a turned off TV, thus the monotone appearance.

The first crop is w/o Long Exposure NR, the second one is with; look at the black hole. I have not saved the "manual" correction. I made a second shot and overlayed that as a layer in PS, as substraction. The result was pretty much the same as in-camera. Then I added a curve to the correction layer and adjusted it until the result was smooth.

(http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/HotPixel_on_TV.jpg)

(http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/HotPixel_Removed_InCamera.jpg)
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: PierreVandevenne on November 20, 2008, 11:59:08 am
Probably not that interesting for "normal" photography, but from an astronomical photography point of view, here is the analysis of C. Buil.

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm (http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm)
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 26, 2008, 05:04:48 am
ACR is doing noise reduction by default. No questions...

So shooting raw, you are stuck with Thomas Knoll's base level NR, which IMO is pretty terrible. See the samples below..ACR is hands down beaten with picasa.., you can see the effects of NR on ACR, sliders to 0 on luminance noise


ACR via Lightroom

[attachment=9876:LRACR.jpg]


Picasa


[attachment=9877:Picasa.jpg]

You have no way of avoiding this..sadly.

If you want the best quality high ISO work, ACR is not a good choice. Seems the folks at adobe are perfectly "ok" with being beaten with a freebie program..hmmmm


Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: madmanchan on November 26, 2008, 10:15:33 am
The real question is why you are using CR noise reduction of Luminance = 0 for high ISO work.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: bjanes on November 26, 2008, 10:52:37 am
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
ACR is doing noise reduction by default. No questions...

So shooting raw, you are stuck with Thomas Knoll's base level NR, which IMO is pretty terrible. See the samples below..ACR is hands down beaten with picasa.., you can see the effects of NR on ACR, sliders to 0 on luminance noise

If you want the best quality high ISO work, ACR is not a good choice. Seems the folks at adobe are perfectly "ok" with being beaten with a freebie program..hmmmm

To me, your Picassa image looks soft and over filtered. Personally, I prefer the ACR image.

I've had excellent results with ACR with high ISO files. It is generally agreed that a dedicated NR program is best for heavy duty noise reduction. Personally, I use NoiseWare and turn off all NR and sharpening in ACR. If you don't want to store intermediate images, the process can be done via a Photoshop action.

Here is your ACR image with NR via Noiseware applied, using the defaults:

[attachment=9885:LRACR_NW.jpg]
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 26, 2008, 11:43:51 am
The point I made was that ACR leaves artifacts, simply because it does NR itself. This is a user choice, and should not be left to Adobe.

The picasa one, has a much  finer grain pattern, which is a better starting point. You can use noise reduction programs, but you get a better result by not using ACR in the ist place. ACR applies by default more contrast and sharpening than picasa does. Hence the different look.

Hence the softer look from picasa.

But what amazes me, is how complacent users can be, when you can clearly see the mess ACR makes of high ISO images. The blame goes firmly to Mr Knoll, who should not even be applying any kind of noise filtering or reduction anyway. The problem ist came to light with LR 1.1, it has been toned down since then..but it has not been fixed.

I am amazed anyone could prefer the ACR one...
There are plenty of other programs out there, for example raw therapee, that show you just how much adobe are playing about with the noise reduction, when they should be doing NONE at all.

The reason for not doing any luminance NR, was to show how different they look. And because I don't dislike a fine film like grain pattern for high ISO images.


And in case anyone thinks it's "just my camera" have a look here.


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30145534 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=30145534)

I am going to keep moaning until Adobe get a grip on the problem, join me, and let's get something done!
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Samotano on November 27, 2008, 12:21:03 am
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
The point I made was that ACR leaves artifacts, simply because it does NR itself. This is a user choice, and should not be left to Adobe.
You may well have a point, but either your methodology is nonsensical or your language is unclear (or both).  I did not do any tests (formal or informal), but it would take more showing on your side to convince me that noise reduction (or lack of) in acr creates such artifacts.  Besides, are we really talking about noise reduction here or perhaps different demosaiking algorithms?
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2008, 12:37:11 am
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
I am going to keep moaning until Adobe get a grip on the problem, join me, and let's get something done!

Well, Pissin&Moaning™ ain't gonna move much, ya know? It's useful to prove your case and the fact is, that thread did nothing (other than illuminate the fact you don't like censorship).

Noise ain't usable micro-detail...if you are evaluating image detail at 1:1 or larger, you aren't seeing "reality" you're seeing reality magnified x2 up to x4 (or more) and all the stuff people "think" they are seeing isn't usable data...not on prints and not online (unless you routinely crop to a tiny portion of an image or post full rez files on a web site).

I find it humorous when people work themselves into a tizzy about things they think they are seeing when what they are seeing ain't what they're getting. A modern LCD has about a 100 PPI resolution...if you are viewing an image at 1:1 (one screen pixel for one image pixel) you are putting a 2x-4x loupe on all that stuff (even worse if you zoom into 2:1 or higher). And while it's useful to evaluate sharpening settings and noise reduction at those zooms, they aren't showing you real image detail but enlarged detail. Detail at those zooms will NEVER print on paper even if you are outputting at 480PPI on glossy paper. At 480PPI, the image on a display at 1:1 is 4.8x bigger (and if you reduce the size, even to 25% the display is still a low resolution devise).

The only way to evaluate images intended for printing is to print them...and in tests, Camera Raw with "proper" capture sharpening and noise reduction performs really well. So all these posting of 1:1 or higher crops on web sites is really much ado about nothing.

If you think Camera Raw is deficient in dealing with noisy images, prove it. Say something is so ain;t the same as being so, ya know?

:~)
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on November 27, 2008, 12:44:53 am
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
I am going to keep moaning until Adobe get a grip on the problem, join me, and let's get something done!
Your complaint would be better placed on the respective Adobe forum. There you could learn from earlier related threads that ACR's "basic" noise reduction is part of the demosaicing. There were lots of complaints IIRC when version 4.1 came out;  the next version reduced the inherent (i.e. not switchable) noise reduction, but some is still there. The effect is, that very fine details are eliminated.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on November 27, 2008, 12:46:42 am
Quote from: Schewe
If you think Camera Raw is deficient in dealing with noisy images, prove it.
This has been done numerous times on the Adobe ACR user forum.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2008, 12:51:38 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
This has been done numerous times on the Adobe ACR user forum.

I was part of that discussion and I never saw any proof (worth mentioning)...I saw a lot of hand wringing...but after Camera Raw 4.3, the only complaints were from people who didn't know what they were looking at (and what it means).

Is there room for improvement? Sure, you betcha...take the Camera Raw interpolation algorithm for example. Enough evidence of ringing artifacts was proven that the Camera Raw team worked to fix it (thanks Eric) and the 5.2 update proves that if you can prove something, they will work on things. But proof needs to be something other than raw processor A at default and raw processor B at default, crop to 100% and post it on a web site. Ya know?
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 27, 2008, 04:39:02 am
Jeff, the point is not 100% crops, but the quality of my high ISO prints are not as good with ACR, full stop. The only way to show this, aside from dropping around, is for me to show pics here. The other poster also did this, that was with studio shots too, I could certainly see the difference, and in print, bar tiny sizes..

Yes it has been talked about before, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it. People were freaking out when sony were playing about with raw  noise reduction in camera, ok this is not as severe as this. But surely the point of raw, is to do your own processing? And that includes noise reduction.

I want to be able to get the best possible quality for high ISO, yes I expect noise, and I expect to be able to deal with it myself. ACR isn't giving me that choice.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2008, 12:39:04 pm
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
Yes it has been talked about before, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it. People were freaking out when sony were playing about with raw  noise reduction in camera, ok this is not as severe as this. But surely the point of raw, is to do your own processing? And that includes noise reduction.


Exactly what do you think raw is? The very act of the camera's analog to digital converter "processes" images. Even opening native raw files in Camera Raw essentially converts them to DNG so Camera Raw can read them. Then, you see the result of the baseline demosiacing, noise reduction and some other stuff like color interpretation and default tone curves...and that all is happening before you get to see the preview in Camera Raw. So, you tell me, exactly what you think raw should be?

There are utilities you can use to parse the raw file without doing the stuff Camera Raw does. If you want really raw files, why even bother convert to a color space...keep it linear. Or, better yet, use Rawanalyze (written by a fellow LuLa member) which doesn't even do demosiacing...

The reason your "moaning" hasn't gotten much traction is, well, it's pretty much wrong. Sorry, but there it is in a nutshell. Again, if you view your image at 1:1 or above, you're looking at SciFi stuff that ain't real. What you think is micro-detail is simply unusable noise. Yes, there is a very fine line between noise and micro-detail...in order to step on noise, some micro-detail also gets stepped on. But it's stuff that isn't really usable detail and it's of a size and scale that it would never print.

So, you need to move on beyond this if you want to move the Camera Raw team. I know for a fact that each and every engineer has one singular goal in mind for Camera Raw–o do the best possible conversion from raw to encoded image file. They welcome and encourage feedback and direction (properly given without a lot of 'tude) from everybody but there's a kinda minimum level to which they pay attention to and that's the REAL and legitimate aspects of image quality that Camera Raw can do something about. There is talk about way of improving image quality on a variety of levels...the update to the resample code in 5.2 is a good example of if you prove there is a problem and there's a "better way" to do what Camera Raw is doing, the engineers will move heaven and earth to make that happen.

But you really, really need to know what you are talking about and be able to prove that the "current way" that Camera Raw works is leaving image quality on the table...and the Camera Raw noise reduction simply is not the "really bad problem" some people make it out to be–not for real life situations and uses of digital raw capture.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on November 27, 2008, 01:02:24 pm
Given that if I remember correctly Schewe was an advocate of ACR 4.1 and it's horrendously awful over smoothing at higher iso's, I doubt you will find much objectivity from that bullying Adobe Yes man.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2008, 01:09:07 pm
Quote from: pom
Given that if I remember correctly Schewe was an advocate of ACR 4.1 and it's horrendously awful over smoothing at higher iso's, I doubt you will find much objectivity from that bullying Adobe Yes man.


Actually, you got that part wrong...on the Camera Raw forums, I downloaded the files a fellow provided that were shot with a Canon D40 and did side by side tests with ACR 3.7 and ACR 4.1 on ISO 800+ images. I was convinced enough that I communicated with Zalman and Thomas and "helped" encourage them to address the issue which resulted in modified noise reduction approaches in first 4.2 and then in 4.3. Since that time, I have yet to find an egregious case of too much noise reduction in the demosiacing component of Camera Raw with the exception of the Sony files where in effect, noise reduction was being applied twice–once in camera and again upon conversion in Camera Raw...pretty sure Camera Raw then cut the noise reduction on Sony A700 files over a certain ISO. So, it would be useful if you knew what you were talking about as well doode...(useful also to know that facts).
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: sniper on November 27, 2008, 06:06:39 pm
If they can cut it out for the sony why not cut it out for all, or better yet give us the option.  Wayne
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: joergen geerds on November 27, 2008, 06:13:40 pm
Quote from: Schewe
Noise ain't usable micro-detail...if you are evaluating image detail at 1:1 or larger, you aren't seeing "reality" you're seeing reality magnified x2 up to x4 (or more) and all the stuff people "think" they are seeing isn't usable data...not on prints and not online (unless you routinely crop to a tiny portion of an image or post full rez files on a web site).

I find it humorous when people work themselves into a tizzy about things they think they are seeing when what they are seeing ain't what they're getting. A modern LCD has about a 100 PPI resolution...if you are viewing an image at 1:1 (one screen pixel for one image pixel) you are putting a 2x-4x loupe on all that stuff (even worse if you zoom into 2:1 or higher). And while it's useful to evaluate sharpening settings and noise reduction at those zooms, they aren't showing you real image detail but enlarged detail. Detail at those zooms will NEVER print on paper even if you are outputting at 480PPI on glossy paper. At 480PPI, the image on a display at 1:1 is 4.8x bigger (and if you reduce the size, even to 25% the display is still a low resolution devise).

The only way to evaluate images intended for printing is to print them...and in tests, Camera Raw with "proper" capture sharpening and noise reduction performs really well. So all these posting of 1:1 or higher crops on web sites is really much ado about nothing.

I don't agree with you... looking at pictures at 100% is THE way to evaluate noise, especially when you are planning to print it in huge sizes, like so many people believe they can do. Yes, if you print your source photo at true 300ppi or higher, the noise doesn't affect the image not so much, but if you are planning to print your 12MP at 40x30in or larger, NR comes much more into effect (and not in a good way).


Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2008, 09:02:28 pm
Quote from: joergen geerds
looking at pictures at 100% is THE way to evaluate noise, especially when you are planning to print it in huge sizes, like so many people believe they can do.


No, it's not...if you are going to print those sizes from small captures, you're gonna have to do a LOT of work upsampling and image processing. I've made a lot of printer up to 44" wide (some to 60" long) and looking at the image at 100% zoom will tell you nothing useful or accurate. 50% or 25% zoom will tell you more but then the problem is that the display is still 1/2 to 1.4 the resolution of the print. The ONLY thing that you can evaluate in terms of print quality is the print. A computer display really doesn't give you accurate information in regards to final print image detail–regardless of the print sizes and in many ways, even worse the larger the print you're making.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: barryfitzgerald on December 06, 2008, 06:49:50 pm
I would like to point out again, that I am printing.. at small print sizes it won't make any difference.

However, I am seeing other people notice problems too, with ACR for high ISO work.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30262093 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=30262093)

I am not satisfied that adobe are taking notice of this. It is really simple. Don't do any noise reduction at all. The base level NR is not very effective IMO. And it needs sorting out. No heads in sand on this one. And yes, I am getting better "prints" (larger sizes) by  not using ACR for high ISO work.

If adobe want to tweak their luminance NR slider, fire away. But let's start by not doing any in the ist place.


Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Panopeeper on December 06, 2008, 11:02:59 pm
Quote from: barryfitzgerald
It is really simple. Don't do any noise reduction at all. The base level NR is not very effective IMO

1. Carrying out basic NR in before/during demosaicing is the right thing to do. Think of following: the noise is more often than not coming from a single channel. Typical case: the noisy sky; it is always caused by the low red channel. If no NR takes place before/during demosaicing, this noise gets carried over in the other channels, the mess becomes worse.

The conditions of doing this and its degree is a different issue.

2. The problem of ACR with the raw images of certain cameras, like the Sony A900 is not in the noise reduction but the interpretation of the raw data.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: madmanchan on December 07, 2008, 10:00:05 am
Quote
Carrying out basic NR in before/during demosaicing is the right thing to do.

Exactly.
Title: In Camera Noise Reduction question
Post by: Max Penson on December 07, 2008, 10:34:27 am
The secret for good noise reduction is pleasing grain, where ACR is quite behind. If I had to rank the different solutions in the market in terms of pleasing grain, I'd rank:

Nikon D3/D700/D300 - jpeg - NR low setting (http://kammagamma.com/articles/nikon-d300-how-much-of-an-improvement.php)
Nikon Capture NX (RAW from D3/D700/D300)
Canon EOS 1D Mark III or newer - JPEG
Canon DPP (RAW from Canon EOS 1D Mark III or newer - filtering holes (http://kammagamma.com/articles/high-iso-with-dpp-should-and-can-be-better.php) - use sharpening 2 or less!)
DXO optics (careful - no spatial filtering - don't over sharpen)
ACR
Apple Aperture
Capture ONE