Noise Reduction

[MarkBarbieri]

Mark we all saw that photo of you at WDW - proof that you are NEVER out of fashion.

Do you like Neat Image more than Noise Ninja and Noiseware? If so - why?

I live for fashion. I only wish that I had a mirrored lens so that I could take more pictures of myself.

I bought Neat Image eons ago, before Noise Ninja and Noiseware existed (or at least I didn't see any references to them at the time). I've never really tried the others, so I don't know how they compare. I'm happy with Neat Image, but I notice that others buying more recently tend to use the others. Perhaps that means that they are better. Perhaps not.

One thing that is important to me is that the noise reduction software be available as a plug-in to PS. The reason is that I often want to apply noise reduction to only a portion of a picture or in different ways to different parts. For example, if it is a picture of a person in front of a solid background, you might be extremely aggressive with noise reduction on the background because there is no detail to worry about. You might be much more cautious with noise reduction on the person. It's like sharpening - one size does not necessarily fit all.

With that said, most of the time I do noise reduction, I just do it using Lightroom and do it globally. It's only when I'm taking the time to get a photo "just right" that I resort to PS and reducing noise on layers.

One thing to keep in mind is that noise reduction is also detail reduction. The software cannot truly distinguish between the two. The more you tweak your noise reduction software, the more you can help it, but in the end, you will always trade some detail for less noise.

Another important thing to remember is, on noisy pictures, to always do noise reduction before sharpening. Sharpening usually makes the noise more visible.

 

[Gdad]

Finally decided to go ahead and get Noise Ninja. Just started playing with it but so far I am very impressed.

Here is my first test subject...D300 - ISO 6400 - 1/30 Sec with 50mm at f1.4- this is has about 20% cropped from the original image.

With no processing at all-

With CS3 noise reduction (posted a month or so ago as a POTD)-

With Noise Ninja at default settings-

Here is one more example...D300 - ISO 900 but seriously underexposed - 1/30 Sec with 10.5mm Fisheye at f2.8.

With no processing at all-

With exposure pushed and CS3 Noise Reduction (also posted earlier)-

Same pushed exposure with Noise Ninja-

 

[JR6ooo4]

Finally decided to go ahead and get Noise Ninja. Just started playing with it but so far I am very impressed.

Same pushed exposure with Noise Ninja-

Was this a manual noise removal or auto?
It looks great!

Mikeeee

 

[jann1033]

it looks so much nicer, i'm kind of surprised...maybe all programs are not created equal like especially i notice it in the youngest's shirt and the skin tones...big difference

 

[AndrewWG]

Was this a manual noise removal or auto?
It looks great!

Mikeeee

Jeff,

How do these compare to Noiseware, in your opinion? I ran the teacups one through noiseware and it looks quite similar to the one you posted from Noise Ninja. I won't post it without your consent. Keep in mind though that if there wasn't just a button to push that said "GO", I would have no idea how to use these programs. When I downloaded Noise Ninja a while ago (last year sometime), I couldn't figure out how to make it do a darned thing.

 

[Gdad]

Was this a manual noise removal or auto?
It looks great!

Mikeeee

So far I have just let the program pretty much do it's thing without too much tweaking- so I guess 'auto'

 

[Gdad]

it looks so much nicer, i'm kind of surprised...maybe all programs are not created equal like especially i notice it in the youngest's shirt and the skin tones...big difference

Yes- I see a big difference in the dark green part of the teacup- and in the shadows in the canopy- and as you mentioned in the skin tones especially in the shadows under their chin. The differences were more obvious at full size- I should have taken some 100% crops before I resized the images for the web. Maybe I will do another experiment tomorrow and include that.

 

[Gdad]

Jeff,

How do these compare to Noiseware, in your opinion? I ran the teacups one through noiseware and it looks quite similar to the one you posted from Noise Ninja. I won't post it without your consent. Keep in mind though that if there wasn't just a button to push that said "GO", I would have no idea how to use these programs. When I downloaded Noise Ninja a while ago (last year sometime), I couldn't figure out how to make it do a darned thing.

I have never used Noiseware- I have only used the functions in CS2/CS3 and before that Elements 4- none of which ever seemed to do much. But feel free to post it.

 

[Groucho]

Well, I have a fairly old (2.1.2) version of Noise Ninja but I can put up my comparisons, vs Noiseware 4.1.1.

Here's a shot "from the camera" (raw to jpg with no other changes) at ISO 6400. (Note that my K20D is currently set to do no noise reduction in-camera in order to capture maximum detail, so the photo straight from the camera will look slightly noisier than most other cameras which do at least some noise reduction no matter what. You can pick four levels of noise reduction depending on what you're after.)

Here's the Noise Ninja version:

Here's the Noiseware version:

Here's a 100% crop from Noise Ninja...

...and from Noiseware.

Noiseware was done with the Automatic profile, and in Noise Ninja, I hit "Profile Image" before applying the noise reduction.

It looks like Noiseware is giving a slightly cleaner image and NN is leaving slightly more detail. This seems to match the file size - when saved at 85% quality, the original file is 2.56 megs. (Not bad considering that the 100% jpg converted from Raw is 13.0 megs!) Run through Noise Ninja, the pic is 2.02 megs, but from Noiseware it's 1.41 megs - which would indicate to me that Noiseware is scrubbing away more detail.

I suspect that with minor tweaking, you could get the output of one to match the other almost exactly, and vice versa.

 

[Master Mason]

are you guys using the stand alone program or the PS plug in version? I have looked but couldn't decide which would be better, and therefore never tried either yet

 

[Groucho]

I'm using the plug-ins but I don't think it matters, from a quality perspective. All of the above were actually done straight from Irfanview, which can run standard .8bf filters. No point waiting for Photoshop to load and battling its user interface when I'm just applying filters, cropping, and saving.

Gdad - I know what you mean about green, our living room walls are a rather vibrant green ("Jolly Green" the paint was called) and it always shows noise more clearly than almost any other color.

 

[Code]

Profile your camera and Noise Ninja's results get even better. To manually profile, you just have to take a picture of a test image in the help file on screen at each ISO, profile the completely unfiltered results, and save presets.

Gdad, do you have noise reduction completely off in ACR? I don't see any color noise in the original of the PotC shot but luminance noise is there so it makes me think it has already seen a bit of reduction pre-NN. ACR default for NR is 0% luminance, 25% color unless you've already changed it. If I'm wrong, sorry

I've tried Noiseware and definitely prefer Noise Ninja. It really shines at default settings.. it doesn't try to remove noise completely, just tones it down a good amount while not often looking "blurry". Go very far above the defaults and it starts looking like any other program, though.

 

[Code]

Also, to minimize the loss of detail in shadows, don't clip your blacks before doing noise reduction.. do it afterward if needed. I only say this because Adobe Camera Raw defaults to 5% black clip.

 

[AndrewWG]

Jeff,

Here is the Noiseware version. It is done in Community Edition (free version of Noiseware) and fully auto as I have no idea how to change that. I have always been happy with the results so why learn how to make it better, I say.

Andy

 

[deletedpenguin]

I really like Noiseware. I have set up custom settings and it works wonders for me. Unfotunately I don't have any before and after pictures to show right now, but here's a shot I took at 1600 ISO after being run through Noiseware.

 

[barrie]

Cool - thanks for this thread. I've been using PS2 and haven't been very happy with it. I didn't know there was such a difference with NN, even though I heard it was better. Now I'm going to have to get NN. It'll come in handy for all those times I forget to drop the ISO back down when I'm done - which is about every other day!

 

[jann1033]

I really like Noiseware. I have set up custom settings and it works wonders for me. Unfotunately I don't have any before and after pictures to show right now, but here's a shot I took at 1600 ISO after being run through Noiseware.

do you have the freebie version or some other one? wondering since i've never set up anything with it and wondering if i am just missing part of it. i usually just use default or landscape depending on what it is. ( i use the landscape for portraits and the default for landscapes...just kidding)

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I really like Noiseware. I have set up custom settings and it works wonders for me. Unfotunately I don't have any before and after pictures to show right now, but here's a shot I took at 1600 ISO after being run through Noiseware.[/IMG]

Hey DeletedPenguin, was this picture done using the free version or the paid version? If paid, which one because there are 2 different paid versions, right?
Please do tell!

 

[deletedpenguin]

do you have the freebie version or some other one? wondering since i've never set up anything with it and wondering if i am just missing part of it. i usually just use default or landscape depending on what it is. ( i use the landscape for portraits and the default for landscapes...just kidding)

Hey DeletedPenguin, was this picture done using the free version or the paid version? If paid, which one because there are 2 different paid versions, right?
Please do tell!

It's the paid version, plugin for photoshop. I tried using the standalone, but it just fits better in my workflow to have it as a plugin.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

It's the paid version, plugin for photoshop. I tried using the standalone, but it just fits better in my workflow to have it as a plugin.

Thanks...