Noisereduction Quality?
is anyone else finding the Noisereduction quality in CO1 so terrible?
It feels more ore less like a plain blur.
LR or Dxo photolab are offering a quality that is really not worth any comparison- it’s lightyears ahead.
Please CO1 Team improve this! It‘s so annoying to send images that need some good Noisereduction have to be send to another software.
It feels more ore less like a plain blur.
LR or Dxo photolab are offering a quality that is really not worth any comparison- it’s lightyears ahead.
Please CO1 Team improve this! It‘s so annoying to send images that need some good Noisereduction have to be send to another software.
0
-
Yes, it's bad. I generally don't bother with it until ISO12800. ( I zero it all and save as camera default until I need it)
What I find works out in some overly grainy images is to get some Luminance NR (under 50), keep the detail around the default 50, bump the 'Single Pixel NR' to nearly 100, and add a little silver rich grain (under 50 impact/granularity). That usually preserves sharpness while taking the edge.0 -
I think it depends upon the camera. With mine (which doesn't go beyond 6400 ISO....), I haven't any issue up to 3200 ISO : the noise, if any, looks very much like grain, and the C1 noise reduction suits me when needed. 0 -
[quote="verstaerker" wrote:
is anyone else finding the Noisereduction quality in CO1 so terrible?
It feels more ore less like a plain blur.
LR or Dxo photolab are offering a quality that is really not worth any comparison- it’s lightyears ahead.
Please CO1 Team improve this! It‘s so annoying to send images that need some good Noisereduction have to be send to another software.
Just to point out that this is a User to User forum.
If you wish to make a suggestion to Phase One the best (and Official) approach is to create a Support Case so the suggestion is registered and managed through the assessment and decision making process along with all the other suggestions.
It helps that the number of times an enhancement suggestion is make can then be calculated and some analysis performed about the nature of the request.
As pointed out already in some cases there may be specific reasons for why something does not look right on some images but may seem to work fine for others and that could, for example, be camera model related. Providing the information requested in the Support Case system will help to identify such anomalies.
HTH.
Grant0 -
Depends on what you want to do with noise reduction. If your plan is to get a smooth creamy noise-free image then there are better programs available.
But if you want to reduce the visible "noise" it's good enough. I only use the colour noise reduction but beyond that it's either not visible due to the printing size or not necessary because the noise/grain actually gives it a nice look.0 -
[quote="C-M-B" wrote:
If your plan is to get a smooth creamy noise-free image then there are better programs available.
😄 Yes, that's the result frequently obtained when pushing the cursors to the far right.....0 -
I would love to see some images to illustrate the op's opinion 😊
Also some more info, such as camera, ISO... maybe???0 -
Comparing the noise reduction in Lightroom, here it works really bad ☹️ 0 -
[quote="violin108" wrote:
Comparing the noise reduction in Lightroom, here it works really bad ☹️
I think noise reduction work pretty well, at least on the source files I have worked with.
However if the requirement is for complete smoothing to no almost no texture there are other applications that seem to offer easier ways to achieve such a result from especially noisy images.
It's probably a good idea to consider using a tool that most suits the purpose you have in mind for the source files you need to process.0 -
[quote="verstaerker" wrote:
is anyone else finding the Noisereduction quality in CO1 so terrible?
It feels more ore less like a plain blur.
LR or Dxo photolab are offering a quality that is really not worth any comparison- it’s lightyears ahead.
Please CO1 Team improve this! It‘s so annoying to send images that need some good Noisereduction have to be send to another software.
I have been saying this for years. The noise reduction in CO is horrendous in comparison to pretty much any other RAW conversion software, including Adobe Camera RAW which comes free with Photoshop. Every version that gets released I hope that they improve noise reduction but there is never any change to it. Here are my posts abut this from the past:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=25073
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=221740 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
I have been saying this for years.
And penty of us disagree with you:
https://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic ... 74#p105248in my experience Cap One's NR is appreciably better than both Optics Pro's and ACR/Lr's, these days - I use all of them, and I've been an Optics Pro beta tester.
0 -
Could it be that CO's performance with noise reduction depends on the type/brand/model of camera? 0 -
[quote="John Doe" wrote:
Could it be that CO's performance with noise reduction depends on the type/brand/model of camera?
Exactly, that's why more info would be nice to have, I've requested examples for instance but none are being shared.
For all I know somebody is trying to take photos in too dark situations with a 12 year old camera and is blaming the software for the result 😉0 -
[quote="John Doe" wrote:
Could it be that CO's performance with noise reduction depends on the type/brand/model of camera?
In my experience? No. Noise Reduction looks the same. I do find however that my Canon files can tolerate a lot more sharpening, while my Fuji files accept less than the default sharpening value (they are already too sharp perhaps).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=19-3xz ... 0C1QZptfci0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
13件のコメント