Noise reduction
two things about noise reduction:
1. It would be useful if P1 could give a bit more information (than what is in the rudimentary Help) about how noise reduction works. It seems it changes according to ISO or perhaps C1 analyses the image on-th-fly and sets a default noise reduction. Does anyone have a good understanding of how it actually works?
2. It seems that noise reduction works much better in v.4 (4.8 ) than in 3.7. I used to process all my high-ISO images through a noise reduction sw (Noise Ninja) but looking at some of the results from 4.8 it seems that processing the images for noise in e.g. NN is not needed. Anyone has any experience / opinions on this?
1. It would be useful if P1 could give a bit more information (than what is in the rudimentary Help) about how noise reduction works. It seems it changes according to ISO or perhaps C1 analyses the image on-th-fly and sets a default noise reduction. Does anyone have a good understanding of how it actually works?
2. It seems that noise reduction works much better in v.4 (4.8 ) than in 3.7. I used to process all my high-ISO images through a noise reduction sw (Noise Ninja) but looking at some of the results from 4.8 it seems that processing the images for noise in e.g. NN is not needed. Anyone has any experience / opinions on this?
0
-
I find that C1 has problems with noise reduction. Some areas of an image get heavily posterized. By that I would say that C1 noise reduction is the worst of all the software I know for high ISO. It works well for images which are shot at ISO 100 - I get less noise with the same amount of sharpening applied than from other software. 0 -
I agree with your point 2, Per - C1 4 has fantastic noise handling capability. I routinely get images from my 40D at 3200 ISO that need no further NR (and remember, none applied in camera) by converting in C1 4.
And I mean proper "available dark" situations too.
I've no idea what Alxy is doing, but his experience doesn't match that of the many C1 4 users that use it specifically because it is so good with high ISO images.
It stomps all over Lr/ACR, provides better noise/detail compromises than Silkypix, and is actually better with regard to noise than DPP on Canon files.
It's ever better at high ISO than Raw Therapee, which I regard to the the best stand-alone basic RAW converter out there.0 -
Although I don't have to speak for user Alxy, from earlier posts I understand he is using a Nikon (D3x?) camera. Maybe noise reduction for Nikon is tuned differently then for Canon in CO4. Don't know, but I though it might be worth mentioning camera brand/type when discussing noise reduction. Cameras differ highly in their noise characteristics. For example, I find the results from my 5D mkII processed with CO4 very good in this respect. 0 -
[quote="Keith R" wrote:
It's ever better at high ISO than Raw Therapee, which I regard to the the best stand-alone basic RAW converter out there.
if you have a Mac - did you try RPP (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html - free like Rawtherapee) ?0 -
Looks great deejjjaaaa, but I'm a Win XP user. 0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
5 Kommentare