Best noise reduction approach
Hi all, could you please advise me, which is the best approach in C1 to reduce noise in shadowy areas?, in Aperture there is an option to select where to apply it. Here I am trying different approaches such as using the colour editor and negative clarity and aggressive sharpening along with a film grain, however I am not satisfied with the result. Do you have a better way to do it?
I am applying it to files with more than ISO 3200 on a D800, so noise is relatively high.
Cheers,
Daniel
I am applying it to files with more than ISO 3200 on a D800, so noise is relatively high.
Cheers,
Daniel
0
-
hi daniel,
c1 is great with low iso images and had improved over the years but above 800 other converters are a far better choice. if you need to stick with c1 do the noise reduction with a dedicated plugin like noiseware, nik define or topaz denoise which preserves the most detail but is rather slow.0 -
This seems to be the most recent Phase article about working with noise.
http://blog.phaseone.com/reduce-noise-l ... re-images/
In my opinion there will always be a trade off between the amount of noise one really sees in the end results for whatever the output media is going to be compared to what we think we see on screen. In the past I have used NR to mash colours to make a "nice" consistent "shiny" result which may suit some subjects in some situations but is unlikely to be always suitable for every subject.
If the files you have present a significant noise problem it might be worth converting to 8 bit jpg to compress the details and colour variations available before applying NR. NR applied to jpg files always "appears" to deliver more obvious results, possibly because the jpg compression has already done some of the work.
Grant0 -
[quote="Horseoncowboy" wrote:
above 800 other converters are a far better choice.
LIke what?
I don't know which cameras you're using, but here's 10,000 ISO straight out of Capture One (from my Canon 70D) at default NR, with no additional NR added in post-processing.
And here's a 100% crop at 6,400 ISO - again at default NR.
So - again - which converters are better than this? I use (and know how to use) Capture One 8 Pro, DxO Optics Pro 10, Photo Ninja and Lightroom 5 (among others), and (with the possiible exception of Photo Ninja - in certain circumstances) Cap One's the best of the lot at high ISO.0 -
@ Keith, as mentioned, the Nikon d800, due to the high resolution, 36.3 megapixel instead of 20.2 of the Canon D70, is more prone to noise at lower ISO than your camera. Nevertheless, it is also a perception problem as I can zoom into the file more using this big file than a smaller one, giving the perception than has lots of noise. ( I am not a pixel peeper and do not pretend to be one). As you state, you know how to use C1, then I would appreciate better a comment regarding the approach you are using to tackle this issue, thanks!
@ Horseoncowboy, thank you for your suggestion, I might try them, as I was already using them in Aperture once a while. What is my experience, the problem of these plugins, is that the effect is so strong that the picture looks like fake; therefore, I am always applying some kind of grain.
@ Grant, thank you for the idea of converting to 8 bit JPG, maybe I will also try when needed to convert to a max of 80% size in order to avoid having so much detail when zooming.
does any have any idea or comment regarding how to reduce noise using layers?, e.g. playing with colour or something similar?0 -
lightroom does not only have a better noise reduction tool but is also able to render fine detail with better definition at high iso than c1 ( at low iso the opposite is true). the highlight recover tool works also better in LR which is an extra benefit with high iso shots and the related low DR.
your low res samples tell nothing because under daylight and a little over exposure modern cameras do a great job anyway but if you shoot under tungsten or other artifical light and with non optimal exposure things get quit different fast. btw you have posted the same image twice. and even with your down-sampled image go to ps and open the shadows a little and you can see the ugliness of a very bad color noise reduction job rather easy.0 -
@ Horseoncowboy, thank you for your suggestion, I might try them, as I was already using them in Aperture once a while. What is my experience, the problem of these plugins, is that the effect is so strong that the picture looks like fake; therefore, I am always applying some kind of grain.
you should give noiseware with following settings a try:
noise reduction - luminance around 40 % color at default or higher
in the tonal and color range tab set noise level: shadows + 20, midtones 0 and highlight -20 this gives a good starting point and very balanced noise level you should not see a need to add extra grain.0 -
I went through my 3200 ISO images and didn't find anything that stood out as "bad". Of course my expectations may be lower than yours. 😄
Could you provide a link to an original NEF that I may be able to download? I'd love to give it a shot.0 -
Hi Keith, you linked the same file twice.
I tried out the Canon 70D before I bought the Nikon D7100, and I found the 70D performs quite well with high ISO, I even think better than the D7100. 24 MP on a DX sensor size, due to the resolution / photosite size it is more prone to noise than the D800.
As I am birding a lot, it usually means higher ISO and a lot of crop work, so noise is always an issue for me. I started out with Lightroom, tried Photoshop, Topaz DeNoise, DXO 10 and C1 Pro 8, and the Nikon software. Although DeNoise has a lot of sliders / options / channels to reduce noise, I wasn't able to get actually much better results.
LR does not have a bad NR, on contrary, but I find DXO 10 noise reduction pretty amazing (I think the "High Quality" NR is even the better option over the "PRIME" in many if not most of my cases). However, I find that DXO renderings sometimes show some undesired artifacts especially at the edges of their 64x64 pixel blocks.
Although I was looking for a converter mainly for the sake of a better NR, I ended up with C1 for its overall image quality, and overall usefulness as a photo editor and catalog and acceptable performance (e.g. compared to DXO).
However, if C1 noise reduction for high ISO would be improved in the future, this would be really really great for me. This is actually my number one wish; this having said I believe that the typical images taken with Phase One Backs are not high ISO images, so I am not so optimistic that my wish will be fulfilled soon.
With C1, I actually use the local adjustment layers a lot to utilize the NR in certain areas differently (e.g. background vs. motive).
I also often reduce the "Details" value as it tends to create some unnatural patterns, in my images / crops.
Luminance noise is my greatest issue, but noteworthy, what I find a bit strange is the color noise reduction of C1 , as it not only desaturates colors heavily (if I am using values much greater than the default adjustment value), but it also can happen that colors are virutally "bleeding out" beyond the edges of their original area. Seems to be kind of a "blending with neighbored areas" algorithm. I usually keep the color default value, even if there are some small green/magenta remainders, these are usually barely noticeable and not very distracting.
Sometimes I use the advanced color editor to get of these remainders with selective color desaturation.
I spend about half of my post-processing effort for noise reduction vs. sharpening in C1, which is always a matter of the "right" balance. This includes working with masks, otherwise C1 NR would be a no-go for me.0 -
[quote="dasle" wrote:
@ Keith, as mentioned, the Nikon d800, due to the high resolution, 36.3 megapixel instead of 20.2 of the Canon 70D, is more prone to noise at lower ISO than your camera.
Sorry, but this is an easily-demonstrable fallacy. More pixels does not imply more noisy images - quite the opposite, in fact.
Indeed, other things being equal, a 36 mp full frame camera should easily out-perform a 20mp crop camera, because a bigger sensor always "gathers more light" than an APS-C sensor, and it's sensor size - not the number of pixels - that matters.
Read this from DxO:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/More-pix ... omparisons[quote="hoseoncowboy" wrote:
lightroom does not only have a better noise reduction tool but is also able to render fine detail with better definition at high iso than c1
Absolutely untrue - at best you're making assumptions here. If you'd actually tested them side-by-side on high ISO images (I have - literally hundreds of times), you'd have a completely different opinion - LIghtroom is far behind Capture One, both in terms of noise reduction and detail retention.
Don't just believe me though:
http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-v ... ro-best/2/
Section 5, 05 Noise reduction and sharpness (comparing Lr 6, Optics Pro 9 and Capture One Pro 7):The clear winner, though is Capture One Pro, which has kept the noise right down while capturing amazingly crisp edges. I’ve seen some badly over-smoothed high-ISO shot from older versions of Capture One – some of its camera profiles seemed better than others – but it’s done a spectacular job here.
I see exactly this difference every day. And - believe me - I know how to get the best out of the converters I use.0 -
[quote="BeO" wrote:
Hi Keith, you linked the same file twice.
Fixed, thanks.I tried out the Canon 70D before I bought the Nikon D7100, and I found the 70D performs quite well with high ISO, I even think better than the D7100.
We're not discussing the relative merits of different cameras at high ISO, though - we're discussing what to expect from our converters.
However, if your D7100 can do better than this (4000 ISO from my 7D Mk II at 100% crop, straight out of converter at less-than-default NR, resized only - no additional NR - in Photoshop), I'd be pretty surprised.
And no, this isn't Capture One - I mention above that I use Photo Ninja in certain circumstances too, and in those circumstances it's peerless at high ISO noise handling.
(Same file uncropped for the Exif).
With current cameras, it hardly matters what we use - they're all (crop and full frame) very good: but only if you make intelligent and informed converter decisions...0 -
[quote="dasle" wrote:
@ Grant, thank you for the idea of converting to 8 bit JPG, maybe I will also try when needed to convert to a max of 80% size in order to avoid having so much detail when zooming.
I would go with 60% - or a little less. Much more friendly for social media ..... 😉
The thing is, especially when printed and assuming one has not attempted more than, say, 2 stops of recovery (especially at the dark end), most of the images I have worked with that seemed quite "noisy" did not show up badly in the final output. A few very heavy crops pushed to about as far as they would go in terms of size, were marginal if viewed closely but in general not so much of of a problem.
My original point was that by the time one has eliminated noise to one's satisfaction in many cases, from what I have seen, the results are not so different to working with jpgs anyway. And if one is aiming for printed output I doubt many people will have access to anything more competent than an 8bit printer. So one comes to question the purpose of NR attempts in certain circumstances.
Grant0 -
Keith wrote:
I see exactly this difference every day. And - believe me - I know how to get the best out of the converters I use.
hi Keith, we are here not to discuss or troll, if somebody ask for an opinion, it does not have a meaning to post something that is not answering the main question, such as, in this case, asking for an opinion how to tackle noise using C1, it's not about your pictures taken with a Canon D70, or whatever you used, being better without noise at ISO 1 trillion than mine using a simple D800 at ISO 3200, sorry for not being able of having the same technology you have.
Anyway, I am also being rude, lets change the subject and concentrate our selves in my question asking all the other guys for their opinion. If you don't want to give your opinion, you are free to avoid writing something else.
If you could illuminate us with your knowledge would be much more appreciated than just writing that you know how, but not letting us know how.
@ the others, sorry for the disruptive but had to ask for some more constructive post.
Cheers,
Daniel0 -
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
I went through my 3200 ISO images and didn't find anything that stood out as "bad". Of course my expectations may be lower than yours. 😄
Could you provide a link to an original NEF that I may be able to download? I'd love to give it a shot.
hi Jimmy, thank you for your interest, I cannot post them online as they are from my children playing out in the darkness, were I wanted to keep an adequate speed to catch the moment and cracked ISO up to 3200 and also until more than 6000.
Just to be precise, when reviewing noise I zoom @ 200%. For Sharpening, I review them mostly at 100% but also @ 50% (there is an interesting point about this on the C1 training videos at LuLa where Michael Reichmann mentions this).
My problem with noise is on the shadowy areas, and even I exposed to the right (ETTR) I was not able to cover the whole range, and is there where I have a problem than want to solve. As already mentioned, in Aperture I could reduce noise considerably just in the shadows, and this is something I was trying to achieve here without having to bring the files to PS CC and use the internal noise reduction or any other plugin.
Cheers,
Daniel0 -
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the noise reduction in C1 lacking. I have been asking the same question for several years and every time C1 new version comes out I hope for better noise reduction. And even though sometimes I see improved noised reduction in "What's new" pdf, I don't notice much difference. Here is a 100% crop, ISO 3200, Canon 5D MK3. One processed using Adobe Camera Raw and one using default settings in C1 (I don't know what other settings to use to make it look better). I undoubtedly prefer ACR noise reduction. The C1 make the image look "fuzzy", the edges are not defined, the grain looks strange, where ACR grain looks more precise, finer, the edges are smooth.
http://www.1planet1world.com/noise/C1.jpg
http://www.1planet1world.com/noise/ACR.jpg0 -
[quote="dasle" wrote:
[quote="Jimmy D Uptain" wrote:
I went through my 3200 ISO images and didn't find anything that stood out as "bad". Of course my expectations may be lower than yours. 😄
Could you provide a link to an original NEF that I may be able to download? I'd love to give it a shot.
hi Jimmy, thank you for your interest, I cannot post them online as they are from my children playing out in the darkness, were I wanted to keep an adequate speed to catch the moment and cracked ISO up to 3200 and also until more than 6000.
Just to be precise, when reviewing noise I zoom @ 200%. For Sharpening, I review them mostly at 100% but also @ 50% (there is an interesting point about this on the C1 training videos at LuLa where Michael Reichmann mentions this).
My problem with noise is on the shadowy areas, and even I exposed to the right (ETTR) I was not able to cover the whole range, and is there where I have a problem than want to solve. As already mentioned, in Aperture I could reduce noise considerably just in the shadows, and this is something I was trying to achieve here without having to bring the files to PS CC and use the internal noise reduction or any other plugin.
Cheers,
Daniel
I understand about the children.
I don't know if you have tried this method, but see if changing the ICC profile to something like Adobe DNG neutral will help. That profile tends to flatten things out a little, maybe its enough to tone down the noise some.
Usually when I run into noise problems, I'll just cheat and do a black and white conversion (with a little grain of course) 😲0 -
Hi Keith,
The article from DXO comes along with assumptions, particularly they measure the normalized SNR. That is, if you downsample the high-res image to match the exact size of low-res image. (Only) under these conditions they perform quite similar.
It is simply not true that a high-res sensor, given all other is equal, has lower noise, at least not for the "photon noise" (what I mean is the random noise of the light falling in / captured by the photosites). The least noise has a imaginary "low-res" sensor with exactly one photosite (resolution 1 pixel), as it would capture all light falling in, second best would be a sensor with 2 pixels, etc.
There are a number of other types of noise related to sensor technology, read-out noise etc.
And no, the D7100 most certainly does not have lower noise as compared to the 7D II, probably the opposite is true, for whatever reason. That was not the point I was trying to make, though.
Btw, what happened to the red "fruits" in your picture with the 7DII developed in Photo Ninja, the reds seem blown out, no natural gradient (e.g. upper right fruit, in the cropped image), can this be improved or is this the price to pay for using Photo Ninja?
(Don't get me wrong, I have no rude intention at all, just asking...)
Yes, dasle is right, we're moving off-topic.
I also found noise reduction with LR as well as with DXO (HQ method) results in finer noise, more like a fine grain.
In my experience, sharpening and NR goes hand in hand and has to be balanced carefully. With C1 I've made good experience with low radius (0.3 - 0.6), low threshold (similar to radius), high amount 300 up to 800, luminance >60, detail <50, color =50, depending on the area of the image (therefore I am using local adjustments). The more I sharpen, the more artifacts arise which can be compensated by lowering "detail".
Cheers,
BeO0 -
maggie12,
you sure are not alone with your view. the c1 algorithm does a very good job at low iso with fine detail and micro contrast but does not as well at high iso. at high iso c1 produces a level of color noise much worse than other converter i have tested. so here starts the core problem and in combination with the not very advanced noise reduction tool you get color smear, blotchiness and a kind of painterly look. i too see that noise reduction had made almost no progress over the years but instead they gave us a grain tool to cover the disaster their noise reduction generates.0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the noise reduction in C1 lacking. I have been asking the same question for several years and every time C1 new version comes out I hope for better noise reduction. And even though sometimes I see improved noised reduction in "What's new" pdf, I don't notice much difference. Here is a 100% crop, ISO 3200, Canon 5D MK3. One processed using Adobe Camera Raw and one using default settings in C1 (I don't know what other settings to use to make it look better). I undoubtedly prefer ACR noise reduction. The C1 make the image look "fuzzy", the edges are not defined, the grain looks strange, where ACR grain looks more precise, finer, the edges are smooth.
http://www.1planet1world.com/noise/C1.jpg
http://www.1planet1world.com/noise/ACR.jpg
Maggie,
I really don't see enough difference between the two to keep the image out of the trash bin if your purpose is to use it at 100%. As Jimmy D Uptain had suggested - black and white conversion might work for it. Or a much smaller output.
That said .... I have a lot of images like that (although mostly from lower end cameras with lower expectations) and I never delete them if the subject matter may be of some significance at some point. You never know when some sort of processing miracle might appear.
If they were taken as what I would generally consider to be "snaps" or "a shot to nothing if it doesn't work out" it's not a problem. They may work well enough for the target audience at a size that will, by its nature, make things look OK. Most of the image viewing public are far from being critical observers. Most pro shots, not matter how well made, never get a wider audience. That's just the way it is.
Grant0 -
Horse on Cowboy, I agree.
However, C1 gives me better images 😊
If Phase One would improve NR significantly, Capture One would be a real "killer app" for all the other combined raw converter / editors 😉
Yes, Grant, a noise reduction miracle please.. 😄0 -
[quote="Horseoncowboy " wrote:
maggie12,
you sure are not alone with your view. the c1 algorithm does a very good job at low iso with fine detail and micro contrast but does not as well at high iso. at high iso c1 produces a level of color noise much worse than other converter i have tested. so here starts the core problem and in combination with the not very advanced noise reduction tool you get color smear, blotchiness and a kind of painterly look. i too see that noise reduction had made almost no progress over the years but instead they gave us a grain tool to cover the disaster their noise reduction generates.
Exactly, blotchiness and painterly look is exactly how I would describe it. To say that C1 has the best noise reduction is really stretching it.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the noise reduction in C1 lacking. I have been asking the same question for several years and every time C1 new version comes out I hope for better noise reduction. And even though sometimes I see improved noised reduction in "What's new" pdf, I don't notice much difference. Here is a 100% crop, ISO 3200, Canon 5D MK3. One processed using Adobe Camera Raw and one using default settings in C1 (I don't know what other settings to use to make it look better). I undoubtedly prefer ACR noise reduction. The C1 make the image look "fuzzy", the edges are not defined, the grain looks strange, where ACR grain looks more precise, finer, the edges are smooth.
http://www.1planet1world.com/noise/C1.jpg
http://www.1planet1world.com/noise/ACR.jpg
Maggie,
I really don't see enough difference between the two to keep the image out of the trash bin if your purpose is to use it at 100%. As Jimmy D Uptain had suggested - black and white conversion might work for it. Or a much smaller output.
That said .... I have a lot of images like that (although mostly from lower end cameras with lower expectations) and I never delete them if the subject matter may be of some significance at some point. You never know when some sort of processing miracle might appear.
If they were taken as what I would generally consider to be "snaps" or "a shot to nothing if it doesn't work out" it's not a problem. They may work well enough for the target audience at a size that will, by its nature, make things look OK. Most of the image viewing public are far from being critical observers. Most pro shots, not matter how well made, never get a wider audience. That's just the way it is.
Grant
Grant,
I can see a difference between the two images and if I was shooting in normal light conditions then yes, this images would be in trash but I am shooting in low light conditions all the time, at conferences, presentations etc. where sometimes the only light source is from a projected image on a projection screen. I will not be delivering these images to a client in B&W just because the noise looks better. I am not asking how to salvage this image. It is what it is and if I deliver them with this noise level and my competition delivers them with less noise then I may not got the job, all else being equal. So, even though you don't see much difference, I do and I would prefer to do everything in C1 but it just doesn't match up to other software in terms of noise reduction, unfortunately.0 -
Maggie,
I can sympathize with your predicament but for all practical purposes the trade off between the two images, at least the way my eyes see them, is not so great. One seems to have more contrast and perceived detail (by a fraction) the other has what looks like it may be a better skin tone by a fraction (if that matters in the context.)
Both suffer the usual high ISO reduction in available sharpness.
For a conceptually "perfect" result NR may not be able to hack it in either version.
Go with what you have and which ever process result you prefer. This is not a "one size fits all" game, especially when working at the extremes of technological capabilities which you are as you obviously realise. You have indicated exactly that.
If B&W does not appeal take the alternative path and wow the client with a "Stylised" offering instead. It's an approach that you can see all around you. (Which is not to say that you should find it acceptable at a personal level even though others do.)
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Maggie,
I can sympathize with your predicament but for all practical purposes the trade off between the two images, at least the way my eyes see them, is not so great. One seems to have more contrast and perceived detail (by a fraction) the other has what looks like it may be a better skin tone by a fraction (if that matters in the context.)
Both suffer the usual high ISO reduction in available sharpness.
For a conceptually "perfect" result NR may not be able to hack it in either version.
Go with what you have and which ever process result you prefer. This is not a "one size fits all" game, especially when working at the extremes of technological capabilities which you are as you obviously realise. You have indicated exactly that.
If B&W does not appeal take the alternative path and wow the client with a "Stylised" offering instead. It's an approach that you can see all around you. (Which is not to say that you should find it acceptable at a personal level even though others do.)
Grant
Hi Grant,
I agree, no noise reduction is going to make a perfect image, but I keep hoping that C1 will at least match Adobe in this respect and then it would be acceptable to me.
Nah, no need for stylizing anything, I'm documenting events so I'm trying to stay away from any creative post processing. I also wanted to point out that C1 does not have the best noise reduction capability as someone else stated.0 -
Well this dialog has gotten me to go through many images.
Here's what I have determined: Pick the right tool for the right job.
I have some D3 images at ISO3200 that are stunning and for the life of me, I cannot tell ya how they were processed. They were jpegs without any originals to be found. (I believe alcohol was probably involved) ☹️
I have some D800E images that the D3 couldn't have pulled off. But this was at lower ISO's in a controlled setting.
Also, I have found as much as I love Capture One for most of my images, its for MOST of my images. I'll mess around with a NEF in C1 and if there is something extra I need, then It will get done in Photoshop or LR.
Infrared images are a different animal altogether, they pretty much have to be done in Photoshop if I want the false colors.
This is why LR (and now C1) have a round trip feature.
So pick a camera known for low noise at high ISO if that's your intended use, or hope your software company gets better at noise reduction. I'd pick the former if it were about making money.0 -
Indeed, I also figured out some images you better develop in LR, DXO, etc. (you name it), if you want to have the best image quality for EVERY image.
There is another option besides "hoping", raise your voice, and if many do there is a chance that better NR will be incorporated into out "Number One" converter of choice... 😉0 -
There was a similar discussion a few months back.
There are many options out there as people have pointed out.
The commercial challenge for developers is where to make their investment so that it has maximum effect.
In general new cameras (and we seem to have a high number of "early adopters" here) are getting ever more successful at reducing noise at all "sensible to use" ISO values. In other words the problem is going away. Maybe.
Should one still assign resource to a challenge that is steadily disappearing?
Meanwhile new challenges see our early adopters changing technology. The Fuji products and their different approach to sensor technology come to mind - looks like they are popular and will be around for a while so clearly it has been necessary to invest to understand what they need.
The chances are that other manufacturers may well follow with their own take on new sensor technologies and those technologies will also need to be assessed and development undertaken.
Where that will leave attempts to deal with legacy noise issues may not be entirely clear for a while.
Just my opinion of course.
Grant0 -
i don’t share your opinion and i think a sophisticated noise reduction tool is more important than ever. sensor tech has improved and we get much better high iso raw files from our cameras but till a total change in sensor technology noise will be our companion so at least for the next decade. but with the improvements a lot of photographers have changed their lighting style too. we more and more use available light or mixed with flash at higher iso. but even with the best cameras today 800 iso can be a challenge when you want maximal image quality. in my opinion raw converter development is far behind sensor technology today. especially c1 uses outdated concepts. it took them almost 10 years to improve their demosaicing algorithm to catch up with the rest. 0 -
If new cameras offer better mid or high ISO performance in the future, chances are that (many) photographers will actually make use of higher ISOs, resulting in similar noise levels in their images as today. It seems there is a real demand for lower noise at higher ISOs, or at least a "market", otherwise camera manufacturers would not take care of it.
There are a number of other indications too, think about the investment DXO has made for the new PRIME algoritm, think about the importance of NR measurements and camera or software comparisons in famous websites and articles, think about the supplementary plugins dealing with noise.
Besides others, noise and noise reduction will always be a factor in photography, even if you assume its importance declines (which I am not so sure about it); I think it is and will be a base factor.
Provided these assumption are true, it means that the raw converters which have better noise reduction will be in favour over others, for many photographers, even with possibly better future sensors.
But yes, the relative importance of NR, at this very moment, compared to other areas the developers (better: the product management) of C1 need to take care of, may be a different story.
But, I don't care about Fuji at the moment, if another converter with better NR will catch up with C1 in other areas (like image quality, cataloging, speed, intuitive user interface, all in the same package) I will switch to this other converter. In my opinion, others are better in single disciplines like cataloging, intuitive user interface and speed, or lens corrections. For me, C1 is the better overall package and has still the better image quality, but C1 is not miles ahead its competiton, its yards only, imho.0 -
hi guys, firstly, let me thanks everybody that took time to contribute, nevertheless, the topic rapidly changed the path and ended up being a discussion about the industry.
What I wanted to know, which approach you were having when having some noise.
This discussion, brought to my memory what Jeff Schewe on a LuLa training video says about de-noising, he states that "..downsampling is the best noise reduction".
Thank you everybody.
Daniel0 -
[quote="dasle" wrote:
hi guys, firstly, let me thanks everybody that took time to contribute, nevertheless, the topic rapidly changed the path and ended up being a discussion about the industry.
What I wanted to know, which approach you were having when having some noise.
This discussion, brought to my memory what Jeff Schewe on a LuLa training video says about de-noising, he states that "..downsampling is the best noise reduction".
Thank you everybody.
Daniel
Yeah, sorry 'bout that.
But Schewe's take on it makes perfect sense. In the case of a D3 vs a 800E, I'm not sure my 800 could produce high ISO images to look as good as my D3. I thought that resolution may play a part but it never occurred to me that I could downsize. Thats just silly on my part.
So downsizing may be a viable option, and an obvious one at that.
Have you tried it?
If you do find an answer, don't let our derailment of the original question keep you from responding. Your answer may very well help someone in the future (and likely the present).0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
30 comments