Is there still a need for 3rd party noise reduction software?

[Mark F]

Now that I'm scanning slides I'm encountering really noticeable noise for the first time. The noise reduction tools in LR3 seems pretty good to me and I'm wondering if there is still a reason to buy Noise Ninja or one of the other 3rd party software packages?

[john beardsworth]

Generally not. LR's own NR improved very significantly in version 3.

[Tim Gray]

I use LR 3 for probably 80% of my noise reduction requirements - but for the extreme stuff I use LR and then Topaz.

[feppe]

Now that I'm scanning slides I'm encountering really noticeable noise for the first time. The noise reduction tools in LR3 seems pretty good to me and I'm wondering if there is still a reason to buy Noise Ninja or one of the other 3rd party software packages?

Are you talking about noise from scanning, or grain? If latter, many like to leave it as that's one of the many things that sets film apart from digital.

[Steve Weldon]

The NR software in LR isn't bad.. but imo it's not great.

The real difference is in your post processing workflow, if all you're using is LR to post process then adjusting noise levels in LR makes sense.  But if you're doing any of your post processing in PS.. then I'd use a quality NR plug-in at this stage of your workflow.

I normally sharpen and then remove noise as my last two steps of post processing.  YMMV.

[Mark F]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm scanning slides from Kodachrome 64 and Ektachrome 100VS so I think its noise and not grain. At least so far there has not been a reason to bring the scans into PS (I use CS4). As I wrote earlier, it seems to me that LR3 is doing a good job in noise reduction but it does make the images a little softer. Since I've never used the other products I thought I'd ask.

[frugal]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm scanning slides from Kodachrome 64 and Ektachrome 100VS so I think its noise and not grain. At least so far there has not been a reason to bring the scans into PS (I use CS4). As I wrote earlier, it seems to me that LR3 is doing a good job in noise reduction but it does make the images a little softer. Since I've never used the other products I thought I'd ask.

It's more likely grain that you're seeing not noise. If you're scanning at 4000 ppi or higher then you are definitely going to be able to start resolving individual grains in the slides. While both of your films are fine grained, 4000 ppi or higher is definitely going to start picking them up. The other thing you can sometimes hit is a phenomenon called "grain aliasing" where the grains in the film are close to the size of the pixels but due to the more random pattern of the grain they end up falling across multiple pixels which magnifies their size. You can sometimes fix this by scanning at a higher or slightly lower optical resolution (don't use interpolated resolution, that's not going to buy you any more detail).

[Jonathan Ratzlaff]

Where are you seeing the noise?  You will get noise in a scan if you are trying to bring up shadow detail.  Everywhere else will be film grain.  Generally the best way to eliminate this is to do multi-pass scanning to reduce the noise in the first place.  It's the dark slides that are the most difficult to scan.  The D-max of the film base is just at the end of the scanner's D-max so that is where the shadows are.

[Mark F]

I did not know that a 4000 dpi scan would pick up grain in Kodachrome. Interesting. 

I've got my scanner software set for 3 passes which should be enough. Whichever it is that I'm seeing, its in uniform areas like the sky or pond water. As a practical matter is it important which it is? The LR3 noise reduction seems to take care of it.

[feppe]

I did not know that a 4000 dpi scan would pick up grain in Kodachrome. Interesting.  

I've got my scanner software set for 3 passes which should be enough. Whichever it is that I'm seeing, its in uniform areas like the sky or pond water. As a practical matter is it important which it is? The LR3 noise reduction seems to take care of it.

It doesn't matter whether it's grain or noise if you want your film to have smoothness of digital. Most of us who shoot film like its characteristics, and grain is an inherent and important one.

[Mark F]

It doesn't matter whether it's grain or noise if you want your film to have smoothness of digital. Most of us who shoot film like its characteristics, and grain is an inherent and important one.

In B&W I fully agree with you but when I shot slides I used Kodachrome and 100VS to minimize the grain.

[frugal]

I did not know that a 4000 dpi scan would pick up grain in Kodachrome. Interesting. 

I've got my scanner software set for 3 passes which should be enough. Whichever it is that I'm seeing, its in uniform areas like the sky or pond water. As a practical matter is it important which it is? The LR3 noise reduction seems to take care of it.

Main reason it's important is because the methods for dealing with it will be different. If it is legitimately noise then, as mentioned, it's more likely going to occur when you try to open up shadow areas that were too dark in the scan. This can be corrected for quite a bit by adding multiple passes/samples (depends on your scanner as to whether it can take multiple samples in a single pass or requires multiple passes).

If you're seeing it in uniform areas that aren't particularly dark then it's almost certainly grain, in which case no amount of multi-sampling will eliminate it (although that can still be useful for opening up the shadow detail more).

I'd say your best bet is to either use LR's noise reduction or a 3rd party plug-in that's particularly good at reducing film grain. I haven't worked with scans much recently (procrastinating about scanning my back catalogue) nor have I really dug into the various noise reduction options to really say which is better. You may want to read the review of Topaz DeNoise on LuLa though as it specifically talks about film grain, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/topaz.shtml.