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
-
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
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.
I'm a bit surprised that the moire tool did not work in this case. I have used it on some areas with very heavy moire to good effect. I set the amount at 50 and then move the pattern slider until I see something happen. This has worked with screen doors and the like, but perhaps that red sweater is not in its repertoire. 😕0 -
I hate bringing this thread back to light, but I'm also dying for some improvements in the noise department of C1. I'm still bypassing C1's NR completely and running TIFFs through ACR, which I'd love to stop. Any vague eta on improvements Phase one? Is this even on the list? 0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
I hate bringing this thread back to light, but I'm also dying for some improvements in the noise department of C1. I'm still bypassing C1's NR completely and running TIFFs through ACR, which I'd love to stop. Any vague eta on improvements Phase one? Is this even on the list?
Thought were perfectly happy with that solution, Zach?
Y'know:So if you all hate C1's NR so much and love ACR so much, but for some reason don't just use ACR and quit whinging about C1, do this. It's the best of both worlds and looks great.
Welcome to the whingers..!0 -
Haha, I'm still doing the same thing and still happy with the results I'm getting but it's a few annoying extra steps that I'd rather not do. I'm perfectly happy with my work around compared to either using C1's NR or switching to ACR completely, but I'd love to not need a work around anymore. 0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
I hate bringing this thread back to light, but I'm also dying for some improvements in the noise department of C1. I'm still bypassing C1's NR completely and running TIFFs through ACR, which I'd love to stop. Any vague eta on improvements Phase one? Is this even on the list?
Thought were perfectly happy with that solution, Zach?
Y'know:So if you all hate C1's NR so much and love ACR so much, but for some reason don't just use ACR and quit whinging about C1, do this. It's the best of both worlds and looks great.
Welcome to the whingers..!
Keith,
What brings you to this forum and thread? I thought that you gave up on Capture One long ago. You seemed to be a fan of ACR and Raw Therapee, as I recall.
Rob0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
Haha, I'm still doing the same thing and still happy with the results I'm getting but it's a few annoying extra steps that I'd rather not do. I'm perfectly happy with my work around compared to either using C1's NR or switching to ACR completely, but I'd love to not need a work around anymore.
I'm surprised that this thread got resurrected. My experience with C1-6.2's NR continues to be positive for moderately noisy images. I have learned to use the Surface Noise slider primarily to remove luminance noise with only a touch of the Luminance slider. Cross-hatch artifacts are almost never an issue in my work. For most images, the default NR settings are too high. As always, my goal is never to remove all traces of noise. I am quite satisfied leaving some noise present to give the image structure and texture. I have continued to run comparisons with the latest version of ACR from time to time. The latter gives cleaner images with more uniform grain, but with greater softness and loss of detail. And I still dislike the way ACR renders. Dull, dull, dull. Others may disagree, and I wish them much happiness with that program.
Rob0 -
I agree about ACR looking dull, that's why I'm using C1. And I agree, C1's NR is decent for moderate use, but when it comes to hi iso (1600+) and especially red patterns (or say, red roses or a red sweater) C1's NR just fails miserably in the color NR. Find a hi-iso picture of something with red detail and you'll see what I mean. By the time the color noise is gone the pattern is gone too in C1. Not so in ACR. I get much better results running C1 processed TIFFs through ACR without touching anything but the color NR. Thus I get the punch of C1 but the cleaner noise of ACR. I never touch luminance or surface NR in any program. Anyways, I just wish C1 would improve it's color noise reduction. I guess I thought that was in the works, but maybe I was wrong. 0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
127件のコメント