Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

5.1 Noise Reduction, etc.

Zach2
Just (finally) got 5.1 downloaded, and I have to say, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the "Advanced Noise Reduction" panel. (The spot removal is AWESOME though) Surface NR is sorta cool, but the add noise thing... really? Instead of making luminance NR better, they want us to add grain back on top of it to make it look better? hmmm. I guess I'll stick with Nik Dfine for NR when I need it still. Also, the negative clarity thing would be awesome if it could be painted in rather than applied to the entire image. It's kind of useless as it is.
0

Kommentare

18 Kommentare

Datum Stimmen
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Zach2" wrote:
    but the add noise thing... really? Instead of making luminance NR better, they want us to add grain back on top of it to make it look better? hmmm.


    the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you do not need need to use that, you can even remove the tool from tab if it is so irritating... however C1 did not have a particularly good NR for high ISOs, so if you can't get rid of the noise - at least make it possible for some (not you) people to alter it visually to make it more appealing from their subjective point of view... I guess the changes that competition (Adobe) showed w/ the NR in LR3Beta pushed P1 to think what they can do make a noise stucture more beautiful (even if it does not satisfy everybody or not yet perfectly implemented)... my 2c
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    I wouldn't claim the NR tool is perfect but it certainly has been improved quite a bit from the previous version. The amount of control that is available now is quite a leap towards the right direction. Seeing as Noise is never exactly the same from file to file, camera to camera, ISO to ISO it's not an easy algorithm to pin down, however I think it's on the right track. And I must say I was quite the opposite of underwhelmed when I saw the improvements in the Beta.

    [quote="Zach2" wrote:
    Also, the negative clarity thing would be awesome if it could be painted in rather than applied to the entire image. It's kind of useless as it is.


    Much, much, much, easier said than done, however a valid feature request in a support case is certainly welcome.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Zach2" wrote:
    Also, the negative clarity thing would be awesome if it could be painted in rather than applied to the entire image.

    the killer will be to buy Imagenomic and incorporate portraiture plug-in... now that will be THE negative clarity
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    however C1 did not have a particularly good NR for high ISOs

    Really?

    It's the NR in C1 that's its main benefit to me - it's better than any other converter out there in my experience, and I've happily written to that effect before now.

    I can't comment on the "new" NR in Pro, but the standard implementation in C1 4 and 5 is superb - I've done direct comparisons on the same files with Lr 3 Beta and C1 5, and it's C1 all the way for me.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    however C1 did not have a particularly good NR for high ISOs

    Really?

    It's the NR in C1 that's its main benefit to me - it's better than any other converter out there in my experience, and I've happily written to that effect before now.

    I can't comment on the "new" NR in Pro, but the standard implementation in C1 4 and 5 is superb - I've done direct comparisons on the same files with Lr 3 Beta and C1 5, and it's C1 all the way for me.


    do you mind to post that raw file(s) used for the test + screenshots of L3Beta & C1 settings that you were using ? thank you.
    0
  • Zach2
    I have noticed that NR is one of the most subjective things in RAW conversion, everyone likes it different. So, I'm happy to be the minority because I do love C1 for everything else so much. I know localized negative clarity would be super complicated to do, but now Aperture and LR both have lots of localized adjustments, it seems like something that's gotta happen eventually for C1.

    Sorry to be a whiner, I just had such high hopes for better noise reduction and it wasn't what I had imagined in my mind, certainly an impossible task for Phase One, haha. But thanks for the constant updates, bug fixes and little add-ons guys, they are appreciated!
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    [quote="Zach2" wrote:
    ...but now Aperture and LR both have lots of localized adjustments, it seems like something that's gotta happen eventually for C1.


    I imagine it is an inevitability and the "Spot/Dust" tool seems to be the first step in that direction. The difficulty with trying to keep up with Adobe is they are basically just combining features from separate software's to accommodate demand. LR adopts the features from Photoshop and I imagine it's only a matter of time before they integrate the features from Premiere to accommodate the Video features of many DSLR's. Likewise with Apple.
    So, inevitable... yes, but a small task? As we would be starting from scratch, absolutely not.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Drew " wrote:
    The difficulty with trying to keep up with Adobe

    LightZone raw converter from LightCrafts had that well before Adobe... and Nikon just licensed the technology from Nik Software (U-Points)
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    Difficulty still remains but thanks for the input.
    0
  • Robert Goldstein
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    however C1 did not have a particularly good NR for high ISOs

    Really?

    It's the NR in C1 that's its main benefit to me - it's better than any other converter out there in my experience, and I've happily written to that effect before now.

    I can't comment on the "new" NR in Pro, but the standard implementation in C1 4 and 5 is superb - I've done direct comparisons on the same files with Lr 3 Beta and C1 5, and it's C1 all the way for me.


    On my copy of LR 3 Beta, luminance NR is disabled, so comparisons to C1 are not meaningful.

    Rob
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="robgo2" wrote:
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    however C1 did not have a particularly good NR for high ISOs

    Really?

    It's the NR in C1 that's its main benefit to me - it's better than any other converter out there in my experience, and I've happily written to that effect before now.

    I can't comment on the "new" NR in Pro, but the standard implementation in C1 4 and 5 is superb - I've done direct comparisons on the same files with Lr 3 Beta and C1 5, and it's C1 all the way for me.


    On my copy of LR 3 Beta, luminance NR is disabled, so comparisons to C1 are not meaningful.

    Rob


    it does not mean that Adobe does not perform it internally and it does not mean that you can't compare results - because you are not comparing them by moving sliders in two different applications to similar values... you compare what both applications do w/ the visually seen noise structure for high ISO images (3200-12800)... and LR3Beta improved on what was before...
    0
  • Robert Goldstein
    On my copy of LR 3 Beta, luminance NR is disabled, so comparisons to C1 are not meaningful.

    Rob


    it does not mean that Adobe does not perform it internally and it does not mean that you can't compare results - because you are not comparing them by moving sliders in two different applications to similar values... you compare what both applications do w/ the visually seen noise structure for high ISO images (3200-12800)... and LR3Beta improved on what was before...


    It means that we have no idea what LR 3 Beta is doing with luminance noise, so comparisons are not meaningful at this time. NR may or may not be going full blast.

    Rob
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="robgo2" wrote:
    On my copy of LR 3 Beta, luminance NR is disabled, so comparisons to C1 are not meaningful.

    Well they are if you're comparing chroma NR with chroma NR, which is all I can have compared.

    Sorry, I thought that was implied clearly enough that it didn't need to be said.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="robgo2" wrote:
    On my copy of LR 3 Beta, luminance NR is disabled, so comparisons to C1 are not meaningful.

    Rob


    it does not mean that Adobe does not perform it internally and it does not mean that you can't compare results - because you are not comparing them by moving sliders in two different applications to similar values... you compare what both applications do w/ the visually seen noise structure for high ISO images (3200-12800)... and LR3Beta improved on what was before...


    It means that we have no idea what LR 3 Beta is doing with luminance noise, so comparisons are not meaningful at this time. NR may or may not be going full blast.

    Rob


    they are meaningful because you can see the results, even if you can't control Luma NR in LR3Beta... and visually High ISO NR in C1 pre 5.1 vs LR3Beta is worse because of the structure of the resulting (remaining) noise... that's it... now additional controls were introduced in 5.1 exactly for that reason to make the noise structure visually better...
    0
  • NN165636UL
    I'm also one of those who love the noise reduction in C1. I don't take it to the extreme, but I find that at low settings it does what it's supposed to do.
    In fact I'm in love with every feature of this software (except the price 😜). I'm now downloading the 5.1, but I don't think I will expect much improvement to version 5.

    I did a small comparison here, between ACR/Lightroom, Aperture 3 and C1 pro. It's a basic comparison, and it was an attempt of me to achieve the look I wanted to an image, and how I achieved it with the three developers.

    0
  • Robert Goldstein
    I
    t means that we have no idea what LR 3 Beta is doing with luminance noise, so comparisons are not meaningful at this time. NR may or may not be going full blast.

    Rob


    they are meaningful because you can see the results, even if you can't control Luma NR in LR3Beta... and visually High ISO NR in C1 pre 5.1 vs LR3Beta is worse because of the structure of the resulting (remaining) noise... that's it... now additional controls were introduced in 5.1 exactly for that reason to make the noise structure visually better...


    (Sigh) you still don't know how much, if any, luminance NR is being applied in LR 3 Beta. It's a Beta version, and its current iteration may not be representative of the final release version. The fact that they left the luminance NR slider disabled suggests that they are not finished with that part of the program. Other aspects are probably close to finalized, e.g. demosaicizing algos, sharpening, etc.

    Rob
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="robgo2" wrote:


    (Sigh) you still don't know how much, if any, luminance NR is being applied in LR 3 Beta.



    it does not matter... the final, pleasant to the eyes of many, look of the high ISO noise grain structure is what matters... if LR3Beta was able to achieve that (with or without applying luma NR behind the scene, while luma NR slider was disabled) then who cares that C1 pre 5.1 was not able to do this with both sliders enabled ? I don't... I mean that I don't care for the purpose of comparison, of course I want C1 to do better w/ post 5.1 releases...

    [quote="robgo2" wrote:

    It's a Beta version, and its current iteration may not be representative of the final release version.


    so what ? exactly with Beta version we are comparing... not w/ LR2.x production.

    [quote="robgo2" wrote:

    The fact that they left the luminance NR slider disabled suggests that they are not finished with that part of the program. Other aspects are probably close to finalized, e.g. demosaicizing algos, sharpening, etc.

    Rob


    I do not think that Adobe will make it worse now that they hear the positive feedback about NR in Beta...
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="NN165636UL" wrote:

    I did a small comparison here


    in any posted comparison it will be better to provide the raw file(s) used and screen shots of all the parameters used by the author for all the raw converters compared for the public to be able to recreate and check whether the author did his/her best job or not...
    0

Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.