morganb4 wrote:
Stanj, turn all noise off in LR/ACR. Match the WB, it does have an effect on visible noise, I can see your wb is off a bit. You are also comparing a NR reduced image to a non NR reduced image.
Yes I am aware that I am comparing a NRd image with a non-NRd one. On purpose. My question is: Brainiac, in his original post of the guitar player, says that he had NR and sharpening off in DPP, just like I do with my photo. My image has this freakish pattern noise, while his does not. So I am asking what I am doing wrong.
People keep saying that ACR will give inferior results to DPP. Therefore, I think it's fair for me to use the settings in ACR to get the "best", and in DPP to get the "best", where in DPP I was told to turn NR and sharpening off, while in ACR I am using my default settings.
The white balance will make a difference, but it does not explain the pattern noise.
So, back to my original question - how do people get the smooth result in DPP? Let's keep ACR out of the equation for a minute, as not to cause any confusion.
And since we're comparing decoders and methods - this is what Aperture comes up with with default settings. As much as I don't use Aperture, for high ISO stuff it's pretty much the way to go. http://fm.jirman.com/3200-APE.jpg
Again in direct comparison to DPP: http://fm.jirman.com/3200-DPP.jpg
Do you have 'high iso noise reduction' switched on in the camera?
In DPP you get fewer speckles with sharpening at zero and noise reduction at zero. You may still get some speckling, but it doesn't matter very much, as it is highly susceptible to a slight dust & scratches filter with a high threshold in photoshop.
brainiac wrote:
Do you have 'high iso noise reduction' switched on in the camera?
In DPP you get fewer speckles with sharpening at zero and noise reduction at zero. You may still get some speckling, but it doesn't matter very much, as it is highly susceptible to a slight dust & scratches filter with a high threshold in photoshop.
Nope, o NR functions are turned on in the camera. I need all the buffer I can get
Stanj, I think its also ambient dependant too. I get much more noise from certain light sources than others. This could have something to do with it. I dont know what lighting Braniac shot under.
stanj wrote:
Yes I am aware that I am comparing a NRd image with a non-NRd one. On purpose. My question is: Brainiac, in his original post of the guitar player, says that he had NR and sharpening off in DPP, just like I do with my photo. My image has this freakish pattern noise, while his does not. So I am asking what I am doing wrong.
People keep saying that ACR will give inferior results to DPP. Therefore, I think it's fair for me to use the settings in ACR to get the "best", and in DPP to get the "best", where in DPP I was told to turn NR and sharpening off, while in ACR I am using my default settings.
The white balance will make a difference, but it does not explain the pattern noise.
So, back to my original question - how do people get the smooth result in DPP? Let's keep ACR out of the equation for a minute, as not to cause any confusion....Show more →
morganb4 wrote:
Stanj, I think its also ambient dependant too. I get much more noise from certain light sources than others. This could have something to do with it. I dont know what lighting Braniac shot under.
That's absolutely right. It's not just the colour of light, but light levels and subject matter too, since lots of flat shadowy areas will show striping much more severely. I can't remember what the original colour was like on this shot, but if light is quite blue that usually helps as the blue channel is often the noisiest.
brainiac wrote:
Aperture raw processing looks great. Early versions seemed to handle continuous colour tones quite badly. Is that fixed?
V2 color, as especially detail (beyer) reconstruction is vastly better than before. As a matter of fact I think that detail is by far the best of any raw converter now. They still don't have camera color calibration, though, and that matters to me more.
cogitech wrote:
...Bibble... I'd love to have your RAW file to play with, so I can demonstrate how effective it really is.
OK - I'm very interested in that. It's a 28 meg file. I am uploading it now but it will probably take some time. The link is below, but please everyone don't kill my server. http://cyberphotographer.com/c/20080628costa/838.CR2
brainiac wrote:
OK - I'm very interested in that. It's a 28 meg file. I am uploading it now but it will probably take some time. The link is below, but please everyone don't kill my server. http://cyberphotographer.com/c/20080628costa/838.CR2
This was quick run through DPP to Neat Image (from within PS CS3) with a preset profile. If I spent some time with it and fiddled with neat Image, I could probably get it a little better. Relative to the other noise reduction try earlier, this one is a little more aggressive but seems to retain more of the wood grain detail on the face of the guitar. http://boncratious.com/images/838-crop.jpg
Thanks Lotus - this one preserves the richer colour, but I still think I would prefer to print the original. This one looks a bit smeary and plasticky. We didn't worry about grain in the old days, in fact, I remember going to some lengths to make sure that grain was crisp in my black and white prints. I also don't think this kind of NR will do much to help out with the horizontal streaks, since they are quite large scale objects.
brainiac wrote:
OK - I'm very interested in that. It's a 28 meg file. I am uploading it now but it will probably take some time. The link is below, but please everyone don't kill my server. http://cyberphotographer.com/c/20080628costa/838.CR2
brainiac wrote:
That's exactly it. Set iso 3200 and -2 exp comp, and you are now really shooting at 12800. Images will look very underexposed on the camera, but push two stops in your raw developer, and you have a nicely exposed shot like the one I showed above. It really is exactly the same thing as shooting at iso 12800, as your shutter speed and aperture are what they would be with that iso.
In my case, looking at the 5D and 1D3, and Canon's long-standing lead in sensors if not in noise-reduction, I decided that the 1Ds3 would very likely match the D3's famous high iso performance, so I went ahead and bought one instead of waiting for a D3. I figured Nikon's full-frame chip had probably caught up with the 2005 5D, and the rest is noise reduction. Luckily, it worked out for me, and I don't need to get a Nikon for high iso performance.
There is also the small matter of (full-frame 14 bit) 21 megapixel, which makes it the current king of everything image quality related, unless low iso clunky medium format appeals. It has 9 million more pixels than a D3, which, apart from anything else, makes cropping a pleasure. Although it narrowly beats the D3 at iso 12800, at iso 200 it stomps all over it....Show more →
The EOS-1D Mark III would be even better - by about 1-stop.
This is a bit of a crop from my 1D to get my foot out of the shot but it's @ ISO 3200 straight from ACR. I'd call it more than usable. Full exif and full size available here too.
OK. Here's a quick demo. The WB was difficult on this shot, but anyway:
RAW developed in Bibble Pro 4.10 with:
- Bibble Ev set at 0
- "Really low" tone curve
- Sharpening at 150 out of 400
- Sensor correction enabled (auto dead/hot pixel removal)
- Sean Puckett's "Sharpie" plugin enabled
- Sean Puckett's "Shady" plugin enabled and set to Ev to +1.75 , smoothness 1, colour 0.258
- Everything else basically at defaults
Output from Bibble to TIFF and run through Neat Image. Auto profiled.
Output from Neat Image to TIFF and then cropped/resized, small levels tweak, etc. in PS7(WINE).
brainiac wrote:
Thanks Lotus - this one preserves the richer colour, but I still think I would prefer to print the original. This one looks a bit smeary and plasticky. We didn't worry about grain in the old days, in fact, I remember going to some lengths to make sure that grain was crisp in my black and white prints. I also don't think this kind of NR will do much to help out with the horizontal streaks, since they are quite large scale objects.
I tried again and created a new profile for it in Neat Image. It looks a bit better, smoother, less noise grain, less plasticy with more detail. It's actually fairly similar to cogitech's attempt above, but has less magenta: http://boncratious.com/images/838-crop2.jpg
It didn't quite get rid of the streaks or banding -- that's going to be a challenge. But I would have to say that the file file is really quite usable and presentable.
Edited by Lotusm50 on Jul 08, 2008 at 09:12 PM GMT
