Canon 5D2 ACR chroma/luminance noise reduction

Admitting to being somewhat lazy w/respect to experimentation, can anyone recommend chroma/luminance noise reduction settings in ACR for the 5D2, as a function of ISO?

Well, if we deal with the subject here at this level of details, then I need to add some points:
1. For the advanced digital photographer: if a lower ISO is enough for a correct exposure, but one is aiming at achieving "exposure to the right", then it is useful to turn up the ISO
i without reducing the exposure
in order to "get to the right edge".
2. Mitigating the above: the vast majority of cameras do not have true 1/3 stop ISO steps, i.e. there is no analog gain associated with the 1/3 steps; they are achieved by numeric manipulation of the nearest (lower or higher) full stop ISO result. For example from the Canons, only the 1Dxxx models support real 1/3 step ISOs.
There is no point of using these ISO steps with raw data.
3. Almost all cameras offer high ISOs, which are fake, i.e. numerical derivations of lower ISOs; in some cases they are
b not only
those characterized as "High", "Extention", etc. For example ISO 12800 and 25600 are marked as "high" with the Canon 5DMkII, but in reality already 6400 is fake.
There is no point of using these ISO steps with raw data (yes, I wrote this already).
4. The top
b useful
ISO is usually even lower. For example the graphs in http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon5DMkII_Noise.GIF show, that the loss from 1600 to 3200 with the 5DMkII is precisely one stop, i.e. there is no point to use ISO 3200 with raw data. Some other cameras can not utilize even lower ISO settings in raw (the usefulness of those settings is when recording JPEG in-camera).
Using those ineffective ISO steps causes cutting off the one stop of the dynamic range with each ISO stop.
This is an ACR forum, thus these issues are off-topic, but so much can be perhaps tolerated.

Similar Messages

Nikon D70s + Process 2010 + Luminance Noise Reduction + Adjustment Brush = blurry picture

Please let me know if you have experienced the following and if it is a known bug:
I'm processing a very noisy Nikon D70s raw photograph with Lightroom 3: In the develop mode, I applied the 2010 process under Camera Calibration, and then set the Luminance Noise Reduction to 98 in the detail panel. At this point, the resulting improvement over the original is dramatic and the details are rather crisp given the original condition of the photo.
However, the moment I apply a local adjustment to the photo, bluriness is introduced to the photo; the bluriness affects the entire photo and not only the areas impacted by the local adjustment. This undesired effect appears with the adjustment brush and gradient and the only parameter that the local adjustment applies is an increase in the exposure by 0.01, which should normally not produce much of a visible effect.
I exported the photo to a jpeg and found the undesired effect in the jpeg file.
I believe this issue has a relation with the RAW file coming from a Nikon D70s as I performed a Sync of all the settings on RAW photos originating from a Canon 30D, and from a Canon XSi and did not see any of the undesired effect.
These steps appear to be reproduceable on any of the Nikon D70s RAW photos that I have in my catalog.
Please share some feedback.
Thanks,
Bruno

The NEF and xmp files are now available at http://drop.io/LR3BugAdjBrushNoise8736
In the current development settings, I added an adjustment brush to the ceiling with an exposure adjustment of +0.01 simply to demonstrate the issue. As soon as the adjustment is applied, bluriness can be seen and is most apparent in the faces but can also be seen on the wooden floor and everywhere else.
I also noticed that by setting the mask to show (O), ditthering can be seen in the mask even though it was applied with feather, flow and density all set to 100%.
Let me know what you think.
Bruno

Canon 6d needs lots of luminance noise reduction at all ISO settings

Hi all,
I've been trying out LR 5.4 with a new Canon 6d. I've noticed a lot of what appears to be luminance noise even with photos taken at ISO 100, this requires the "Luminance" slider in the "Noise Reduction" develop setting to be at around 80 to remove. This seems extremely high for ISO 100 photos with shutter at 1/1000 and obviously good light, I wouldn't expect to have to use any NR in this situation. Oddly, pretty much the same level of luminance NR will also clean up high ISO photos, I'd have expected to need a lot more NR on high ISO photos. Some sharpening is then required as usual.
The luminance setting of around 80 gives the photos a similar look to those from the out of camera jpeg, or the cr2 file processed in DPP.
Has anyone else observed this when processing raw file from a Canon 6d in LR? Or maybe there's a setting somewhere that I've missed?
Thanks in advance

Hi,
Thank you for replying. Hopefully there are some images attached to this post, it's the first time I've posted here...
The shots are of an area of very clear sky with the stalk of a plant in the foreground.. There is a 1:1 compare of the LR default import (right) compared to my luminance and sharpening adjustments (left). There's also a 2:1 compare to show the noise a little better. I've added a shot of the detail panel with my adjustments.
Thanks,
Paul

ACR 6.2 noise reduction settings shown only after zoom in or pushing sliders

Hi!
I Believe its an operator error, but still, i need your help, either to correct the situation ou learn how to work around it!
Begining:
to properly adjust noisre reductions settings we have to zoom in to about 100%, however, when zoom to fit in screen... the changes dont apear... unless i slghtly slide one adjusting button, the image will show the the changes until i release the slider.
i have the "preview check" marked.
if i export the images to jpg or tiff they present the changes, but if i click "done" to keep only the raw files + xmp and open the files in bridge on full screen, it doesn´t show the noise reduction changes, and once again, if i zoom in, it magicly changes while still zooming in....
Can someone help? i would like to keep only the raw files, having them exported only when needed...
Thank you in advance for your patience and time!
Mikroben.

hi MadManChan2000!
Thank you for your reply!
here you have a screen shot from my "basic" ACR settings, and as you can see, the darker part of the facem presents some noise color and grain.
on this second screen shot, you can see how the image should be showing.... however, for the noise redution changes to appear when the image is in "fit in view" mode i have to push a slider from de "Basic" menu (in this case i was pushing the exposure).
You can pretty much see the diference!! this is how i wanted images to show.
in this next screen shot you can see my NR Settings.
Thank you for your patience!!
Have a great weekend!!
tzSantos

Any chance Photoshop itself will get Camera Raw's noise reduction and sharpening?

I would love to have the noise reduction and sharpening from ACR 6 in Photoshop itself for JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files. Yes, I know I can open those files in ACR, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and then have it then open the files to Photoshop. But it would be so nice if we could do that without having to go through Camera Raw.

Matt Howell wrote:
Yes, I am absolutely saying that the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR 6 is vastly superior to any filters in Photoshop CS5.
For those who only work only with RAW files this is a non-issue, but I sometimes prefer to use TIFF files generated by CANON DPP software or occasionally even JPEG's straight out of Canon DSLR's. Going through ACR just for noise reduction causes unnecessary color space conversions, as well as just a needlessly complex workflow.
Perhaps you should ask Canon to make DPP noise reduction better. I also do not think is a good idea to get too aggressive with noise reduction and sharpening when you first bring a image into Photoshop unless you only use the image single use for a particular output device. Your better off working with a somewhat soft image till you ready for output and then sharpen for the output devive being used. If you use strong sharpening and NR up front sharpeing again for your output device may produce unwanted sharpening and NR artifacts... There are several third party noise reduction and sharpening plug-ins that are better then Adobe Photoshop built in ones. Noise reduction has to be balanced too much will loose detail masking detail is important. ACR noise reduction provides masking adjustments and works well. Third party plug-ins offer offer advanced masking features also. Photoshop noise reduction filter has a basic preserve detail slider which I presumes does some kind of masking but this is not as good at ACR masking and third paty masking. You can of course add you own masking before using photoshop noise reduction filter. Sharpening also needs masking for sarpening will sharpen noise as well as detail.
IMO your better off with third party plug-ins that are designed to be the best. They keep getting better there is no clear winner for all images. I'm been satisfied with NeatImage and I have only had to pay for two upgrades. I had to pay for the addition the 32 bit plugin then and for the addition a 64 bit plugin. All other updates to NeatImage has been free of charge even the lates version 7 of the 64 bit plugin was no charge for me.

Noise reduction not working on Lightroom 5.4 MAC

I have experienced that the noise reduction that I apply to my pictures is only visible in the develop area of the software. As I switch to library it disappear and the same happen if I export the picture in any kind of format.
I post a screenshot where you can see a sample picture with the desired noise reduction applied (on the right) and the same picture as it shows in the library area (on the left). Switching between this two areas (library and develop) results like a noise reduction toggle.
Dropbox - example.tiff
Is there a way to solve this bug?
Thank you.

Usually Develop-Fit view is crispier than Library or Export, when there has been enough noise-reduction added to an image to make it seem smooth, and people complain that sharpening is not being applied; however, in this situation through extreme noise-reduction settings, an artificial coarse texture has replaced the fine-grained noise which seems to manifest differently in Develop Fit view, and the complaint is that Library has no NR applied.
In more detail, there are two issues, here, both of the user's doing, not LR's:
1) A user-expectation that the Develop non-1:1 zoom is accurate regarding Detail settings. It is not. For years there has been an exclamation-point warning on the Detail settings section that says to view things only at 1:1. If a user doesn't see or ignores this warning then their expectation is wrong, as in this situation.
2) The Luminance Noise-Reduction Detail slider has been increased from the default of 50 to the maximum of 100. This has the effect of converting the fine-grain noise into a course angular texture, which is easily visible at reduced sizes except in the inaccurate Develop Fit view.
In the following side-by-side at 1:1 zoom, the lefthand panel is as per the user settings with the Lum-NR-Detail slider set to 100, while the righthand side has the Lum-NR-Detail slider set at the default of 50, with all other user settings remaining the same:
I would summarize what is occurring not as a bug but a different response of the inaccurate Develop-Fit rendering to a different coarseness of noise that is caused by an extreme setting of the Lum-NR-Detail slider. Since there is no resizing and no sharpening in the Export settings, I don't think the 1/3 bug has anything to do with anything.
It would be nice for the original poster (OP) to describe exactly what is wrong, after knowing that the Develop view is in accurate if not viewed at 1:1.

Lightroom 5 no noise reduction on file export

Here are the steps I'm using:
               color and luminance noise reduction
Export with these settings:
               jpeg ( same result with tiff}
               quality 100%
               resize to fit long edge 1000 px
    Lighroom screen--------------------------------------------------------Jpeg export
Any ideas?

JimHess wrote:
I think it's unfair to refer to people who can provide reasonable answers as fanboys.
Sadly Jim, we still haven't got the kind of "ignore whiney, flamebaiting troll" button that would allow us to shut the likes of him up. No, he doesn't come here for solutions, he comes here to flame. I'm baffled why he hasn't been banned.
Torsten,
Here's my favourite workaround. You could have done it too, and it's a simple, one-step solution:
Don't pay for software without thoroughly testing it yourself first.
If you've paid for Lr 5 before destruction-testing it and keeping a close eye on the forum (where this issue has been know about for ages), you've only yourself to blame.
Adobe will fix it when they're ready and able to: but it doesn't affect me in any "I paid for this, I expect it to work" way, because I won't be buying Lr 5 until it is fixed.
A really, really, really simple, inexpensive, trouble-free way to deal with all that stress...

PV2010 Color Noise Reduction Robs Dark Tones

No pun intended.
I thought at first it was the raw-conversion/de-mosaicing, but its turned out to be the color noise reduction.
Here is a the latest example of a picture that looks better in PV2003 than PV2010 no matter what I do, because of loss of clarity / contrast / dark-tones resulting from the new Color Noise Reduction algorithm. Note: This loss can not be restored using clarity or contrast sliders.
This probably ought to be a feature request: A slider that controls the coarser aspects of color noise reduction (color waves or clarity/contrast) versus the most localized aspects (color specs). In this instance, just getting rid of the specs without trying to reduce the waves might leave the dark tones(?) - Something like that. In any case, there is room to improve color noise reduction so that it leaves the dark tones / contrast / clarity in certain cases like this.
(Its a 100% crop of a section of a fish under water)
PV2003:
PV2010:
The difference is striking when viewing the whole photo from afar...
PS - I just discovered that minimizing noise reduction will maintain the dark tones better - I've therefore added down-throttling of color noise reduction to my PV2003 -> PV2010 practice.
Rob

dorin_nicolaescu wrote:
Luminosity Contrast slider also helps maintain some darker tones.
Indeed it do.
And, last but maybe (or maybe not) least, one can cheat a bit at the end and add some grain, to give the illusion of greater detail / texture. So, if you really want to preserve full detail when converting high ISO shots from PV2003 to PV2010, you need to:
1. Crank up the luminance noise reduction detail slider pretty darn high (if not all the way up).
2. Crank up the luminance noise reduction contrast slider pretty darn high (if not all the way up).
3. Minimize color noise reduction amount.
4. Crank up the color noise reduction detail slider fairly darn high (not all the way up! - color artefacts - bleh).
5. Maybe add a touch of grain (pretty darn low).
(I've left out the luminance NR amount slider and sharpening because they are the more obvious ones).
I'm guessing I'm not the first person to fall into the trap of trying to recover detail lost by noise reduction by decreasing luminance noise reduction amount and increasing sharpening detail (and maybe amount too), and winding up right back where you started - too much noise. The detail/contrast sliders of the noise reduction controls really work a lot better for that, and minimizing color noise reduction is also a hot tip for you detail junkies.
I hope I'm not the last person on this forum to realize what is now seeming sort of obvious to me, whilst everyone has a good laugh...
(I had previous just left color noise reduction and detail, plus luminance NR contrast at their defaults (I discovered the importance of the lum.NR detail slider long ago...) - but not anymore. It has helped me to articulate all this - hope it helps somebody else too..........
Rob

Noise reduction, Clarity and Masking Vs Sharpness

Maybe I have been using too much noise reduction and clarity for bird photos. Some people on dpReview recommend no noise reduction and now I am inclined to believe them. Recently I tried using little to no noise reduction, little to no Clarity, lots of sharpening and about 40% masking.This gives the bird good feather detail and anything with less detail has little noise and better bokeh. In low detail areas it looks to me like masking reduces the noise caused by Sharpening but it has less affect on the noise increased by Clarity. Is this true? If it is, in bird photography is Clarity best used sparingly and selectively like on there heads?
Another reason for asking all this is I once read that even a little masking degrades sharpness but now I doubt that. Maybe LR has improved that through the years.
Thanks,
Doug

Indeed luminance noise reduction (and to some extent color noise reduction) has a tendency to wipe out fine feather detail.
I recommend:
* lowered noise reduction, and if you do use it, crank the nr.detail slider way up - this will help maintain fine feather detail and is superior to sharpening detail for maintaining feather detail otherwise lost due to noise reduction.
* lowered sharpening detail, to keep noise down, and reduce the "need" for noise reduction.
* and sharpen masking to taste..
Also note: local sharpening at exactly -50 masks all global sharpening, and so can be used in conjunction with noise reduction to smooth the bokeh areas.
And of course you can add sharpening and/or clarity locally too.
I realize I didn't answer your exact question perfectly as asked, but I'm not sure what else to say, so..
Have fun,
Rob

Poor quality noise reduction for Canon G10

I recently bought a Canon G10, and I am disappointed at the quality of RAW conversions done by ACR/LR at anything approaching a high ISO. The out-of-camera JPEGs show much superior noise reduction to what I can get from RAW files, no matter how I tweak the noise reduction settings.
At ISO 80-100 both look essentially identical.
At ISO200 JPEGs show less and tighter grain than I can manage with RAW (unless I nuke the details with luminance reduction), but both are still very good.
At ISO400 ACR/LR's RAW conversion starts to fall apart. Chroma NR in RAW is still handled well, the grain size in RAW is much larger than the camera's JPEGs. I need to apply a lot of luminance NR to reduce the RAW grain to match the JPEGs, and when I do that I lose a lot of detail. And even then, the larger grain isn't as attractive as the JPEG.
At ISO800 this problem is even worse. Big ugly blobs abound in the RAW conversion. The JPEGs don't look great, but they're very usable, especially if you're willing to dip the shadows a bit to hide the worst of the noise.
ISO1600 is interesting. The JPEGs don't look great; there's a healthy amount of noise, and NR kills a lot of fine details. But the image is usable for 4x6's or sometimes even an 8x10. But the RAW files are awful! Even cranking chroma NR to 100, there's color noise to be seen. And even with very careful use of luminance NR and sharpening I can't results that are anywhere close to JPEG's level of detail and noise.
I understand that P&S cameras like the G10 are very noisy by DSLR standards and so this might not be a focal point of ACR/LR development, but I'm surprised and disappointed that the JPEG engine in the G10 can do a better job handling noise than ACR/LR. I guess my hope is that ACR/LR will at some point offer improved NR so I can create photos using RAW that look as good as JPEGs straight out of the camera. As it is right now I'm in the unfortunate position of shooting JPEG at high ISO to get usable noise performance. My dilemma is whether to even bother shooting RAW+JPEG when this IQ might be the best I ever get from ACR/LR for the G10.
I suppose my favored solution would be to either implement or license NR technology that matches NeatImage/NoiseNinja/NoiseWare. That feature alone would be worthy of justifying a 3.0 version for me. :)

Jeff, I won't debate that the output from the G10 at ISO800+ is poor. It most certainly is! And I know that simply eliminating the scads of noise in a G10 high ISO shot won't restore the detail the noise killed in the first place. But with every other camera I've used with ACR and LR, the color noise slider eliminates all color noise at or before the "100" setting. So I was surprised when that wasn't possible with the G10.
I don't currently own a camera that puts out an image quite as noisy as the G10 at ISO1600, but what about the A900 at ISO6400?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900hLL6407XNR.HTM
Or the 50D at ISO12800?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DLL12807XNR.HTM
Both of those are horrifically noisy. Worse than the G10 at ISO1600, I'd say. But those cameras certainly aren't crap. They just offer ISO settings higher than some consider acceptable. But then again, some people consider anything higher than ISO200 on a 5D unacceptable, so it's obviously all relative. Point being, I would expect ACR to do the best job it could for any camera it supports, not just the best job it can do for only some of the cameras it supports.
In any case, I want ACR to be able to remove the color noise from my G10's images, just like it can with my other cameras. I know the images are sub-standard when measured against a DSLR, but at least to my eyes, even very noisy images can look decent in small prints so long as there aren't big color blobs all over the place.
As for the luminance noise, I'm happier to live with that. I'd be happy to eventually pay for a LR upgrade that gives me NR similar to what the high-end third-party apps do, because that feature would make each of my cameras geniunely more useful--and retroactively! But a simpler request it seems is to recalibrate what "100" means for the G10. At least then I could dispense with the JPEGs and still make an 8x10.

Noise reduction applied to high ISO .tif files in ACR 4.1?

Evidently ACR 4.1 applies noise reduction to high ISO raw files from Canon cameras, even when noise reduction is turned "off" in the plug-in (and this results in smeared detail). I have a 5D that I bought specifically for its lack of noise in high ISO files, and I don't want a software program forcing me into using noise reduction and ruining all those marvelous details in my high ISO raw files. Can someone tell me if there is a similar problem with ACR 4.1 if you open a .tif file with it? If not, I'm thinking I'm going to use Canon DPP 3.02 to convert my raw files to .tif, and then use ACR 4.1 to quickly adjust exposure, black point, etc., all of which is awkward and slow in DPP 3.02.
Rob

No, although ACR v4.1 does apply some baseline noise reduction to many raw files, I do not think that it applies any default NR to TIF files. Lightroom v1.1 does not apply any noise-reduction to TIF or JPG files by default, at least as far as I've noticed, so I believe this will likely carry over to ACR v4.1 as well. Of course you *can* turn the NR sliders up from zero and then it will! In any case, you'd be advised to test that theory yourself just to make sure, before designing a workflow around that assumption...

Upscaling and noise reduction in ACR

I've been thinking about upscaling images and the best time to do so (if I need to of course) in my workflow. As I understand it, it's always best to carry out any noise reduction prior to upsampling an image, as this helps avoid increasing the size of any noise that may be apparent in the image.
However, I'm thinking that in ACR, this in theory would not be neccessary as ACR would carry out any noise reduction and upsampling in a pre-defined processing order. So put simply, I could increase the image size and then carry out any NR as required after upscaling. This would allow me to tailor the NR to fit the increased image dimensions (and of course I could then carry out capture sharpening for the larger image as well).
Is my thinking correct here - does it not really matter in terms of image quality if I don't do any NR before changing the image dimensions in ACR?
M

I did a lot of experimentation with upsampling during conversion.
I found that - in my opinion - upsampling during Camera Raw operation yields superior results to doing it later. I also believe that dialing in some noise reduction during Camera Raw is needed, as even low ISO images get pretty grainy otherwise.
Every camera is different, but what I ended up saving for defaults is this, keeping in mind that I do my conversions to the largest possible image size, then downsample later for specific uses.
Only you know what your goals are and what you like in your images, so I encourage you to experiment as I did with different combinations of settings to try to find the right balance.
-Noel

In-camera high ISO noise reduction & ACR

I've been involved in a discussion over on DPReview where someone believes that, when shooting with a Nikon dSLR (in this case a D7000, but the model isn't really important) high ISO NR is automatically applied in-camera directly to the raw file, and this will be carried over to any raw conversion software, including third-party software such as ACR/LR.
Now I do agree that even with NR switched off, Nikon do automatically apply some limited NR to high ISO images in-camera, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that this is not something that ACR would interpret, and so it would not actually have any effect on the appearance of the raw file when it's processed. In fact, if the high ISO NR is somehow embedded into the raw file, that would go against my whole concept of how a raw file works in a convertor such as ACR! Surely any "default" high ISO NR is just added to the proprietry part of the EXIF, and is therefore only factored in when using Nikon conversion software (ViewNX, etc)? Otherwise, the file could not truly be considered to be 'raw'.
I think I'm right, but wanted confirmation from some of the experts on here! And of course, I'm also quite happy to be proven wrong!
M

Noel Carboni wrote:
By the way, the reference I found for D7000 shows that the High ISO NR can be disabled. See this page: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/D7000A7.HTM
What camera do YOU have, Molly?
-Noel
Hi Noel,
Wow, I'm impressed with your efforts here! Your point about blurring being a potential sign of whether or not NR has been applied to the high ISO raw files is a good one, and I agree that, based on that thinking, the examples you've found don't really seem to show much evidence of that, particularly the shots of the focus/resolution target.
I do have a D7000; I replied as such back in post three ("yes I do" in response to your question "do you have such a camera?"), but I can see how that may not have been as clear as it should have been! I'm going to try some test shots myself to see if I can pick out any evidence of softening/blurring that may indicate NR being applied during the processing of the raw data. However, unfortunately my PC is currently being fixed as I've been having some hardware issues, so that testing won't be happening until I get it back (hoping within a week, missing it already).
Regarding your reference that indicates that high ISO NR can be switched off, yes it can, but apparently only up to a point - here's what it states in the Nikon manual (and what has in turn sparked off this discussion over on DPR):
"High ISO NR - option: off - Noise reduction is only performed at ISO sensitivities of ISO 1600 and higher. The amount of noise reduction is less than the amount performed when low is selected for High ISO NR" (as the article indicates, there are three options apart from off: high, normal, and low).
As I've said previously, my understanding was that all of that had zero bearing on the raw file once it was loaded into ACR: regardless of any NR settings applied in-camera, either by the user or by Nikon bypassing the user, they were all thrown away by the Adobe raw processing algorithms, as are things like picture controls, sharpening, contrast, etc. But following my recent discussion, I started to wonder if my understanding of the raw capture process was incorrect, hence this thread.
Thanks again for your work here. Above and beyond the call of duty!
M

Returning to ACR for noise reduction, while in Photoshop

Is there a shortcut back to noise reduction in ACR ~ while working on an image in Photoshop?
Of course if it's opened as a smart object you can return to raw but there are heaps of things you can't do to a smart object...
The onlty way I can think of is to save and close the file and then open it (again) in RAW. And that's a bit of a round about way to do it.

NanceeArt wrote:
The onlty way I can think of is to save and close the file and then open it (again) in RAW. And that's a bit of a round about way to do it.
That's the only way and also note that going noise reduction on a rendered image vs a raw image is suboptimal...you really want to be doing the noise reduction BEFORE you render the file. A raw Smart Object would be useful in this situation.

Noise reduction on almost chroma key edges

I have a footage of a person in a white tee shirt in front of a very intense bright yellow backgroung (It looks like a chroma-key).
On the edges of the person and specialy on the edges of the white tee shirts (that is a over-exposed) there is some noise / artefacts.
I desaturated in FCP with the 3 way filter for the yellow to get less intense.
I checked plugins sites like: Natress, CHV, Kurt Hennrich and revisionfx and they have noise reduction plugins.
But I was wandering if anyone knows what's the best plugin (or filter) for this kind of noisy / artefact edges problem ?
Also, is there any setting in Compressor that could help to reduce this ?
I filmed on DVCAM NTSC, and this is for a DVD (replications).
Thanks.

Wow, you've got a bunch of problems here starting with your camera of choice which I'm assuming since it was DVCAM, was something like a PD150/170, the choice of video format which is extremely compressed, the exposure.
I think your main issue stems from video format and exposure, however. Depending upon the camera model, you probably should dial down your chroma settings and for something like this, I may have been inclined to under-expose a bit.
There is a very good reason that good lenses cost as much as cars or houses. Cheap cameras with cheap lensing exhibit a bit of chromatic aberration which you've also got going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
Your best solution would be to reshoot with a more robust video format if possible. You can try creating an edge matte for the yellow background and applying a light blur/defocus to the edge matte.
If Goggi comes up with a suitable solution be sure to post the details for future readers.

Canon 5D2 ACR chroma/luminance noise reduction

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for