Re: Noise Reduction Software?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nonya Bidness, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. Mark Johnson wrote:
    > I like the little Noise reducer from Fixerlabs.com. I got Miranda's PS
    > action, but haven't tried it, yet.
    >
    > Does anyone have something that works better than either? Frankly, I
    > like the Fixerlabs version, that doesn't seem to lose much edge
    > detail. And what few artifacts remain out in the formerly noise laden
    > 'open' areas can be quickly softened with a click of the brush.


    Noise Ninja and NeatImage are two excellent products. Check here for
    comparisons: http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/717iso800

    Jamie
    Nonya Bidness, Dec 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nonya Bidness

    Marc Libom Guest

    > Noise Ninja and NeatImage are two excellent products. Check here for
    > comparisons: http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/717iso800


    Get the free demo version of NeatImage. This software does an excellent job
    and can only advise to spend the some bucks for the pro version, where you
    easily can do batch processing. The new version 3.0 works even better and
    about 2 times faster than the 2.x versions.
    Marc Libom, Dec 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nonya Bidness

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Marc Libom wrote:
    >> Noise Ninja and NeatImage are two excellent products. Check here for
    >> comparisons: http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/717iso800

    >
    > Get the free demo version of NeatImage. This software does an
    > excellent job and can only advise to spend the some bucks for the pro
    > version, where you easily can do batch processing. The new version
    > 3.0 works even better and about 2 times faster than the 2.x versions.


    I second that, NeatImage 3.0 Pro is a great piece of software.
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 8, 2003
    #3
  4. Nonya Bidness

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote:

    >Marc Libom wrote:
    >>> Noise Ninja and NeatImage are two excellent products. Check here for
    >>> comparisons: http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/717iso800


    >> Get the free demo version of NeatImage. This software does an
    >> excellent job and can only advise to spend the some bucks for the pro
    >> version, where you easily can do batch processing. The new version
    >> 3.0 works even better and about 2 times faster than the 2.x versions.


    >I second that, NeatImage 3.0 Pro is a great piece of software.


    I tried the demo, and switching back and forth between setup and apply
    mode was distracting.

    The problem is that it's a stand-alone program. The FixerLabs one that
    I started using is a PS filter. So it runs like any other PS filter,
    and runs just on the selected area. And it's fast. NeatImage is very
    slow.
    Mark Johnson, Dec 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Nonya Bidness

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Mark Johnson wrote:

    > The problem is that it's a stand-alone program.


    NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 comes with a PS plugin which
    is virtually identical to the stand-alone application.
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 9, 2003
    #5
  6. "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:TWcBb.35440$...
    > Mark Johnson wrote:
    >
    > > The problem is that it's a stand-alone program.

    >
    > NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 comes with a PS plugin which
    > is virtually identical to the stand-alone application.



    How difficoult do you think it is to make the same filtering manually in an
    ordinary photo editor?
    ....is it even posible?

    Please make a try in the thread "A djungle of noise filters" above.

    Morgan O.
    Morgan Ohlson, Dec 9, 2003
    #6
  7. "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > I tried the demo, and switching back and forth between setup and apply
    > mode was distracting.


    After setting up a profile, there's no need to go back. Then you can tweak
    the parameters for the required amount of noise removal/sharpening. It may
    take some practice to get the most out of it.
    Not sure the demo version does it also, but clicking in the Output image tab
    switches between filtered/unfiltered.

    > The problem is that it's a stand-alone program. The FixerLabs one that
    > I started using is a PS filter. So it runs like any other PS filter,
    > and runs just on the selected area. And it's fast.


    It also comes as a Photoshop filter (Pro+ version) in addition to a
    standalone/batch version. It also allows to apply the noise removal for a
    selection only. The drawback of a Plug-in is that it blocks the application
    while processing. NI can be used on a duplicate layer, which allows to mask
    the areas that should not be cleaned (very helpful for portraits). The
    batch processing allows background processing of huge (quantities of) files,
    if needed over-night.

    > NeatImage is very slow.


    I find it to be very good as well. Guess it's a trade-off.

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Dec 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Morgan Ohlson, Dec 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Nonya Bidness

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    > "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:TWcBb.35440$...


    >> NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 comes with a PS plugin which
    >> is virtually identical to the stand-alone application.

    >
    >
    > How difficoult do you think it is to make the same filtering
    > manually in an ordinary photo editor?


    Impossible.

    > ...is it even posible?
    >
    > Please make a try in the thread "A djungle of noise filters" above.


    Huh?
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 9, 2003
    #9
  10. Nonya Bidness

    Chris Hoopes Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in message
    news:HZgBb.41326$...
    >
    > "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:TWcBb.35440$...
    > > Mark Johnson wrote:
    > >
    > > > The problem is that it's a stand-alone program.

    > >
    > > NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 comes with a PS plugin which
    > > is virtually identical to the stand-alone application.

    >
    >
    > How difficoult do you think it is to make the same filtering manually in

    an
    > ordinary photo editor?
    > ...is it even posible?
    >
    > Please make a try in the thread "A djungle of noise filters" above.
    >
    > Morgan O.
    >
    >


    I downloaded the D-100 profiles for NeatImage and set up actions in PS
    for each profile. I can run a batch on a set of ISO 1600 images through PS
    no problem. NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 works very well.
    Chris Hoopes, Dec 9, 2003
    #10
  11. "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in message
    news:EliBb.41341$...
    >
    > "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:TWcBb.35440$...
    >
    > Anyone tried the ImageAnalyzer
    > http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/


    Yes, it has some useful implementations of functions that are often embedded
    in more scientific packages.

    Bart
    Bart van der Wolf, Dec 9, 2003
    #11
  12. Nonya Bidness

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "Bart van der Wolf" <> wrote:

    >"Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >SNIP
    >> I tried the demo, and switching back and forth between setup and apply
    >> mode was distracting.

    >
    >After setting up a profile, there's no need to go back. Then you can tweak
    >the parameters for the required amount of noise removal/sharpening. It may
    >take some practice to get the most out of it.
    >Not sure the demo version does it also, but clicking in the Output image tab
    >switches between filtered/unfiltered.


    That's the little toggle that switches between the previous tab and
    the last generated output. It's got it.

    Another problem, though, assuming one can figure out how not to kill
    the edges with Neat Image, is the time it takes. That FixerLabs plugin
    is very fast, and kills most of the noise, while leaving a lot of
    detail in the edges, say like tiny little strands on the edge of a
    leaf, or little wisps next to edges in clouds, and so on. I couldn't
    get NI to do anything but make the whole thing look blurry. And when
    it didn't, when the edges were sharp, it removed hardly any of the
    noise.


    >> The problem is that it's a stand-alone program. The FixerLabs one that
    >> I started using is a PS filter. So it runs like any other PS filter,
    >> and runs just on the selected area. And it's fast.


    >It also comes as a Photoshop filter (Pro+ version) in addition to a
    >standalone/batch version.


    http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise_print.html

    He preferred Noise Ninja, which also had batch. A few others,
    including the Fixerlabs, also came through very well for him in
    luminance. The poor guy seems to forget himself in his final
    recommendation. He considers it a negative that certain programs
    aren't plug-ins. And suddenly it doesn't matter when it comes to Noise
    Ninja. So, I'd take his results with some scepticism. But it looks
    like a program to a least try in demo.


    >It also allows to apply the noise removal for a
    >selection only. The drawback of a Plug-in is that it blocks the application
    >while processing. NI can be used on a duplicate layer, which allows to mask
    >the areas that should not be cleaned (very helpful for portraits). The
    >batch processing allows background processing of huge (quantities of) files,
    >if needed over-night.


    >> NeatImage is very slow.


    >I find it to be very good as well. Guess it's a trade-off.
    >Bart


    The Fixerlabs one works great, as well, retaining edge details and
    killing most of the noise. And Neat Image is just too clunky. The
    results look good with little noise. But, for the slow speed, and if
    you have big grained 400 ISO at dusk misrange noise as big a
    golfballs, I don't know how NI would work. The Fixerlabs one, apart
    from leaving some little 'horseshoe' or 'ring' artifacts where the
    noise had been, is fine. And you can then easily isolate on the
    artifacts, taking care of any edge or gradient involve. What you don't
    want is to lose those edges or the sense of what the color ought to
    be.
    Mark Johnson, Dec 9, 2003
    #12
  13. "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:uQkBb.35565$...
    > Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    > > "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > > news:TWcBb.35440$...

    >
    > >> NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 comes with a PS plugin which
    > >> is virtually identical to the stand-alone application.

    > >
    > >
    > > How difficoult do you think it is to make the same filtering
    > > manually in an ordinary photo editor?

    >
    > Impossible.


    I'm very much a newbe on this and don't even understand much about the
    math's beyond the filtering.

    Please, explain why manual filtering can't reach the same good results.

    >
    > > ...is it even posible?
    > >
    > > Please make a try in the thread "A djungle of noise filters" above.

    >
    > Huh?


    Usenet: rec.photo.digital posted on 2003-12-08 19:04 is the thread "A
    djungle of noise filters".
    Please take a look at that! It's a question about manual NR and some filters
    in ordinary photo-editors.


    Morgan O.
    Morgan Ohlson, Dec 10, 2003
    #13
  14. Nonya Bidness

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Morgan Ohlson wrote:

    > I'm very much a newbe on this and don't even understand much about the
    > math's beyond the filtering.
    >
    > Please, explain why manual filtering can't reach the same good
    > results.


    Because the algorithms used in NeatImage and similar software
    are way more complex than a simple melange of existing filters.

    > Please take a look at that! It's a question about manual NR and some
    > filters in ordinary photo-editors.


    I will.
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 11, 2003
    #14
  15. Nonya Bidness

    Frank Weston Guest

    NeatImage is good, but Noise Ninja is as good or better and about five times
    faster. Give it a look at www.picturecode.com

    I've used both and recently changed from NeatImage to Noise Ninja. The
    downside to Noise Ninja is that it's not yet available as a Photoshop
    plug-in, but that's supposed to be coming soon.

    I don't have any interest, financial or otherwise in either of these
    companies.

    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote in message
    news:uQkBb.35565$...
    > Morgan Ohlson wrote:
    > > "Paolo Pizzi" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > > news:TWcBb.35440$...

    >
    > >> NeatImage Pro+ 3.0 comes with a PS plugin which
    > >> is virtually identical to the stand-alone application.

    > >
    > >
    > > How difficoult do you think it is to make the same filtering
    > > manually in an ordinary photo editor?

    >
    > Impossible.
    >
    > > ...is it even posible?
    > >
    > > Please make a try in the thread "A djungle of noise filters" above.

    >
    > Huh?
    >
    >
    Frank Weston, Dec 11, 2003
    #15
  16. Nonya Bidness

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "Frank Weston" <> wrote:

    >NeatImage is good, but Noise Ninja is as good or better and about five times
    >faster. Give it a look at www.picturecode.com
    >
    >I've used both and recently changed from NeatImage to Noise Ninja. The
    >downside to Noise Ninja is that it's not yet available as a Photoshop
    >plug-in, but that's supposed to be coming soon.


    I think I'd get Noise Ninja, in a second - AS A PS plugin. You need to
    select certain areas for one sort of noise reduction, and do something
    else in another area. With Ninja as it is, you'd have to save portions
    separately, and then reload and combine as layers. And Neat Image is
    way too slow for me, and not very intuitive, at that. It's missing not
    a 'consumer' interface, but a intelligent interface between the
    routines and editing level. There needs to be another interface level
    there. Right now, it's designed for the guys who wrote it, not for the
    people who might use it. Of course, I base that on the demo. But I
    imagine that's representative of both the speed and ease of use in
    version 3.
    Mark Johnson, Dec 11, 2003
    #16
  17. Nonya Bidness

    Q Guest

    Mark Johnson - typed:
    >
    > http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise_print.html
    >
    > He preferred Noise Ninja, which also had batch. A few others,
    > including the Fixerlabs, also came through very well for him in
    > luminance. The poor guy seems to forget himself in his final
    > recommendation. He considers it a negative that certain programs
    > aren't plug-ins. And suddenly it doesn't matter when it comes to Noise
    > Ninja. So, I'd take his results with some scepticism. But it looks
    > like a program to a least try in demo.
    >

    It's funny how different people interpret things, well differently :) I
    just didn't get the bias for plugins like you did. Being able to run as
    a plugin adds flexibility & would have been remiss of him not to mention
    it. I presumed he recommended N Nin overall as it yielded the best
    results.

    Perhaps not the best review in some respects. I was hoping it would
    discuss the merits or otherwise of also using the built-in sharpening
    tools. Doing so may or may not have changed the recommendations quite a
    bit. However, he must have expended considerable time & energy as it
    was.

    My foray into noise reduction amounts to using the Edge Preserving
    Smooth tool in PSP7.04 & now PSP8.1 then using USM afterwards. Not very
    sophisticated, so I'll try the demo version of N Nin which should prove
    interesting to compare brute force filtering to subtractive noise
    reduction. The problem with N Nin apart from lack of plugin support is
    that the available profiles are few at the moment, so I'll have to print
    then photograph the optional colour chart for my C4040. As more cameras
    (& photo editors) use/retain EXIF data, one could keep a library of
    profiles for editing other people's or d/l'd pics.

    This thread & review has highlighted to me the weakness of compressed
    file formats when using different apps on the same picture.
    Q, Dec 12, 2003
    #17
  18. Nonya Bidness

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:34:16 -0000, "Q" <> wrote:

    >My foray into noise reduction amounts to using the Edge Preserving
    >Smooth tool in PSP7.04 & now PSP8.1 then using USM afterwards. Not very
    >sophisticated, so I'll try the demo version of N Nin which should prove
    >interesting to compare brute force filtering to subtractive noise
    >reduction.


    I would be interested to hear your conclusions on this little experiment. I
    have PSP 7.04 and have played about with Edge preserving smooth and a little
    bit with Neat Image as opposed to Noise Ninja.

    I also have picture window pro which in its latest incarnation has an advanced
    sharpening transition which combines three steps, a blur, a de-speckle and then
    a sharpen.

    I am not sure how sophisticated each step is. They certainly are not the same
    as the basic transitions of the same name in the program.

    It seems the idea is to allow the image to be sharpened without introducing
    artifacts or accentuating noise rather than pure noise reduction but I thought
    it worth mentioning.

    I know Neat Image will sharpen as well so one day I may get around to doing a
    comparison myself.

    Dave
    Dave Oddie, Dec 15, 2003
    #18
  19. Nonya Bidness

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave Oddie wrote:

    > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:34:16 -0000, "Q" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My foray into noise reduction amounts to using the Edge Preserving
    >>Smooth tool in PSP7.04 & now PSP8.1 then using USM afterwards. Not very
    >>sophisticated, so I'll try the demo version of N Nin which should prove
    >>interesting to compare brute force filtering to subtractive noise
    >>reduction.

    >
    >
    > I would be interested to hear your conclusions on this little experiment. I
    > have PSP 7.04 and have played about with Edge preserving smooth and a little
    > bit with Neat Image as opposed to Noise Ninja.
    >
    > I also have picture window pro which in its latest incarnation has an advanced
    > sharpening transition which combines three steps, a blur, a de-speckle and then
    > a sharpen.
    >
    > I am not sure how sophisticated each step is. They certainly are not the same
    > as the basic transitions of the same name in the program.
    >
    > It seems the idea is to allow the image to be sharpened without introducing
    > artifacts or accentuating noise rather than pure noise reduction but I thought
    > it worth mentioning.
    >
    > I know Neat Image will sharpen as well so one day I may get around to doing a
    > comparison myself.
    >
    > Dave
    >

    Wouldn't it be better to sharpen, despeckle, then blur?
    Ron Hunter, Dec 15, 2003
    #19
  20. Nonya Bidness

    Dave Oddie Guest

    On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:56:22 -0600, Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >Wouldn't it be better to sharpen, despeckle, then blur?


    Why given the transition is a sharpening one?

    I had a look last night and the PW Pro labels the first transition as Noise
    Reduction achieved by an advanced form of guassian blur (whatever they mean by
    that).

    As I said it appears to be similar to edge preserving smooth in PSP.

    The second is the de-speckle and the third the sharpening that seems to work
    like an unsharp transition.

    You can turn off any stage of this so you could, for example, use it just to do
    noise reduction.

    It is quite sophisticated in the options it gives you as it allows you to chose
    to work with Luminance or Chroma channels if that is more appropriate for the
    noise in the image.

    If you are interested have a look here:
    ftp://ftp.bmtmicro.com/bmtmicro/DLC...icro)/Picture Window Doc/Advanced Sharpen.pdf

    which is a PDF document describing the whole process with an example.

    If the link does not work go to www.dl-c.com and the document is highlighted on
    the home page.

    Dave
    Dave Oddie, Dec 16, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bobster
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,536
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Mar 2, 2004
  2. DR

    Noise Reduction Software

    DR, Aug 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    632
  3. peter

    any editing software with noise reduction?

    peter, Oct 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    771
    HRosita
    Nov 2, 2004
  4. RobbH

    New noise reduction software, currently free

    RobbH, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    275
    David J Taylor
    Dec 10, 2004
  5. John Navas

    Noise Reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.)

    John Navas, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
    John Navas
    Oct 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page