«

I use NoiseWare Pro


On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:24:07 +0100, Volker Hetzer
<> wrote:

>Hi!
>My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
>the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
>that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>
>Lots of Greetings!
>Volker

D Cheung
http://www.opaltonsolutions.com

Stacey wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>
>>Hi!
>>My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>>mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>>Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>>entirely? (I'm not really into another camera because for me
>>the Coolpix 5000 is a great compromise between size and "screws"
>>that allow me fine control over the picture I take.)
>>
>
>
>
> I'm going to try the retail "neatimage +" that comes with a photoshop plugin
> that can work in a layer. Seems you can then selectively apply it (like to
> the sky or shadows only) so it doesn't affect fine details or adjust the
> layer to control the amount and easily see it. Then you can be more
> agressive with the settings or use different setting for different parts of
> a scene. From their site:

I tried it standalone and it did leave the rest of the picture alone all
on its own. I got the picture developed at 7.9x11.8in (20x30cm) and was
pretty impressed. Absolutely no difference in the non-sky part but a
much cleaner sky. (The non-sky part was mostly grass so any loss of
detail would have been obvious.)

Ditto for noise ninja although the sky wasn't as good.
I think I'm going for the full version of neatimage too, but more for
the ability to write non-jpg files.
But I still have to look at NoiseWare Pro.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

D Cheung wrote:
> I use NoiseWare Pro
O man, how many noise remover are there?

Lots of Greetings and thanks!
Volker

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> "Volker Hetzer" <> wrote in message
>> news:cs6oth$gce$...
>>
>>> Hi!
>>> My Coolpix 5000 makes a very noisy sky, especially high up in the
>>> mountains where the sky is a nice dark blue.
>>> Can anybody recommend one tool over the other, or something else
>>> entirely?
>>
>>
>>
>> NeatImage is nice, but I think NoiseFixer is a lot easier to use, plus
>> it is
>> cheaper. I have been able to get rid of noise in pictures that NeatImage
>> would not even touch. NeatImage has problems with black dogs, for
>> example.
>>
>>
> Hi!
> I'll have a look at that one too.
The helicon program? Had a look. Haven't seen the printouts yet but was
pretty unimpressed by the way noisefixer smoothed the whole image.
NeatImage and NoiseNinja cleaned up the sky only and left the rest
alone.
So, I *need* to use photoshop (elements is what I got) for cutting out
the non sky before. Then I cut out a few clouds too because I liked them
the way they were but the result was white rings around the clouds.
I'll try a run with the default settings and the whole sky and see how
it turns out. So far my favourite is neatimage.

Lots of Greetings and thanks!
Volker

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> Then you can be
>> more agressive with the settings or use different setting for different
>> parts of a scene. From their site:
>
> I tried it standalone and it did leave the rest of the picture alone all
> on its own. I got the picture developed at 7.9x11.8in (20x30cm) and was
> pretty impressed. Absolutely no difference in the non-sky part but a
> much cleaner sky.

You didn't look as closely as I did. It does change subtlely things like
tree bark and grass detail etc if you look closely unless you crank back
the NR. For most people this wouldn't be an issue as it does take more than
a click of the mouse to go there...

--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>>Then you can be
>>>more agressive with the settings or use different setting for different
>>>parts of a scene. From their site:
>>
>>I tried it standalone and it did leave the rest of the picture alone all
>>on its own. I got the picture developed at 7.9x11.8in (20x30cm) and was
>>pretty impressed. Absolutely no difference in the non-sky part but a
>>much cleaner sky.
>
>
> You didn't look as closely as I did. It does change subtlely things like
> tree bark and grass detail etc if you look closely unless you crank back
> the NR. For most people this wouldn't be an issue as it does take more than
> a click of the mouse to go there...
Hm. Looked again, to no avail. Here's the link to three pictures,
the original, one with the default (no very low frequency noise) and one
with the extra low noise. Maybe you can point me to the right spots?
http://service.gmx.net/mc/4X0eXwlTRG...usczL9DG8yF2yQ
Just click on "GMX MediaCenter starten", then select the tree images
and click "Datei" and download.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> You didn't look as closely as I did. It does change subtlely things like
>> tree bark and grass detail etc if you look closely unless you crank back
>> the NR. For most people this wouldn't be an issue as it does take more
>> than a click of the mouse to go there...
> Hm. Looked again, to no avail. Here's the link to three pictures,
> the original, one with the default (no very low frequency noise) and one
> with the extra low noise. Maybe you can point me to the right spots?
>

Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the cleaned
ones there are no needles on the pine branches. They were turned into
blobs. Like I said some people don't see this and in "normal" prints you'd
probably never notice it. Using my technique, you could run the NR at a
higher level so the sky was cleaner yet still maintain every detail in the
lower portion of the shot. On higher rez, sharper images this becomes even
more apparent.
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
> Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the cleaned
> ones there are no needles on the pine branches.
Sorry, I'm, still lost. Are we talking about the same pictures here?
I can't remember any pine trees and I can't see them on the picture.
Would it be ok if you drew a little circle or cut out the part with the
blob, compress it down as much as possible and send it to me so that I
can look at the same spot in the high res image? My email is valid.
Does the problem occur in both denoised images?
(Btw, I've noticed something else. The printouts contain a lot of dark
where the image does have still details on it. But right now I'm looking
at the original with nikon editor.)

> They were turned into
> blobs. Like I said some people don't see this and in "normal" prints you'd
> probably never notice it. Using my technique, you could run the NR at a
> higher level so the sky was cleaner yet still maintain every detail in the
> lower portion of the shot. On higher rez, sharper images this becomes even
> more apparent.
Yes, I fully agree, cutting out the sky does solve that problem. I've
got some test images in development and I'll see how this turns out,
especially with the tree branch in the sky on the left side. I didn't
select that one and I'm hoping that the white circle stuff won't
happen with this.

Lots of Greetings and Thanks!
Volker

Volker Hetzer wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>> Easy, look at the shadow area in the lower right hand corner, on the
>> cleaned ones there are no needles on the pine branches.
> Sorry, I'm, still lost. Are we talking about the same pictures here?

OK it's grass, not pine brush but the details are gone in the shadows. I
expect on the original uncompressed file it would be even worse?



> Would it be ok if you drew a little circle or cut out the part with the
> blob, compress it down as much as possible and send it to me so that I
> can look at the same spot in the high res image?

Compression is part of why you can't see the difference, it destroys details
as well. I made a web page so you can see where I'm talking about and maybe
if you look at the uncompressed originals you can see this better. Again
it's not a huge problem on this file, but you could run a stronger NR and
totally clean up the sky if you used this other technique without harming
ANY of the details.

http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/NR.html

And here's a shot I took with my E300 using this techique. The original is a
20MB tiff so some details are lost in the downsizing but it shows how clean
you can get the sky and still have crisp details.


http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/weblake.html


--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
>
> Compression is part of why you can't see the difference, it destroys details
> as well.


See what you think of this:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4>
It's using D70 fine jpeg compression on the left, Nikon Capture noise
reduction in the middle & RAW on the right 400% magnified so you can see
exactly what's happening (800% is even easier to tell). Look at the
crazy texture in the reddish band at the right and the subtle
undulations of the flat wall at the left side with paint brush texture
then how much the noise reduced version is posterized and those
paintbrush strokes are gone. That noise reduction was set at the minimum
to be smoother than the jpeg & the Capture noise reduction was pretty
crude in the steps available. I'm amazed how much more noise RAW has!
I'd like to try these super enlarged comparisons with Neatimage, etc
starting with RAW. I know you can't see this much detail with bare eyes
but for big prints this is the reality that contributes to the gestalt.
When saving a jpeg in photoshop try zooming in 800% before saving &
adjust the compression slider to see exactly what's happening.