I displayed it on the screen, then took shots (with my 35/1.4) at 1/30 second (to avoid getting a blank screen), focused on infinity. I used Tv mode.
I took shots at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 ISO.
So far, I've only done the ISO 3200.
In neat image, I opened up the resulting file (saved as 16-bit TIFF, with ARF-1 from YarcPlus being used).
I then used the large gray square in the middle as my rough profile. I then used every one of the smaller squares to refine my profile.
Then, I played around with a couple of images from an ISO 3200 shoot I had done 6 months ago, and came up with an appropriate Noise Filter Profile to go along with the created Device Noise Profile.
These two files are located here:
EDIT --- ISO profiles have now been combined into one single file
Note: These are 100% images. The unprocessed ones are about 1.5 MB, while the smaller ones are about 0.5 MB
I didn't add any copyright notices or watermarks, so you can see the full image. Please respect my copyright on these images.
I think the next time I go shoot basketball, I'm gonna use ISO3200. I'm not longer too worried about the noise there. In the gym I've been using, I need all the speed I can get, even at f/2.
I'll probably do ISO 1600 and ISO 800 next. The lower values are less important to me, and NeatImage is probably much less needed at ISO 400 and below, anyway.
I doubt I'll fill in with the 1/3 stop ISO's. I'll just use the closest full-stop value.
PS -- the latest version of NeatImage has the ability to batch-process files, too. Wahooo! This is great, because NeatImage is quite slow.
Pondria wrote:
Pretty Good !
I'm gonna try the test patterns right now
It blew my mind that they said I should shoot the screen, and not print it out and shoot it under similar light conditions.
But, hey, it seems to work. I did have to play around with those Noise Filter settings some, though.
And you definitely have to refine the noise profile by using all those different squares. At ISO 3200, there's a LOT more noise in the shadows than there is in the highlights. You can see that when you load the DNP file.
This means that my original thought of using the ExpoDisc was all wrong.
PS -- I focused at infinity, like I said. Because I was in Tv mode, the aperture varied for each shot. The low ISO shots are VERY blurry, while the high ISO shots have some sharpness to them (the text is legible, for instance).
OK, it works well ! I prepared 400, 800, 1600 profiles. I tested the 1600 shot with my ugly face. It gets rid of not only the ISO noises but also some of the defects on my face
Just in case you have not noticed, In the output image window, when you see the final filtered image, just by clicking on the image with the mouse, you can instanttly see the original image. Pretty handy to see the effect.
I'm using a LOT less agressive NFP's for ISO 1600. If I get much more aggressive, details like the grain in the guitar (on the Davin James shot) start to get lost.
ISO 1600 and below just don't require much noise removal, IMO. I'll probably do a set for ISO 800, too. But I'm not sure anything below that really needs NeatImage to be used on it.
I can get rid of more of the noise in the background, but at the expense of some of the detail that I want to see in the subject. As always, the amount to apply here is somewhat subjective. You can play with the NFP settings all you want, but the DNP settings should be left alone (unless you profile your own camera).
I'v not experienced the good fortune many others have with this program. I do a a fair number of 24" X 36" prints from raw images, and have far too many halos and artifacts that seem to be created by Neat Image. I gave it up. PS and FM actions still work best for me on very large prints.
Larry Mowry wrote:
i just worked that program using your iso 100 profile and it caused halos to appear at 300 mag when the original at 300 mag had none.
Then you need to use less sharpening, probably.
Did you use the default noise profile that the program generates? I always turn the sharpening OFF.
You may also need to play with the other values in the "noise filter profile" tab to get best results.
David - You server isn't responding...... tried to download the files, but I got error messages. Any chance you could email the 1600 and 3200 profiles to me?
Larry Mowry wrote:
You are right...I had the sharpening checked...also reduced a few settings...results? Pretty darned good...Thanks
I didn't notice much improvement with ISO 200 pictures. However, I was applying it only in a region where there was a lot of detail (which hid any noise). Perhaps if I had looked in an area where there was nothing but out-of-focus bokeh, I would've noticed an improvement.
Did you try again to get those profiles? They should be downloadable.
If you still can't get them, let me know, and I'll email them.
I just tried again with no success. I right clicked and did a Save Target, but it gave me an error.... then I just clicked on the file, and I also got an error.
