If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NEATIMAGE & HIGH ISO's
Someone on one of the pro photo groups suggested I check out NeatImage after he
found the background in this ISO 1600 pic to be a bit noisy ( I didn't have a prob with it): http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/35429440 So anyways, I had tried it a few years ago but wasn't too impressed so I figured I'd give it another day in court. To make a long story short, I now have the full ver. 4.4 Pro+ edition and it works as advertised. To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to 3200. Here is a little test strip I made showing how each shot looks from the 20D and with the NeatImage processing. http://members.aol.com/annika1980/neatcomp.jpg As you can see there is little advantage to using NeatImage at the lower ISO's since the 20D is so clean. However, the software really kicks in the higher you go so it's like buying two extra stops on all your shots for $79. This one gets the ANNI 4-star rating. (It might've garnered a perfect 5-star rating, but I had to pay for it). -Annika ---- hates buyin software |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Annika
I'm in deep agreement the goodness of NI. I routinely use it on D70 images. As you note, it's especially good on high ISO images. Makes my 1600 ISO images look better than scanned pro ISO160 film. -- stan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Annika
I'm in deep agreement the goodness of NI. I routinely use it on D70 images. As you note, it's especially good on high ISO images. Makes my 1600 ISO images look better than scanned pro ISO160 film. -- stan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Annika1980 wrote:
To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to 3200. I can make a trivial de-noiser which will produce zero noise under your test conditions: simply replace all pixels with the average value. A better test would be to synthesize an image and then degrade it to various degrees -- add in some white noise -- and then give it to "NI" and compare the result to the original. One can then quantify not only the noise reduction, but also the (necessary) detail reduction as well. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Annika1980 wrote:
To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to 3200. I can make a trivial de-noiser which will produce zero noise under your test conditions: simply replace all pixels with the average value. A better test would be to synthesize an image and then degrade it to various degrees -- add in some white noise -- and then give it to "NI" and compare the result to the original. One can then quantify not only the noise reduction, but also the (necessary) detail reduction as well. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
From:
To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to 3200. I can make a trivial de-noiser which will produce zero noise under your test conditions: simply replace all pixels with the average value. The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene. Kinda like film. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
From:
To test it out, I took some photos of the sky at ISO's ranging from 100 to 3200. I can make a trivial de-noiser which will produce zero noise under your test conditions: simply replace all pixels with the average value. The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene. Kinda like film. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Annika1980 wrote:
The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene. Kinda like film. Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me. -- Stacey |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Annika1980 wrote:
The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene. Kinda like film. Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me. -- Stacey |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I like plastic, I call it glassed over.
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Annika1980 wrote: The reason I chose the sky for my test is because that's where the noise usually shows itself in my pics. On areas with lotsa detail the noise isn't so problematical. In fact, it sometimes may even look beneficial as it adds artificial detail and texture to the scene. Kinda like film. Exactly, zero noise makes an image look "plastic" to me. -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Auto FP High Speed Sync mode - Nikon F6 + SB-800 flash | Dave | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | January 1st 05 05:36 PM |
I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum | me | In The Darkroom | 153 | December 20th 04 05:37 AM |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
Super high resolution prints on transparency in L.A.? | molecool | Large Format Photography Equipment | 5 | April 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Kodak's High Definition Film | [email protected] | APS Photographic Equipment | 8 | December 10th 03 04:25 AM |