Capture One 5 and noise reduction
I am probably not the first person to notice that C1's Luminance NR is a real weakness of the program. In very noisy images, the NR completely smears fine detail. Hopefully, this will be addressed in v6. Here is a thought: How about Phase One licensing the NR technology that is in Topaz DeNoise 5, the unquestioned king of NR? If it can be applied at the raw stage, it would be a phenomenally powerful tool. Just a thought. 😊
0
-
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
that is in Topaz DeNoise 5, the unquestioned king of NR?
Topaz smears the fine details...
example
run that through Topaz Denoize and enjoy the destuction of the leaves
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/9454/sdim0983.png
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/9454/sdim0983.png0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
that is in Topaz DeNoise 5, the unquestioned king of NR?
Topaz smears the fine details...
run that through Topaz Denoize and enjoy the destuction of the leaves
Ah, deejjjaaaa, the gadfly, suddenly appears. I really don't want to play any of your silly games. You are obviously poorly informed on this topic. Topaz DeNoise is regarded by many as the best NR program currently available. This is not just my opinion but also that of a Luminous Landscape reviewer, who tested an earlier version:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... opaz.shtml
I would just like for Capture One to improve its NR to the same level, if it is at all possible.
Rob0 -
Talking about noise...
Sorry guys, can we try not to provoke or felt being provoked? Each has a right his (or her) opinion. Your opinions are and have been very much appreciated here numerous times. Thank you.0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
that is in Topaz DeNoise 5, the unquestioned king of NR?
Topaz smears the fine details...
Then you're doing something very wrong, deejjjaaaa.
DeNoise is far and away the most amazing development I've ever seen in NR software, and does an extraordinary job of dealing with noise while preserving detail. I'm a bird 'tog remember - I cannot sacrifice detail for a clean image - and DeNoise makes it trivially easy to produce images that have detail and low noise.
I can't see it happening, but I agree with Rob - DeNoise in Cap 1 would be a massive asset (Bibble does something similar with Noise Ninja). I'll watch this thread closely and if there's enough interest I'll certainly join in with the support cases.
Oh, and deejjjaaaa, I don't really see what point you're trying to make with your image above: there's no noise in it in the first place and it's already smeared and lacking in any detail, so - seems to me - you're unfairly loading your proposed test to suit your agenda: it's just not something you'd want to NR.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
that is in Topaz DeNoise 5, the unquestioned king of NR?
Topaz smears the fine details...
Then you're doing something very wrong, deejjjaaaa.
DeNoise is far and away the most amazing development I've ever seen in NR software, and does an extraordinary job of dealing with noise while preserving detail. I'm a bird 'tog remember - I cannot sacrifice detail for a clean image - and DeNoise makes it trivially easy to produce images that have detail and low noise.
I can't see it happening, but I agree with Rob - DeNoise in Cap 1 would be a massive asset (Bibble does something similar with Noise Ninja). I'll watch this thread closely and if there's enough interest I'll certainly join in with the support cases.
Oh, and deejjjaaaa, I don't really see what point you're trying to make with your image above: there's no noise in it in the first place and it's already smeared and lacking in any detail, so - seems to me - you're unfairly loading your proposed test to suit your agenda: it's just not something you'd want to NR.
Keith,
Thanks for your support. I agree wholeheartedly that Topaz DeNoise 5 is a phenomenal piece of software. I estimate that it gives me 2-3 stops of NR with excellent detail retention. To see it incorporated in Capture One would be fantastic.
I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest with deejjjaaaa. He is a well known gadfly, a provocateuer, who flits around various websites starting petty fights. Why he derives pleasure from this is beyond me, but I will say no more about him.
Rob0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
that is in Topaz DeNoise 5, the unquestioned king of NR?
Topaz smears the fine details...
run that through Topaz Denoize and enjoy the destuction of the leaves
Ah, deejjjaaaa, the gadfly, suddenly appears. I really don't want to play any of your silly games. You are obviously poorly informed on this topic. Topaz DeNoise is regarded by many as the best NR program currently available. This is not just my opinion but also that of a Luminous Landscape reviewer, who tested an earlier version:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... opaz.shtml
I would just like for Capture One to improve its NR to the same level, if it is at all possible.
Rob
Rogbo2,
I am suffciently informed as I run Denoise along with Noiseware, Noise Ninja, DFine and NeatImage... it is overrated... it does a decent job when you have a uniform area w/ noise (sky for example) or fine details arranged in a regular structure - but have irregular fine details and it fails miserably.
.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
Oh, and deejjjaaaa, I don't really see what point you're trying to make with your image above: there's no noise in it in the first place and it's already smeared and lacking in any detail, so - seems to me - you're unfairly loading your proposed test to suit your agenda: it's just not something you'd want to NR.
example is to show that Denoise simply fails to handle irregular fine details (your can run the same image through other noise reduction plugins and they will not fail you), but you are welcome to post your example, which I expect to be carefully selected to favor Denoise 😂0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest with deejjjaaaa. He is a well known gadfly, a provocateuer, who flits around various websites starting petty fights. Why he derives pleasure from this is beyond me, but I will say no more about him.
Rob
you remember how you were challenged to show some raw files when you were DxO fan, so that we can see how DxO was better than other and you chickened 😎 ...0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest with deejjjaaaa. He is a well known gadfly, a provocateuer, who flits around various websites starting petty fights. Why he derives pleasure from this is beyond me, but I will say no more about him.
Rob
you remember how you were challenged to show some raw files when you were DxO fan, so that we can see how DxO was better than other and you chickened 😎 ...
As in the past, I refuse to engage in any of your stupid "gotcha" games, Mr. Gadfly. People who know far more about noise reduction than you and I combined seem to think that DeNoise is the best of the current crop. If you find that it smears detail, then the problem is with your inability to use it properly. I'm so sorry that you are having such problems, and I sincerely hope that you can work them out. Bye.
Rob0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
I am suffciently informed as I run Denoise along with Noiseware, Noise Ninja, DFine and NeatImage... it is overrated... it does a decent job when you have a uniform area w/ noise (sky for example) or fine details arranged in a regular structure - but have irregular fine details and it fails miserably.
I'll say it again - if you're finding that, you're doing something wrong.
I'm not in the habit of "overrating" NR software - if anything I'm hypercritical of it (which is why Noiseware isn't on my machine) - and DeNoise is head-and-shoulders above the competition.0 -
Anyone interested in seeing an astonishing demonstration of what Topaz DeNoise 5 can do should check out this thread over at dpreview. The photos were taken with the new Pentax K-5 (also pretty amazing) and processed from DNGs in ACR.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... 051&page=1
I would love to have this capability in Capture One.
Rob0 -
I personally love Dfine, I don't mind luminance noise at all (I kinda like it actually) but it's the chroma that I can't stand and it gets rid of that really well. It also is the only one I know of that gets rid of banding effectively, which is kind of amazing. I agree that C1's NR is pretty lacking, especially compared to the new stuff from Adobe which is quite amazing for a RAW converter. I will say, I've tried Topaz a few times now and it always just looked weird to me. It cleaned things up nicely, but it looked unnatural when it was all said and done, almost like one of the "artistic" filters in photoshop had been put on ever so slightly. But I don't disagree that it's great at getting rid of noise. 0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
I personally love Dfine, I don't mind luminance noise at all (I kinda like it actually) but it's the chroma that I can't stand and it gets rid of that really well. It also is the only one I know of that gets rid of banding effectively, which is kind of amazing. I agree that C1's NR is pretty lacking, especially compared to the new stuff from Adobe which is quite amazing for a RAW converter. I will say, I've tried Topaz a few times now and it always just looked weird to me. It cleaned things up nicely, but it looked unnatural when it was all said and done, almost like one of the "artistic" filters in photoshop had been put on ever so slightly. But I don't disagree that it's great at getting rid of noise.
I used to use Dfine but have switched to Topaz DeNoise. V.5 now has debanding as well. I do miss Nik's U-point technology for localized adjustments, but I can live without it to get superior results.
As far as chroma NR is concerned, I do it in Capture One, because it does that job very well. However, I do no luminance NR in the raw stage and save that for TDN5. I think that if you work with that program for awhile, you will find that it gives remarkably clean, detailed results, which I believe is the goal of NR. I never try to remove every last scintilla of noise either, as that is what leads to an unnatural smoothness.
I agree that ACR does very well in the NR department, much better than C!. The reason that I started this thread was to raise the issue that C1 needs to improve its NR. I still say that licensing Topaz's technology would be fantastic and would place C1 way beyond Adobe.
Rob0 -
That I would agree with! Even to have it as some kind of module you could buy to add on would be fine by me. 0 -
I'd also really like to see some marked improvement in the NR department in C1. After a lot of conversion exercises which involved a couple of software packages in various combinations I've come up with the following workflow for my Pentax K10D high ISO files (the camera gives me unsatisfactory results at and beyond ISO 800):
- basic conversion in C1 (optimize histogram, local contrast, colour tweaks, crop, etc.)
- disable all C1 sharpening and NR and export to a 16-bit tiff
- open the tiff with ACR 6.2 and do the chroma NR only (I find it better for my files than C1 chrominance NR)
- plugins time (luminance NR): from my testing Noiseware gives me comparable or better results with my Pentax files than Topaz DeNoise5. Plus it's much faster, so sometimes I just can't be bothered to even start DN5 to compare its outcome with Noiseware.
I guess it depends on how proficient you get with the tools at your disposal but in my usage and with the camera-specific files that I get I've worked out an optimal workflow for me. I wish for the C1 to improve at least its chroma NR so that it could give me similar quality to the current ver. of ACR and I could skip this step but I agree with the OP that licensing some dedicated NR plugin and bringing it to C1 could yield a much better result than what we now have. As it is I realise I forgo the capture sharpening stage while working with a RAW image so after the outlined workflow I have to take care of sharpening (global and local, capture-creative-output oriented), which makes the process all that bit more complex and less optimal than it could be.0 -
[quote="sankos" wrote:
- basic conversion in C1 (optimize histogram, local contrast, colour tweaks, crop, etc.)
- disable all C1 sharpening and NR and export to a 16-bit tiff
- open the tiff with ACR 6.2 and do the chroma NR only (I find it better for my files than C1 chrominance NR)
- plugins time (luminance NR): from my testing Noiseware gives me comparable or better results with my Pentax files than Topaz DeNoise5. Plus it's much faster, so sometimes I just can't be bothered to even start DN5 to compare its outcome with Noiseware.
If you are having success with this workflow, then by all means continue using it. I am personally quite satisfied with C1's color NR. Basically, I find that it removes virtually all chroma noise from my images. It is the luminance NR that is truly inferior. Phase One developers are very much attuned to their users needs and requests, and I feel quite confident that they will provide a better NR package with v6. (I wonder when that will be released. V5 is now about one year old.)
Rob0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
16件のコメント