Noise reduction Compare with Lightroom

Comments

11 comments

  • CSP

    for years p1 and a loud groupe of fans and paid youtubers have pushed the myth of superior image quality NR and sharpening are in my view a part of it but the inferiority especially of NR was ignored. 

    when you compare different raw converter most perform better in this field since years, even the one man show iridient does a better job in this regard than the self acclaimed leader in image quality. now dxo raised the bar significant with deep prime and I have no doubt adobe will follow with its own version. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • KevinYung Soo HONG

    I am have to learn to serious retest all my camera gear, to understand does they actually do what they claim they are cable in low light and IBIS plus len resolutions, It has just too much Questions has been raise since I start serious enlargin my picture more than to 400 percent to its cablities.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • KevinYung Soo HONG

    I did a serious test on capture one Lightroom comparison, on sharpening and NR, and clarity Pull, actually lightroom give you more ability to push it, but more noisy image, if you want a realy clean look Capture one seem better. I am new to Capture one, From what I learn so far you can not really push the image clarity like Lightroom did. All I can say Its render engine is complete difference it give you a difference result and a complete difference of image in term of subtlety. I just have to know it limited.
    I conclusion, I should not say the NR of Capture is Bad, you just have to know how to use it. Both of them is a completely different render engine.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Wilson

    One of the things that can be confusing with NR in Capture One is that you don't really see the effect of it from the previews. If you zoom in to 100%, and adjust the NR, you can get a mice result (perhaps with a little added Structure as well) but as soon as you zoom back out again you are seeing the preview again and it looks as if it hasn't worked. In fact it has worked, as you can tell from output such as a JPG which will reflect the adjustments you made.

    Ian

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Wilson

    Also, I really don't get what the complaint is here. I have just tried opening the same photo, shot at ISO 2000 (so potentially noisy) in both Capture One and Lightroom, and applying no adjustments at all in either app.

    This is the shot, processed from C1 with no adjustments - not to illustrate the difference, but to show the shot on which I am comparing. (In reality, I would of course want to make some adjustments.) The background is obviously very much flat tones with no detail, so the ideal place to see noise. When I look at it in LR at 100% with the default settings there is MUCH more noise apparent than when I look at it in C1 with the default settings. So really, I don't know what to say!

    Ian

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • CSP

    what I see is that c1 starts to smear detail on a 100 iso shot around 10-20 so to cover this up they decided to add some sharpening  to make it look (fake) better. with higher iso shots c1 results look more digital and blotchy compared to arc and others but still show noise (default settings ). more NR makes the images completely unusable for me.  NR has become better but it is still not on the same level as adobe and light years away from dxo.

    I also don't like how c1 emphases the bright side of usm turning smooth surfaces or skin into sandpaper !  

     

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Wilson

    Ah, well. Clearly our experience or our liking for Capture One differs.

    You do seem to post a lot of complaints about Capture One. There are other options out there if you don't like it!

    Ian

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • CSP

    Ian, what I wrote is very easy to verify when you are not preoccupied or suffer from eye problems and because i do use different converter I´m also very aware of the differences. beside my advertising work I do shoot operas , plays , ballets and classic concerts since the early 90ies in the peak more than 50 a year so believe me I have a very good idea how different converter handle digital noise.  but this is properly not enough to be allowed to have an opinion and I´m sure you are the more experience of us because you see the need to lecture me. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Wilson

    No I am not more experienced. I'm just puzzled why, if you dislike so many things about Capture One, and use a different converter, you so often spare the time to complain about it here. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.

    Ian

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • CSP

    because I like some aspects I have to ignore and love all the shortcomings ? but what entitles you to tell me what I have to use and post anyway ?  your business here seems to defend c1 as much as possible unrelated to reported issues, is this your true hobby ? even easy to test and comparable things as NR quality triggers your defence reflex. 

    ps.: so why not invest some time and take some high iso images 3200 and up and under different artificial light sources to demonstrate us that I'm just a c1 hating lair , should not be difficult for you no ? 

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Wilson

    CSP - I think this is becoming an unprofitable discussion.

    Happy New Year to you when it comes.

    Ian

    1
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.