Noise Reduction

[suzybeezy]

I recall reading in one of these threads about the use of a noise program. Not sure what it entails or how it works? Can anyone give me more info?

 

[jann1033]

the one i use is noiseware community( free) you edit your photo and i send it to a folder i have titled "noisy" so i can do a bunch at atime then open them in noiseware and it removes noise and sharpens ...it has differnt settings but usually i use default . there is also noise ninja and i think it has a free trial but might be the one it would only process some sized photos for free so i just stuck with the freebie i have. i works pretty good imo. i don't always need it with my camera but recently i was doing some photos taken with an old P&s and it really cleaned them up great

 

[cjstarr]

the one i use is noiseware community( free) you edit your photo and i send it to a folder i have titled "noisy" so i can do a bunch at atime then open them in noiseware and it removes noise and sharpens ...it has differnt settings but usually i use default . there is also noise ninja and i think it has a free trial but might be the one it would only process some sized photos for free so i just stuck with the freebie i have. i works pretty good imo. i don't always need it with my camera but recently i was doing some photos taken with an old P&s and it really cleaned them up great

Is this the one you're talking about???

Noiseware Community Edition 2.5


Charles

 

[jann1033]

Is this the one you're talking about???

Noiseware Community Edition 2.5


Charles

hers's the link to the free one ( third one, not the one that costs)
http://www.imagenomic.com/download_nwsa.aspx

 

[cjstarr]

hers's the link to the free one ( third one, not the one that costs)
http://www.imagenomic.com/download_nwsa.aspx

Thank You!!!

Charles

 

[suzybeezy]

the one i use is noiseware community( free) you edit your photo and i send it to a folder i have titled "noisy" so i can do a bunch at atime then open them in noiseware and it removes noise and sharpens ...it has differnt settings but usually i use default . there is also noise ninja and i think it has a free trial but might be the one it would only process some sized photos for free so i just stuck with the freebie i have. i works pretty good imo. i don't always need it with my camera but recently i was doing some photos taken with an old P&s and it really cleaned them up great

Ok sorry in advance for being dense. I read the info on the site you linked in a later post. I'm trying to understand. Do you download the pictures to that noise program or do you download them to your computer then send them to the noise program? Do you have to upload the pictures one by one? Then when you want to order prints, how do you send them to a site that prints them. Normally I upload my pictures to snapfish, edit there, and then order from there. Since I had a new camera that is being reviewed for alot of noise, I'd like to be able to clean them up as much as possible to have nice Disney pics. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of how that process goes?

 

[DizzyV6P]

I use Bibble Lite which includes Noise Ninja to process my RAW pictures. You can do the same using JPEGs. It does cost $70 but its well worth it for a fully featured system.

Adobe Elements 6 also has something similar to clean up the noise. Each company has their own algorithims on how they clear up the noise so you'll get different results depending on software. Its usually very useful in low light pictures where you have to shoot 800, 1600, or even 3200 ISO's.

For most programs...you first dump your pictures from your SD/CF/Pro Duo cards to a folder in your computer. Then you start the software, in my case, Bibble Lite, and I open the pictures through the software. THen i move the slider controls on the side to adjust each picture and the level of noise, sharpness, saturation, exposure, etc... Save As, enter new file name into the folder you want (I usually open a new folder within the folder i just opened and call it simply "Processed")

 

[jann1033]

Ok sorry in advance for being dense. I read the info on the site you linked in a later post. I'm trying to understand. Do you download the pictures to that noise program or do you download them to your computer then send them to the noise program? Do you have to upload the pictures one by one? Then when you want to order prints, how do you send them to a site that prints them. Normally I upload my pictures to snapfish, edit there, and then order from there. Since I had a new camera that is being reviewed for alot of noise, I'd like to be able to clean them up as much as possible to have nice Disney pics. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of how that process goes?

i download like usual to my computer, then edit( actually i shoot in raw so i convert then edit).then i load the whole thing i want to "denoise" into a seperate computer folder to denoise later(it only takes maybe amin per shot) with the free version of noiseware you need to do each one by itself. with the paid version it has batch processing.

you might have software with your new camera ( i know canon's do, not sure what others offer) that would do more than snapfish..so in that case i would edit with that, do noise reduction if needed then upload to snapfish. some might depend on what you want to do with the photo....smallish prints? if so you might not need to do anything except on high iso photos or save your files on your computer and then if you want a large print, use the noiseware...
one thing i would do if i were you is not upload and edit in snapfish first ..i've used them a lot in the past and had some of hub's work "after shots" in albums there which is fine except IF you need to use them anywhere but a print from snapfish i had to save/copy the files from them and the quality is not that great doing it that way...i had to mess with them alot to be able to use them on his website . if you don't always want to use snapfish to print, it might leave you less options sometime down the road..
i'd upload and edit to a folder on your own computer first then upload the finished product to where ever you want to get prints made...that way you will always have a file of your photos in your possesion. for instance either they lost a bunch of my albums or maybe after a while they get rid of them or maybe i changed my email or something but a number of his early work,,pre 2002... they didn't have with my other stuff...if i had made a backup myself i would have had a copy( or in my case saved my negative at least)....and of course they were photos of finishes i didn't have otherwise and some custom stuff he had done that he had gotten written up in the paper about that i really wanted to include. of course!!!! so learn from my dumbness
you can just upload them from your computer...they have a uploader ( or did last time i used them which was a while ago) so you can only upload what you want to print...
this is what the page looks like for uploading from your puter http://www1.snapfish.com/upload/xps...lbumCaption=album+04_xsfs16_xsfs08/t_=4084222

 

[MarvinMar]

I use Neat Image
http://www.neatimage.com/

I has many options as well.
Very good program.
Can preview the result before saving

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that you get the best results doing it by hand with the clone tool. It takes a little longer, but it's the only technique that gives you full control to eliminate noise without also losing detail. Don't be lazy; do it right.

 

[suzybeezy]

Cool - thanks for all the informative replies

 

[PhotobearSam]

What is the best program to Process Batches of pics with noise? Is there such a program?

 

[PhotobearSam]

Bumping...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think most of the major noise reduction programs have batch processing modes. I'm pretty sure that Neat Image and Noise Ninja do, but don't buy them without checking first.

All of the noise reduction programs that I'm familiar with can be used as a plug-in inside of Photoshop. That's how i use them and I use Photoshop's actions for batch processing.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I read this interesting article on noise last night. I'll try to write an English translation of some of the more interesting parts this weekend. Here are a few bits I found interesting:

1. Exposing to the right is a good idea, but not really for reasons most people think.
2. There is no practical benefit to the use of 14-bit as opposed to 12-bit RAW files.
3. Canon and Nikon have "extended" ISO levels on some of their cameras. It is better to use the highest normal ISO, set exposure compensation to underexposure your shots, and then boost the exposure in post production rather than use the "extended" ISO level.
4. Noise levels are a major limiting factor in dynamic range.
5. Nikon's "lossy" NEF compression isn't lossy in a real-world sense and is pretty clever.
6. There is room for improvement in Noise Reduction software by having it work on RAW files and multiple images.

 

[boBQuincy]

One of the more interesting parts (to me) is the explanation of how Canon implements intermediate ISOs, by using dual amplification. I read an article that was less scientific but showed the noise levels as higher for the intermediate ISOs than for the next higher "standard" ISO.
Iow, 320 has more noise than 400 (and about the same as 800).

As a result I do not use the intermediate ISOs. I really do not see why Canon added them anyway, they do not add any value that I can see.

 

[webshark3]

It funny, but Foveon owners (Sigma) can recover better by overexposing.

Highlights are pretty easily recovered, whereas slight underexposure intoduces unwanted noise.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=27337808

Good article though.

 

[mabas9395]

There is no practical benefit to the use of 14-bit as opposed to 12-bit RAW files.

Is that as far as noise is concerned or just in general? Then what does 14 bit get you?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Is that as far as noise is concerned or just in general? Then what does 14 bit get you?

First, the difference between 12 and 14 bits is that 14 bits allows you to specify more shades of color. With 8 bits (JPG), you can distinguish between 256 different levels of brightness for each of your three primary colors (red, green, and blue). When you go to 12 bits (older RAW), you can now distinguish between 4,096 different levels of brightness. With 14 bits (newer RAW), you can distinguish between 16,384 different levels of brightness. The range is the same (from completely black to completely white), but you have smaller steps between brightness levels.

The primary argument against 14-bit (and even 12-bit) is that you don't look at bits, you look at pictures on real devices. Computer monitors and printers can generally only show about 256 different levels of brightness for each primary color. The fact that there are more levels in your file doesn't matter because those levels get rounded off when you display the file.

That's pretty much true for cases when you take a picture and then do a straight conversion to JPG or directly print the file. The exception is for cases when you stretch the tonal range of picture. When you take a small slice of the dynamic range and stretch it, you can run into problems because you didn't have enough steps in the original. The result can be posterization or obvious jumps in brightness in what should be smooth transitions.

OK, now I'm going to paraphrase based on my quick reading of the article last night, so I could easily be wrong in my interpretation of it. The article contends that, for the cameras currently on the market with 14-bit RAW files, the extra granularity in brightness achieved by having the extra 2 bits is useless because the random fluctuation in brightness caused by noise is higher. In other words, you are trying to measure more precisely than the accuracy of the sensor. It's similar to the concept of giving poll results and a margin of error. Getting more precise than the margin of error doesn't really add any value.

So, if I understand the author correctly, while it may seem like you are getting more tonal precision because you are recording it with more digits of precision, you really aren't because the sensors aren't really that precise. So even if you buy they argument that there is a practical benefit to having 16,384 different shades instead of just 4,096, these cameras don't deliver that level of accuracy anyway.

 

[Gdad]

* Canon and Nikon have "extended" ISO levels on some of their cameras. It is better to use the highest normal ISO, set exposure compensation to underexposure your shots, and then boost the exposure in post production rather than use the "extended" ISO level.

I find this interesting. I have never tested it but have always wondered why they have the extended settings in the first place- particularly on the low end. Did they address low end extended settings? The D300's lowest 'normal' setting is ISO200 but then below that is a 'Low' setting that translates to 100 in EXIF data.