Capture One 6 NR much improved
I have been playing with the new upgrade, testing its NR capabilities on a number of very high ISO shots that I had previously worked on in C1-5. There is no question that the NR function is different and better. Gone are all of the white speckles that used to drive me crazy. There is still a bit more blotchiness than I would like, but much less than before. By experimenting with the luminance and surface noise sliders, I can get very acceptable results, whereas I could not do so with the previous version.
I have also done some quick head to head comparisons with the latest version of ACR, and I would say that C1-6 is a very strong challenger in the NR department. At 300%, ACR shows slightly smoother edges and fewer stray black pixels, but at 50-100%, it is hard to say that it is superior. I will be interested in hearing what other users think. Topaz DeNoise is still king of the hill, IMO, but for most purposes, I think that C1-6 will be able to produce very usable images on its own. Given the fact that the latest generation of sensors generate relatively little noise, there will be correspondingly less need to do NR in the post-conversion stage. For extremely noisy images, however, it will still be necessary. People are shooting at astronomical ISOs these days.
Great work, Phase One!
Rob
I have also done some quick head to head comparisons with the latest version of ACR, and I would say that C1-6 is a very strong challenger in the NR department. At 300%, ACR shows slightly smoother edges and fewer stray black pixels, but at 50-100%, it is hard to say that it is superior. I will be interested in hearing what other users think. Topaz DeNoise is still king of the hill, IMO, but for most purposes, I think that C1-6 will be able to produce very usable images on its own. Given the fact that the latest generation of sensors generate relatively little noise, there will be correspondingly less need to do NR in the post-conversion stage. For extremely noisy images, however, it will still be necessary. People are shooting at astronomical ISOs these days.
Great work, Phase One!
Rob
0
-
Test away, understanding the strengths and limitations of any tool is important. Any exercise that allows the photographer to gain knowledge is surely useful and worthwhile.
In this thread though participants were using this one narrow but important parameter to condemn the whole package. Even though the testing was extreme and did not take into account performance across the spectrum of supported cameras and situations. For me that is wrong and to be challenged.
The best NR tool I know of is our own brain and the thoughtful application of knowledge and experience to shape the picture we want see. It is the rejection of this idea in favor of laying blame on C1 that drew me to comment on this thread.
Jeff,
NR is far from the most important feature in any raw conversion software, and it is certainly not the reason that I choose to use Capture One over other programs. But, for better or worse, high ISO noise level has become the measuring stick by which cameras are judged these days, at least in the minds of many who are obsessed with technical minutiae. By extension, this has carried over to the judging of raw converters. When I originally started this thread, I merely wanted to let people know that I was getting better NR results from C1-6 than from C1-5. The thread then took on a life of its own, and I have happily participated in it, all the while honing my skills in applying C1's NR tools.
As I have repeatedly stated, I use C1, because I prefer the way that it renders my images over ACR and all other raw converters that I have used and tested. It has an elegant, simple interface with very effective adjustment tools. That's it in a nutshell. NR is now good, if not great, and will serve my purposes for most images that require it.
Rob0 -
I would like to start by saying I haven't read this entire thread, and that I don't currently own any C1 but have played with the free trials of the last three incarnations. So I do not have a lot of expertise with C1, but what I have learned in head to head comparisons between C1 and ACR/LR is that for some reason I get much more palatable renditions from ACR/LR (IMO, and we all know about opinions right 😉 ) My point here is the major complaint I am reading here is about the pink hue and reds rendering a off orange and such. I personally have found that using the x-rite colorchecker passport and making custom color profiles for my camera has made ACR/LR render colors as good or better than C1. Now I have as of yet to play w/C1-6 and NR is really not that big of a deal for me because if it gets too bad I just fix it in Nik Define. Just my 2 cents.
Steve.0 -
[quote="Steven48" wrote:
I would like to start by saying I haven't read this entire thread, and that I don't currently own any C1 but have played with the free trials of the last three incarnations. So I do not have a lot of expertise with C1, but what I have learned in head to head comparisons between C1 and ACR/LR is that for some reason I get much more palatable renditions from ACR/LR (IMO, and we all know about opinions right 😉 ) My point here is the major complaint I am reading here is about the pink hue and reds rendering a off orange and such. I personally have found that using the x-rite colorchecker passport and making custom color profiles for my camera has made ACR/LR render colors as good or better than C1. Now I have as of yet to play w/C1-6 and NR is really not that big of a deal for me because if it gets too bad I just fix it in Nik Define. Just my 2 cents.
Steve.
Steve,
Welcome to the discussion. I think that it is crucial that one be reasonably proficient with any program before comparing it to others and drawing firm conclusions. So, if you are so inclined, you might spend a significant length of time with C1-6 learning how to get the best results from it. If you still prefer ACR at the end of that learning process, then use and enjoy it. Whatever makes you happy is what you should do.
Rob0 -
Steve,
Welcome to the discussion. I think that it is crucial that one be reasonably proficient with any program before comparing it to others and drawing firm conclusions. So, if you are so inclined, you might spend a significant length of time with C1-6 learning how to get the best results from it. If you still prefer ACR at the end of that learning process, then use and enjoy it. Whatever makes you happy is what you should do.
Rob[/quote]
Rob,
I agree totally with you and plan on running C1-6 through its paces in my workflow before drawing any final conclusions. I just wanted to state that the custom profiles allowed through ACR/LR seem to save a lot of time fussing w/color and give beautiful results and unfortunately C1 and x-rite aren't compatible at this time, hopefully in the future.
I definitely want to play w/C1 some more. I like how the UI can be totally customized and the fine control over color and exposure you have unlike ACR/LR. However, I notice that C1 is light handed in the noise control department but seems to be heavy handed in the sharpening department. If your not careful it can make a 'crunchy' image real fast. Just some things I've noticed in my limited experience with C1.
On a side note, is there a discussion in this forum on using LR and C1 together because from what I can tell C1 doesn't play well with others. It would be worth the investment in C1 to me if C1, LR and PS all played well together. All three programs have there strong points and if you could capitalize on that we could be in image editing nirvana. Don't you agree?
Steve.0 -
I agree totally with you and plan on running C1-6 through its paces in my workflow before drawing any final conclusions. I just wanted to state that the custom profiles allowed through ACR/LR seem to save a lot of time fussing w/color and give beautiful results and unfortunately C1 and x-rite aren't compatible at this time, hopefully in the future.
I definitely want to play w/C1 some more. I like how the UI can be totally customized and the fine control over color and exposure you have unlike ACR/LR. However, I notice that C1 is light handed in the noise control department but seems to be heavy handed in the sharpening department. If your not careful it can make a 'crunchy' image real fast. Just some things I've noticed in my limited experience with C1.
On the sharpening question, C1 has several different presets, including two for pre-sharpening that are less aggressive than the default preset. I usually use one of them. Presets are located in a drop-down box on the right side of the bar in the Sharpening tool. Of course, you can adjust the sharpening to your taste and even create your own presets.
I also recommend that you experiment with the Clarity tool. It is much better than Clarity in ACR and is almost like a magic wand for some images. Just watch out for clipping of shadows and highlights (which you can easily correct if you so choose.) In my experience, C1 generally pulls in the clipped shadows and highlights in the output process, so it's not much to worry about.
Rob0 -
Thanks Rob,
I will have to play with that. Any ideas as far as integration w/LR?
Steve.0 -
[quote="Steven48" wrote:
Thanks Rob,
I will have to play with that. Any ideas as far as integration w/LR?
Steve.
Sorry, I don't have a clue on that subject, except that I think that you can use LR for file management and still do the editing and raw coversions in C1. Others are better able to answer that question than I.
Rob0 -
Next, let's find the difference between CO5.2.1 and CO6.0 NR...
In this case Luma NR=5, Color NR = 44 (42 for CO6), Single Pixel = 51, no adv. NR, 100% crops
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/361442/11297OSkmTcOfBT/blYSsowqgM/573084.jpg
I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from this example, in which you applied identical NR adjustment values to both the v.5 and v.6 images. Yes, the results are very similar, but the key question is whether there would be a difference if one attempts to achieve the best possible result with each version, using whatever settings might be necessary. It also appears that you have applied only minimal luminance NR, so you have considerable latitude to boost the luminance and/or surface noise adjustment. Just a suggestion.
Rob0 -
FYI: Capture One 6.0.1 has just been released, which addresses some high ISO quality issues. 0 -
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
Hey All,
See the link for a very interesting take on noise reduction in C1 6 and LR3 by Doug Peterson of Capture Integration.
I looked at the article by Doug Peterson and found it rather strange in that he chose as his example an image with tons of noise but decided not to apply any luminance NR for reasons of artistic effect. This is certainly not how I would go about demonstrating the proper method of using NR tools or comparing C1-6 to Lightroom, which he also did. He did provide some interesting information about color shifts that can result from highlight recovery and also the removal of purple fringing.
I also downloaded the raw file that he used in his demonstration. It is very challenging. In my hands, ACR gives very fine, smooth grain but removes much detail, while C1-6 gives a more uneven appearance with better retention of detail. In this particular case, I prefer the ACR version.
Rob0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
I looked at the article by Doug Peterson and found it rather strange in that he chose as his example an image with tons of noise but decided not to apply any luminance NR for reasons of artistic effect. This is certainly not how I would go about demonstrating the proper method of using NR tools or comparing C1-6 to Lightroom, which he also did.
Rob
Rob,
In my first post I talked about using noise as an effect. I respect the creative decision and view the High ISO noise in the context of the piece and not as a technical flaw. If noise is not a desired part of a composition I use all the tools at my disposal to reduce or eliminate it before capture.
Some believe not all noise is bad or even undesirable and pursue a holistic approach to noise reduction which is certainly valid. Others view it as a pathology to be removed at all cost also valid just a different style.
Just thought the article was interesting.0 -
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
I looked at the article by Doug Peterson and found it rather strange in that he chose as his example an image with tons of noise but decided not to apply any luminance NR for reasons of artistic effect. This is certainly not how I would go about demonstrating the proper method of using NR tools or comparing C1-6 to Lightroom, which he also did.
Rob
Rob,
In my first post I talked about using noise as an effect. I respect the creative decision and view the High ISO noise in the context of the piece and not as a technical flaw. If noise is not a desired part of a composition I use all the tools at my disposal to reduce or eliminate it before capture.
Some believe not all noise is bad or even undesirable and pursue a holistic approach to noise reduction which is certainly valid. Others view it as a pathology to be removed at all cost also valid just a different style.
Jeff,
I understand and accept that. I just thought it was odd to have a tutorial on noise reduction and choose not remove luminance noise. He might have used a different example just to demonstrate how it should be done.
Rob0 -
[on the noise / grain issue]
I like the grain slider from the Pro version and I think it should be included into the Express. One thing that Adobe did with the switch from v.5 to 6 was in how grain-like the luminance noise gets presented, which gives you the illusion of greater detail.
The grain slider in C1 Pro allows one for a better-looking output as compared with the non-pro version (it's good to add grain when there are a lot of shadows and tonal gradations because they get affected a lot by noise reduction).
[on the alleged NR improvements]
I wonder if the high iso tweaks done in v. 6.0.1 relate to the colour NR, esp. the red channel -- this was the only thing that I managed to find in my comparisons of noise reduction between v.5.2.1 and 6.0 (the latter one erases more detail in the red channel with the same setting so you have to be more judicious when using the colour slider). I wonder if this was considered as the high ISO bug by the devlpmnt team. If so, the difference between v.5 an 6 as far as NR is concerned would literally be non-existent now, but that would have to be re-tested.0 -
I wonder if the high iso tweaks done in v. 6.0.1 relate to the colour NR, esp. the red channel -- this was the only thing that I managed to find in my comparisons of noise reduction between v.5.2.1 and 6.0 (the latter one erases more detail in the red channel with the same setting so you have to be more judicious when using the colour slider). I wonder if this was considered as the high ISO bug by the devlpmnt team. If so, the difference between v.5 an 6 as far as NR is concerned would literally be non-existent now, but that would have to be re-tested.
Sankos,
I have started a new thread on v.6.0.1 in which I reposted the images of the blue jeans. Lionel from Phase One contributed two posts in which he said that the latest release is mainly to fix issues related to Phase One backs, that there are, indeed, changes in the NR function going from v.5.2.1 to v.6 and that we can expect further improvements in dealing with high ISO noise in future updates. So, Phase One is actively working on it.
Rob0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
how about posting a link to the raw file + development parameters ?
Post your own examples and raw files. I presume that you own a camera.
Rob
don't try to turn a table - I did not post those .JPGs - he did and he made some claims, so onus is on him so that we can try ourselves to see if he indeed get the best out of the raw converter...0 -
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
Rob has been saying all along that he finds the NR more effective with more moderate images.
this discussion is about NR in raw converter and not about how to avoid it by considering some "moderate images" or how to postpone till further post processing to use some specialized NR plug-ins...0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
Rob has been saying all along that he finds the NR more effective with more moderate images.
this discussion is about NR in raw converter and not about how to avoid it by considering some "moderate images" or how to postpone till further post processing to use some specialized NR plug-ins...
deejjjaaaa,
I will run my thoughts and comments by you in the future to make sure they qualify as approved for this discussion.
By the way, still waiting for you to say something relevant or interesting.0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
Rob has been saying all along that he finds the NR more effective with more moderate images.
this discussion is about NR in raw converter and not about how to avoid it by considering some "moderate images" or how to postpone till further post processing to use some specialized NR plug-ins...
The gadfly has spoken in his usual irritating way.
Only a small minority of my images have heavy noise. If C1-6 can deal with all the rest to my satisfaction, then that makes it very useful to me--not theoretically, but actually. There is no perfect raw converter. All of them involve compromises of one sort or another. This NR compromise is one that I can easily accept in order to get what I consider to be superior image rendering. When Phase One makes further improvements in NR, then the compromise will be even less. I can wait.
Rob0 -
A few have been warned and a few others are on the fence. This thread started off so well but due to the behavior of a few it is on the verge of being closed. Please keep this a well mannered and professional discussion, not a battle. 0 -
[quote="Drew " wrote:
A few have been warned and a few others are on the fence. This thread started off so well but due to the behavior of a few it is on the verge of being closed. Please keep this a well mannered and professional discussion, not a battle.
Really, please elaborate0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
Hey All,
See the link for a very interesting take on noise reduction in C1 6 and LR3 by Doug Peterson of Capture Integration.
I looked at the article by Doug Peterson and found it rather strange in that he chose as his example an image with tons of noise but decided not to apply any luminance NR for reasons of artistic effect. This is certainly not how I would go about demonstrating the proper method of using NR tools or comparing C1-6 to Lightroom, which he also did. He did provide some interesting information about color shifts that can result from highlight recovery and also the removal of purple fringing.
I also downloaded the raw file that he used in his demonstration. It is very challenging. In my hands, ACR gives very fine, smooth grain but removes much detail, while C1-6 gives a more uneven appearance with better retention of detail. In this particular case, I prefer the ACR version.
Rob
You are absolutely right about the semantics. In retrospect I should have named the article "Noise/Grain HANDLING" rather than "Noise Reduction.
When I want a "clean" look I shoot a Phase One or Leaf back at absolute minimum ISO and expose carefully, often with strobes regardless of location/difficulty. When I shoot a guerrilla middle-of-the-night, fast moving, small crew fashion shoot in the bars of South Beach I want grain. It's a purely personal decision and there is nothing "right" or "wrong" about it if you disagree.
I picked the raw file I did because it is a challenging file and representative of my (personal) images created with very high ISOs. I then proceeded to process the file in the way that I (personally) process such files: with no concern at all for the absolute amount of grain but only for the quality/aesthetics of the grain in the context of the image. I don't want any color blotchiness, nor bleeding of colors from a subject into adjacent areas. I don't want any (intrusive) single pixel noise. I don't want tonal gradiations to break into distinct segments/steps. Otherwise I don't mind grain at all.
I personally detest the look of noise-smoothed images whether in C1, LR, DFine, Topaz, or anything else I've seen. Leave my grain alone! Just give it a nice looking structure, don't let it obscure detail, and don't let it contain ANY low-frequency blotchy color noise (oooo how I despise blotchy color noise).
If you love detail and don't mind grain in the image then my article is pertinent to your applications. If you prefer to smooth out noise to a "clean" look then it will be of very little value to you.
The great thing is this file looks GREAT in EITHER C16 or LR3 - especially if you compare it to, for instance, LightRoom 1. We photographers are getting a bit spoiled!
The other thing I wanted to do with that test file was place noise/grain in the overall context of the overall raw development. Noise/grain handling of a raw developer is important (at least if you shoot anything high ISO) but so is overall look, tonal transitions, overall color, color in difficult situations (pushes, pulls, WB shifts), specialized tools like chromatic aberration removal.
Anyway - most of these topics are highly subjective and the raw file is there so you can come to your own conclusions. My article is only meant to be a springboard for your own further analysis, not a "verdict from on high".0 -
You are absolutely right about the semantics. In retrospect I should have named the article "Noise/Grain HANDLING" rather than "Noise Reduction.
When I want a "clean" look I shoot a Phase One or Leaf back at absolute minimum ISO and expose carefully, often with strobes regardless of location/difficulty. When I shoot a guerrilla middle-of-the-night, fast moving, small crew fashion shoot in the bars of South Beach I want grain. It's a purely personal decision and there is nothing "right" or "wrong" about it if you disagree.
I picked the raw file I did because it is a challenging file and representative of my (personal) images created with very high ISOs. I then proceeded to process the file in the way that I (personally) process such files: with no concern at all for the absolute amount of grain but only for the quality/aesthetics of the grain in the context of the image. I don't want any color blotchiness, nor bleeding of colors from a subject into adjacent areas. I don't want any (intrusive) single pixel noise. I don't want tonal gradiations to break into distinct segments/steps. Otherwise I don't mind grain at all.
I personally detest the look of noise-smoothed images whether in C1, LR, DFine, Topaz, or anything else I've seen. Leave my grain alone! Just give it a nice looking structure, don't let it obscure detail, and don't let it contain ANY low-frequency blotchy color noise (oooo how I despise blotchy color noise).
If you love detail and don't mind grain in the image then my article is pertinent to your applications. If you prefer to smooth out noise to a "clean" look then it will be of very little value to you.
The great thing is this file looks GREAT in EITHER C16 or LR3 - especially if you compare it to, for instance, LightRoom 1. We photographers are getting a bit spoiled!
The other thing I wanted to do with that test file was place noise/grain in the overall context of the overall raw development. Noise/grain handling of a raw developer is important (at least if you shoot anything high ISO) but so is overall look, tonal transitions, overall color, color in difficult situations (pushes, pulls, WB shifts), specialized tools like chromatic aberration removal.
Anyway - most of these topics are highly subjective and the raw file is there so you can come to your own conclusions. My article is only meant to be a springboard for your own further analysis, not a "verdict from on high".
Doug,
Thanks very much for the input. Much of the discussion in this thread has revolved around issues of smoothness, artifacts and detail. You add a valuable reminder that noise/grain is not inherently detrimental to an image, as long as it does not intrude upon its overall structure.
Rob0 -
I mentioned this much earlier and I'm finally back home and able to get to this. Here's a pretty perfect worst case scenario shot I ran across. It's a woman in a red sweater, and she's pretty small in the photo, taken by a 5D Mark II @ 400 ISO, pushed +1 in post. Zoomed into 100% with no NR you can see noise and moire in the sweater. I still don't have time to figure out how to post photos here, but here's the link again. I've set it to allow downloading, if someone wants to post it correctly be my guest. Make sure to look at it large or at full res.
http://clients.zachhodges.com/c1
So, C1 makes the shadow areas blocky and the moire isn't really gone. (I tried the moire tool in all sorts of ways, it only made it worse and more smeary) 40 was the number where the noise in the rest of the photo disappeared. Don't think because 40 is higher than 25 it's turned up more, in both I just turned it up until the color noise went away. ACR cleans up the noise, eliminates the moire and preserves the detail of the sweater. But, it makes it a more obnoxious red than it actually was. Thus I've been leaving NR and sharpening in C1 off and running TIFFs through ACR just for that with great results.
For me, this pretty clearly shows that C1's definitely got a weakness in the red channel NR, but it's still best at color rendition. I hope those future updates Phase One spoke of help this!
There you go, discuss amongst yourselves, haha.0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
pushed +1 in post
Wrong exposure, the mother of all noise discussions.0 -
I was exposing so as not to blow out the sky, but you obviously don't see that in this one little section. I pushed it for the sake of the example. Let's stay on topic. 0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
I was exposing so as not to blow out the sky, but you obviously don't see that in this one little section. I pushed it for the sake of the example. Let's stay on topic.
Still I agree with Markus why manufacture noise just to try and remove it?
It is easier and more desirable to recover a blown out sky then it is to open blocked shadows.
Blown out skin tones though clearly show exposure issues with this image. Also if you want others to take a shot at fixing the image a raw file is essential.0 -
Haha, ok I give up. This thread is supposed to be about NR, I brought a great example of C1's NR differences with ACR and now all you guys want to talk about is exposure. Of course it's not set right, I made both of these with YOU guys in mind, meaning pushing the exposure up so YOU could see the noise that we're all supposedly talking about. I know how to expose right, I've been living off of photography for 4 years now. Please guys, you're making these forums a waste of time. We want to help make C1 the best program it can be by trying to learn how to get the most out of it and by showing the developers where it could use improvement. If I wanted to talk about exposure I wouldn't go here! Now I see why Phase One is so into support cases, much more focused and productive. 0 -
Zach,
I think that you have made your point very well. We do know that Phase One is following this, and other, threads and that they intend to improve NR in a future update. I think that posts like yours can be extremely helpful in pointing them in the right direction.
I would also point out that in the ACR version that you posted, noise and moire have been removed from the sweater, but so has much of the texture (and the red color sucks, and the image has less depth.) This is the big tradeoff of ACR's NR function. Personally, I do not think that noise is an issue in the original image, but moire is. I would not have applied much, if any, NR. As Doug pointed out, it is not necessary to remove every last vestige of noise from an image. But it's your photo, and you have to satisfy yourself and your clients.
BTW, does the 5DMkII have a weak AA filter?
Edit: As I think of it, this seems like a perfect situation for using C1-6's local adjustment feature for applying the moire tool to the sweater. I would bet that if you experiment with the sliders, you will be able to get a satisfactory result.
Rob0 -
Ya the noise in the original photo wasn't bad at all, but when I went to remove just the color noise the sweater started turning into a blob very quickly in C1. I did try the moire tool quite a bit actually, it wasn't helpful. It did remove the moire but it obliterated the detail in the sweater and made the whole thing look like a piece of clay! I'm not sure how the 5Dii's aa filter stacks up. I do have more occasions of moire than I did with my 1Ds2 or old 5D, but it's not substantial and may be more related to the resolution increase. I know many people thought the 1Ds3's AA filter was pretty strong and the 5Dii sensor is very very similar to it in most ways.
I also agree about noise, I actually tend to like some grain, just not color noise.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
127 comments