Camera Raw's new Denoise tool with scanned files

[russellcbanks]

I have some important 35mm film negatives that have too much grain when scanned. (scanning seems to increase the grain). I was excited to see examples of Adobe Camera Raw's new Denoise feature, so I scanned a negative with my Nikon Coolscan V, using VueScan's raw DNG format, but CRW reports that  "Denoise is not currently compatible with this photo format."

I wrote the VueScan developer, Ed, Hamrick, and he suggested I try TIFF, but that didn’t work either.

While Adobe Camera Raw can open TIFFs, in addition to .crw and .dng files, apparently the new Denoise tool in ACR requires files generated from sensors with Bayer or X-Trans patterns.

The article at https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified says, "Denoise uses machine learning to interpolate those patterns and remove noise at the same time. That is, our models are designed and trained to perform both demosaicing and denoising in a single step.”

Does this imply that Denoise will only work with files coming from one of these types of camera sensors, and never coming from a scanner?

Do you know anyone who’s gotten a scanned file to work with Denoise?

Thanks,
Russell

[digitaldog]

Scanners don't create raw data. So no, it's not going to work.
Hamrick and others can call whatever they spit out raw; ain't so.

[russellcbanks]

Makes sense. Thanks!

[MichaelKoerner]

Scanners don't create raw data. So no, it's not going to work.
Hamrick and others can call whatever they spit out raw; ain't so.

+1, VueScan's RAW-tifs get not recognized as DNG by ACR. I learned that when I was trying to produce DNG profiles for them with basiccolor input 6 - no chance.

[Bozzdivine]

It does seem like the new Denoise tool is looking for specific sensor patterns, which unfortunately, a scanner won't produce. It's a bit of a bummer, especially since grain can be such a challenge with scanned negatives. I haven't personally seen scanned files work with Denoise, but that doesn't mean there aren't other solutions out there to reduce grain.
I've had some success with using other noise reduction software like Topaz DeNoise AI or DxO's PhotoLab for dealing with grain in scanned images. They might be worth a shot if you haven't tried them already. Cheers!

[Chris Kern]

It does seem like the new Denoise tool is looking for specific sensor patterns, which unfortunately, a scanner won't produce. It's a bit of a bummer, especially since grain can be such a challenge with scanned negatives.

Photoshop's Photo Restoration "neural filter" will modify scanned files and other rendered images.  You need to fiddle with the various parameters to get it to emit a target that doesn't appear too artificially smooth—and my experience suggests that it often useful to add simulated grain (which I do in Lightroom) in order to make the result look more like a photograph than like a painted replica of a photograph.

The tool is currently in public Beta, and there is an option within the Photoshop UI for end-users to share their images and comments with the Adobe developers.  Hopefully, data from the former will help the latter produce improved training sets.

I've been using this filter to post-process high-resolution scans of 35mm black-and-white negatives.  The results are impressive, but clearly there is more work to do.  One attribute that doesn't currently seem to be well-handled by the filter is distinguishing between very small specs of crud and film grain—at least when I run it against my 35mm negative scans.  My guess is that the neural network may not have been trained on enough images with high-frequency data.

But this tool strikes me as quite promising for those of us who are scanning analog media.

[Bozzdivine]

Photoshop's Photo Restoration "neural filter" will modify scanned files and other rendered images.  You need to fiddle with the various parameters to get it to emit a target that doesn't appear too artificially smooth—and my experience suggests that it often useful to add simulated grain (which I do in Lightroom) in order to make the result look more like a photograph than like a painted replica of a photograph.

Hey Chris,
I completely agree with you about the potential of Photoshop's Photo Restoration "neural filter". It does indeed offer some interesting possibilities for those working with scanned files and other rendered images.
Adding simulated grain is a clever workaround for avoiding an overly smooth or artificial result. Your approach of using this tool on high-res scans of 35mm B&W negatives sounds really promising.

The issue of the filter not distinguishing between small specs of crud and film grain is a good observation. Hopefully, as more people provide feedback, the Adobe developers will be able to make improvements.
I'm also curious to see how this tool will evolve and help those of us working with analog media.
Thanks for sharing your experience!

[tonyespofoito]

I don't have any info to help you with scanned files, but I do have asuggestion. Try copying the negative using the best macro lens and highest megapixel camera you have. You would them have a raw file which Denoise would work with. My guess is that approximately 30MP, maybe less, would resolve all the available data in a 35mm negative.

[atiqursumon]

Yes, that's correct. The Adobe Camera Raw Denoise tool only works with files coming from Bayer or X-Trans sensors. This is because the tool is designed to work with the specific noise patterns that are produced by these types of sensors.

There are a few ways to get around this limitation. One way is to use a third-party plugin for Adobe Camera Raw that can denoise scanned files. Another way is to use a different software application altogether, such as ON1 NoNoise or Dfine.

I've heard of a few people who have gotten scanned files to work with the Adobe Camera Raw Denoise tool, but it's not guaranteed success. If you're trying to denoise a scanned file with Adobe Camera Raw, I would recommend using a third-party plugin or a different software application.