Noise Reduction

[steve_gray3]

This is a comment, not a question.

I just added a new tool to my 10D rig. Not hardware, software.

I just bought the NeatImage plug-in for Photoshop. First test was a

bunch of shots I took at dusk at our annual block party using my f4

70-200. I had to kick the ISO up to 1600 in order to get any shots at

all. The noise was awful and the shots were a bit underexposed as

well. I used these hard test cases as my first NeatImage experiment.

The results were far, far better than anticpated. I ran the shots

through NeatImage, then upped the brightness and contrast a bit and

miracles occurred. A collection of noisy, throw away shots were

magically transformed into usable images. Really.

If anyone out there finds themselves having to shoot with high ISO

settings I'd wholeheartedly recommend getting this software. It really

works. You can use higher ISO settings and save hundreds on fast

glass. Hell, even if I had the f2.8 it would have only bought me one

stop and I'd still have noise to contend with. IMHO this is a must

have addtion to anyone's 10D arsenal. One caveat, NeatImage processing

is SLOOOOOOOW; but worth the wait.<div></div>

[steve_gray3]

CROPPED, BEFORE<div></div>

[jimvanson]

<i>A collection of noisy, throw away shots were magically transformed into usable images. Really...</i><p>Your not serious are you? Both of the shots are soft as h***. How can you say that you can use cheaper glass?<p>The only thing you'll get from that is even crappier images.<p>Sorry I just don't understand...

[steve_gray3]

Well,

 

Yeah, agreed, they're soft. These are crops with resolution reduced to allow posting on the web. These are about 5% at best of the original picture. Not to be evaluated seriously for anything other than the noise reduction, which was demonstrably dramatic. If you want sharper I could see what photshop would do with the originals (or try shooting under better lighting) but that wasn't the point. Maybe the line about cheaper glass was a bit of a stretch but this software really works. And that was the point. Why would you ignore that fact and focus on the softness issue which could be due to great many factors other than the noise reduction?

[ted_reyes]

Steve,

 

Thanks for the comparison. It does show less noise. Does the plug in work for Photoshop Elements? What was the cost?

 

The comment about less expensive "L" glass is appropriate. My understanding is that the F4 has the ability to produce images equal to the F2.8. Almost wish I had one instead of the F2.8 due to its size.

 

Regards, TR

[fotografz]

Look at Fred Miranda's noise reduction PhotoShop action

specifically designed for the 10D. It's a no brainer, and is

completely reversable if you over do it. It costs just a few bucks

and he e-mails it to you. It is fast as hell and does absolute

wonders with high ISO noise. www.fredmiranda.com<div></div>

[fotografz]

BTW, that was from the original untouched file not the first one

on this thread. Ignore the flatter tonal qualities and saturation

from copying a j-peg off the web. Just look at the noise reduction.

[steve_gray3]

To Marc:

 

I had previously tried Fred Miranda's actions. They work to a point and I laud him for writing and making them available for free. But I did try them and they just didn't seem to produce the kind of results I needed with pictures as bad as mine. I think the picture you posted proves that point. It's better than the original but not dramatically so. And when I tried Fred's actions they took much longer than the 3 seconds you cite, but were quicker than NeatImage. Processing the crop alone took 17 seconds on NeatImage. Which just proves the old adages that 'you get what you pay for' and 'good thinks come to those who wait' :-)

 

So Ted,

 

In search of something better I was prompted to try NeatImage. I got the 'Pro+' version that works as a Photoshop OR Photoshop Elements plug-in. It was $75. I paid the extra so I could get the plug-in. The baby version looks like it has the same functionality except will not run as a plug-in and has some convenience features deleted. It's $30. Check out the options for yourself at http://www.neatimage.com.

 

Update:

Between the time I wrote my original post and now I have been running some older shots of one of my daughter's gymnastic meets through NeatImage. These were also shot at 1600 ISO under low light and came out very noisy. I shot them the day after I got my camera and so was not yet acquainted with either the RAW or white balance features. The mercury lights in the gym added a very bad yellow/orange cast to everything. (That won't happen again!) I just found that after runnng the pictures through NeatImage I could get better results trying to compensate for the white balance than I could with the the noisy shots.

[jimvanson]

Steve...I'm sorry but I still fail to get this...<p>Take your 3 posted examples crop and compare the details...especially the eyebrows.<p>From those examples the cropped after shot is sharpest; did you sharpen it?. Next comes the cropped before shot. Then comes the last shot you posted; the mushiest...al-be-it the shot with the least noise.<p>Maybe this works with a print but the whole thing seems a waste to time/money when viewing via a monitor.

[steve_gray3]

Jim,

 

Take a look at the original (2nd image posted). It is soft and mushy to start with. You keep getting back to that and it is beside the point. The issue is the noise reduction. Compare the noise in 1st and 2nd images posted. Do you see a difference? Look at the noise in the beige fence in the background. I see a huge difference. These are also small crops. Yes, the full image from which they were taken looks MUCH better as a 4x6 or a 5x7. Wouldn't want to attempt anything larger in this case. The processed one looks near normal. The original still doesn't look great. That was the point for me. Something that was unacceptable was made acceptable, not perfect, under difficult shooting conditions. In terms of sharpness on the processed image I applied no sharpeneing in either PhotoShop or NeatImage. As I said in my initial post, I did up the brightness and contrast a bit on the processed shot. Upping the contrast will improve the apparent sharpness somewhat. The third image was not posted by me. It was posted by another member who ran the original (2nd image) through Fred Miranda's PhotoShop actions. On my monitor (MAG Innovision 1280x1024 LCD TFT w/GForce 3 video card), I don't see a big difference between that one and the original. I still see quite a bit more noise compared to the NeatImage processed image. Night and day to these eyes.

[jorge_ituarte3]

"You can use higher ISO settings and save hundreds on fast glass"

 

One stop would put you at ISO 800. 10D at ISO 800 is pretty damn good. That's the best noise reduction system in my book. I would have used a 50mm 1.8 for your low light shoot at ISO 400. Cheaper than neat image!

[jimvanson]

Steve...I realize I'm coming across as a jerk but I just can't understand why you would give up on sharpness to reduce noise...(and giving up on sharpness, creating mush is what seems to be occurring on my rather good Sony CRT).<p>Perhaps this prog works...if thats the case you should consider being much more careful with examples you post in the future.<p>So to clarify the subject I've d/led N/I Pro+. I'll install it and try it.

[fotografz]

Steve, while I do agree that your After image is pretty good

considering the amout of cropping, I don't agree there is no

difference between your original and the Fred Mirinda Action.

 

What I have found is that Fred tends to balance noise removal

with other aspects to retain a sense of sharpness in the

uncropped full image. After all, some of that noise is responsible

for the impression of sharpness and is only visable to the

viewing eye if grossly over enlarged.

 

That said, I find your demo makes it worth exploring other

alternatives like Neat Image. Not all images respond to any

given program the same. Having alternatives to try is a good

thing. Thanks.<div></div>

[steve_gray3]

Marc,

 

When I first compared the FM vs. NI results I looked at them enlarged and the FM results looked pretty bad to me. I didn't closely compare the FM and NI results after seeing that. Seeing the three pictures smaller and side by side shows the FM action's results to yield an improvement over the original. And a 4x6 print of an FM treated original from whence came the crop would probably look good. But I still think it's pretty apparent that NI does a better job. Blow them both up and look at them side by side and it's a no brainer. NI easily and obviously shows better results. Even in the smaller shots you posted; look on the fence just to the left of the collar for instance. Or the darker area on the neck. Much grainier. If you don't want to spend the xtra bucks, the FM action will improve the noise. IMHO if you want the best results, go for NeatImage. BTW, hope my neighbor doesn't mind that I posted his picture!

 

And just for the record. My comment on saving money on fast glass was a bit misguided. I was just a bit carried away by what I was seeing at the time. There is no substitute for good glass. Let me temper my enthusiasm and just say that when you get a bad shot with a lot of noise, the NI software can dramatically improve that image and allow you to use shots you would otherwise have had to throw away.

 

I just found this that may be of interest.

http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm

[steve_gray3]

Also check out this link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/neatimage.shtml

[steve_gray3]

OK,

 

This is my last post in this thread as I definitely feel like I'm beating it to death. But I think Jorge's remarks deserve recognition.

I've been putting off getting a low light prime for too long now. I just spent $75 to try to salvage shots that could have been MUCH better than the NeatImage processed shots had I had spent $65 on a 50mm f1.8 first. Actually I think I'm going to save up a bit more and get the 85mm f1.8. It would have completely saved the day if I had it when I took those noisy shots and completely obviated this entire thread. Thanks for getting me back to reality Jorge.

[fotografz]

I do agree that the blow ups are clear in showing that the Neat

Image one is cleaner. Yet cleaned images are often softened in

the process. That's why I mentoned the "balance" between

reducing noise and maintaining a sense of sharpness.

 

I am confused as to the reference to better glass reducing noise.

The lens has little to nothing to do with the creation of noise.

Exposure control does (high ISO, underexposure, poor light

balance ).

[steve_gray3]

Marc,

 

Better glass (i.e. faster glass) would allow you to shoot with lower ISO and thus less noise.

[fotografz]

Got it Steve. I thought you were refering to a L, non L comparison.

Faster is indeed better in this case.

[mark wells]

I highly recommend, before purchasing actions or software plug-ins, at least

attempting to learn how to do-it-yourself in photoshop.

 

A lot of noise reduction can be done easily by hand, and very quickly. Try picking up

"the photoshop book for digital photographers," by Scott Kelby. It's the best

photoshop book I've picked up. Within three hours of following the step-by-step

solutions offered by Kelby, I've met with outstanding results.

 

For instance, did you know that a gaussian blur can reduce noise? I won't publish the

technique here, but you could just go down to a Borders and find out yourself!

[fotografz]

Mark, some of the programs mentioned are PS steps. Sure there

are simple steps you can take yourself, but these are a series of

PS actions set in the correct order, for ISO specific and Camera

specific noise reduction. They are time consuming and

laborious to do yourself. With the programs like FM Actions you

select the ISO, and the degree of noise reduction then hit a

button. It performs up to 10 steps in the time you could do maybe

2 (if that). Leaving you more time to shoot.

[david_kieltyka]

When NeatImage and other noise reduction techniques come up for discussion people invariably post full-res crops to show its effectiveness. My problem with this is it doesn't reflect the real world. I don't put up 3000x2000 JPEGs on my website or send them via e-mail, and I don't make prints at 72dpi (roughly monitor resolution). In both cases--monitor display, prints--far less magnification is involved.

 

In my experience with the 10D noise at ISO 1600 all but disappears in an 800-pixel wide JPEG or 8x10" print. Neither is capable of resolving enough detail to show the noise. Exceptions to this are photos with large dark or shadow areas. The 10D's noise in such areas tends to be patterned, which IMO is ugly (as opposed to high ISO film grain, which is evenly distributed and IMO pleasant). These photos usually do benefit from some noise reduction. Same goes for prints large enough to resolve noise. I rarely make such prints so for me it's very rarely an issue. For other people the situation may be different.

 

So...if you can't see the noise in a photo in its final form--resized for monitor display or printed--why bother trying to get rid of it? It doesn't matter.

 

-Dave-

[barmijo]

I frequently use Neat Image and find it invaluable. The noise reduction is superb and there are plenty of controls to allow precise application.

 

To the comment about noise reduction being superfluous when the end use is a 600x800 posting; if that's all the image is to be used for you're correct. However, I seldom shoot with a posting in mind - I'm always thinking of the shot I want to print 16x20. For that the noise reduction is a must.

 

To the issue of faster lenses; I would never consider noise reduction a substitute for a better lens. I always want the best starting point possible. However, life has never lost the ability to surprise me and I often find I've got a winning image but because of some unforeseen circumstance I had to shoot ISO800 or higher and the result is noise.

 

To the suggestion of Fred Miranda's actions; I've tried them and can not recommend them. Fred's actions are not a mathematical elimination of noise but rather a combination of sharpening and blurs recombined. The result is less than ideal. Neat Image uses signal processing techniques to mathematically remove identifiable noise from the image.

 

One other point to consider. Whether the noise in an image is too great for it's intended output, it can still cause issues with other processes in photoshop - specifically sharpening. I often find noise removal before any sharpening avoids many artifacts.

 

I've found only two drawbacks to NeatImage - it's SLOW and (at least in my version) only supports 8 bits. If you haven't tried this tool you owe it to yourself to try it.