Color Noise reduction with BxW

Just wanted to share what I have seen so far with this:
I sometimes use extreme HSL shifts with BxW images to achieve the tonal separation that I am looking for. This can lead to splotchyness, if taken toooo far. I just installed 1.4.1 and tried the color noise reduction filter for this (it was my most desired feature in the 1.4 update)
As of 5 minutes of playing with it I can say it works. It is not perfect, and it does cause a very slight softening of detail (very slight) But it definitely does help to remove a good bit of the aforementioned splotches.

Maybe this is snobbish, if so I apologize. I know that topics go off base sometimes...but this conversation has nothing to do with the topic I started. It should really have been it's own topic (for more than one reason. Maybe others need the info about slide shows, but would not look at this due to it's title).
Except for being about noise reduction it has nothing to do with what I wanted to hear other users comment on: The use of the color noise reduction slider with BxW images in 1.4.1
Again sorry if this is rude of me. I don't belong to too many forums and really don't know what the proper etiquette is here.

Similar Messages

  • Inconsistency in the Preview with Color Noise Reduction

    Adobe guys:  You have a bad variable  access, bad pointer, or something in Camera Raw with regard to Color Noise Reduction...
    If I have color noise reduction turned off (set to 0), I see this:
    And in fact it converts to just what shows in the preview:
    If I bump the Color noise reduction slider up to 1 with the Color Detail slider at 100, I get this wonderful DeBayer smoothing in the preview:
    But alas, this is what comes out in the conversion:
    The smoothing shown DOES in fact match if one sets the Color Detal slider to 50 at the middle of the scale:
    This is just an annoyance, but it does take some trial and error to see what you really want the Color Detail slider set to.
    By the way, I notice that the jaggies come and go seemingly randomly when the Color Detail slider is at 100 and I move the Color slider.  I suspect you're reading the wrong or random location for Color Detail, or maybe have an overflow/underflow condition somehow.
    Object oriented programming - fraught with gotchas.
    -Noel

    What you are seeing is a limitation of the diagonal/curve behavior of the current demosaic method on colored boundaries, combined with the (preview-quality) color noise reduction with specific settings.  It is the demosaic strategy that is at fault here (and is why you see these results in the final exported result). 

  • 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

  • Color noise/dithering with MacPro DVI output

    Hello everybody,
    to describe my problem/question I have to give you some additional information.
    I am working for a company that produces KVM extenders. One of our products is an digital extender system which enables the transmission of standard computer signals (keyboard, video, mouse) via CAT cable over distances up to 140 meters.
    In combination with a MacPro (MacPro 4,1, Mac OS X 10.6.5), this extender shows some "peculiarities" when transmitting images.
    The mouse does not move properly at our receiver module; the cursor stutters at the screen.
    In this constellation, however, almost the complete bandwidth is required for image transmission. In order to generally avoid this problem, we use a compression procedure to transmit data. Usually, only image changes instead of full images are transmitted. This method saves bandwidth and results in a stutter-free image. In our case, the compression procedure cannot be applied due to the fact that the MacPro constantly displays a stuttering image.
    In order to clarify this problem we have done some research which I am going to explain in the following.
    The tested graphics cards (ATI Radeon HD 4870 and GeForce GT 120) do not provide static screen content at the digital DVI output, but create a constant image/color noise/dithering.
    Since the compression procedure cannot be applied (only full images are transmitted), the performance at higher resolutions is rather low. This is especially inconvenient for the user because this failure is invisible/irreproducible and there seems to be no possibility to disable this color noise.
    In order to make the color noise visible, we used a screen-capture tool to produce several images of a standard desktop of a Mac OS X installation.
    We took a closer look at these images and realized that the green background does not consist of one RGB color value, but of slightly deviating color values. In order to highlight the different color values, we used a graphic tool and colored the color values with more differing colors.
    Now the color noise is clearly visible. When we looked at the same image with a delay in time, we realized that the color noise was not static but seemed to appear rather randomly. The colors deviate and a stuttering image is displayed!
    The crosscheck against a background without color (white) shows that the color noise does not occur and the image performance of our extenders has evidently improved.
    Now my actual question:
    Does anyone know how to disable this dithering within Mac OS X?
    Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this and maybe give me some hinds to solve the problem.

    Hey Shane
    I hate to go back to an old topic, but i need help.
    I took your advice and bought the Blackmagic Thunderbolt Intensity Shuttle. I have the thunderbolt cable coming out of my iMac and into the Blackmagic box. Out of there I have the RGB cable going to my monitor, however I have no signal. I tried looking into contacting Blackmagic, but no luck. I thought I would ask you, since you seemed to have some knowledge.

  • Lightroom color not consistant with PSCS4/Bridge. Help please.

    Hi All,
    I started with a search, but didn't find an answer that covered what I'm seeing.
    OK, first of all, let me set this.
    I'm running a MacBook Pro 2.2, OSX 10.6, with a 23" Apple Cinema Display (non-glossy screen) attached as my main work monitor for my LR, PSCS and all my other photography and graphics work. Any reference here is referring to the 23' ACD as that is my calibrated color reference point. And for the record, both the ACD and the MBP are fully hardware calibrated on a regular bases.
    What I'm seeing is gorgeous color and pop in LR, but more muted colors in PSCS4 and Bridge. I have noticed that if I open a single image in both PSCS4 and Apple's 'Preview' app, the PSCS4 rendering matches the Bridge preview dead-on. While the 'Preview' app's rendering looks more like the LR previews. So it would seem to me that LR is 'talking' to the systems color rendering, while PSCS4 and Bridge are more, 'on their own', yet talking to each other.
    I work almost completely in Adobe 98 color space. I export out of LR into PCSC4 as Adobe 98 PSD files. I continue to work in Adobe 98, and even re-enter the PSD files back into my Lightroom catalogs with their attached color space. In LR, I get the same 'look'. Nicely saturated color with a little pop, but if I open up the files again in PSCS4 they again, look somewhat 'muted'. But, I have tried this using multiple file types (psd, jpeg, raw) as well as sRGB color space. The results are the same. It seems application specific, NOT file-type specific.
    Now I can understand maybe a slight color difference between PSCS/Bridge and say maybe Corel 'Painter'. But I am not understanding this obvious color difference between supposed related Adobe apps such as LR and PSCS4, again, while working on the same calibrated monitor.
    FYI, my Epson 2400, using Epson's custom profiles, looks fantastic printing out of LR's Print module. (I love the LR Print module!).
    My problem here is, I need to send files out to certain print houses for album printing and such (usually in sRGB color space). I have confidence with what I'm seeing in the Lightroom previews of my files. But the PSCS4 files are just too 'dull' looking. Kind of nervous to let them go out the door.
    Final note, my entire Adobe Creative Suite is set to 'North American Prepress 2'.
    Thanks for any help you can send my way.
    -Sol

    One thing I would try is to run with only one monitor (close the MacBook's lid and unsleep it by hitting a key on an external keyboard or only use the built-in display) and see if the problem persists.
    Lightroom and Photoshop use the exact same color management module with just a few small differences. In general, you should get identical rendering of colors but for a few exceptions. One is that Lightroom always uses perceptual intent rendering and Photoshop always uses relative. Some color calibrators generate v4 profiles with a built in perceptual profile. The colormunki is one of those. With profiles like that you will see very subtle differences between Lightroom and Photoshop. Generally not something as strong as what you describe. Another difference is that Lightroom in the Develop module does NOT apply the color noise reduction when zoomed out, only when zoomed in at 1:1 or higher. The result of this is that sometimes, if you have lots of saturated color fine detail, the Develop module shows you a falsely oversaturated image when zoomed out. A good example of this happens with flowers in a grass field, finely detailed fall color leaves, or neon lights. You can see the effect by switching back and forth between Develop and Library or simply by zooming in at 1:1. Library will appear far less saturated as will the 1:1 display. You can solve this issue by lowering the color noise reduction to zero. Lastly, you wouldn't be the first to be fooled by the relatively dark background in Lightroom. This can make everything appear more saturated than the equivalent display in Photoshop which usually has a lightish grey as background or simply your desktop. This is a small effect but I have found it to be surprisingly large a few times. You can change the color of the background in Lightroom to play with this by control (or right) clicking in the matte area.

  • How do I remove color noise?

    I have an image saved as a psd file with a high amount of color noise resulting from shooting at a film speed of 800. I have created a layer for a face in the image and a layer for the inverse (the remainder of the image). Can I reduce this noise using a tool in PSE7? I have tried the color noise reduction filter on each layer, but it seems to have no effect despite my playing with the adjustment sliders. The ultimate print of this image will be about 16"x24".

    Thanks for this solution... exactly what I am searching for...
    many thanks again, cheers

  • Recovery connected to noise reduction rendering

    Just noticed when I crank the recovery slider up (ACR 4.4 Profile), Lightroom stops rendering fit view with color noise reduction applied when I get to 55 in the develop module. i.e. at recovery of 55 and greater, no color noise reduction is applied, 54 and below, color noise reduction is applied.
    Not sure what to say about it - just an interesting observation for the hyper-inquisitive...
    R

    Yeah, it does tend to dull a photo, however with ACR 4.4 (a linear profile) it can be cranked all the way to 100 without screwing up the hues, and I often crank it all the way up as a test and then lower to taste... - that's when I noticed the unexpected connection with the color noise reduction.
    PS - I sometimes use recovery to recover highlights (and dim the light tones as side effect), then use the tone curve to brighten the light tones back up.
    Summary:
    - With ACR 4.4, I feel free to use recovery 0-100 - often in conjunction with the tone curve to compensate for side-effect repression of non-highlight tones. With non-linear profiles, I strive for highlight-recovery=0 in most photos, due to unfavorable hue shifting.
    - For some reason, Highlight Recovery amount is affecting Lightroom's decision about whether to render color NR in the fit view.
    Cheers,
    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

  • Very different color noise between develop module and library

    There is a marked difference in the appearance of an image when viewed in the library versus the develop module. The color noise in the library module is very bad, while in the develop module, the noise reduction is doing a pretty good job. This is strictly a view problem, because if I export from the library, the proper color noise reduction is applied and it appears as it does in the develop module. This is not the first time that I have found this problem between the two modules. Any idea why this is happening? And, is there a fix in the works? It makes it hard to view images in the library.
    If I boost the color noise reduction up to 100, the library image starts to look ok, but that doesn't account for the huge difference at lower settings.
    There is also a dramatic slow down in the develop module when trying to make any of these changes in noise reduction and more, and also in side-by-side when trying to scroll around in the image to compare areas. Things really crawl. There is a definite two or three second delay before things respond. I have 8gigs in this mac pro, which worked beautifully with LR 3.6

    And, is there a fix in the works?
    Try rendering 1:1 previews for noisy images.

  • LR 2.5 / Sony A700 / Noise Reduction

    i there,
    I have tested LR 2.5 with Sony raw files (>= ISO 1600).
    My experience is, that
    - there are improvements in color noise reduction ( no more color spots)
    - but another problem is still unsolved:
    The Sony "Image Data Converter SR" has a much better noise handling comparing to LR (YES, i made a new import to LR).
    The problem is, that in areas of "nearly the same color", i.e. in black shadows,  LR is producing ugly structures, which are missing in the sony converter.
    Any experiences from other A700 users?
    Best regards

    It would be easier to comment if you posted a screen capture and attached it to your forum message so people can comment based on what they see.
    I am not famliiar with Sony's software, but Lightroom is non-destructive and so has to do all of it's processing on the fly every time you make an adjustment to the image so it will never do as good as software that takes seconds per image to reduce noise using sophisticated algorithms that only run once and then the changes are baked into the image.
    Sony's software is likely tuned for the particular camera's noise-characteristics which is something LR will be, because it supports 100s of cameras and doesn't do something different from one to the next.
    That said, my general complaint is that LR doesn't allow enough sharpening or noise-reductoin...the sliders need to be allowed to go much higher for particular situations.
    I have Photoshop and use NoiseNinja or NoiseWare plug-ins as a post-processing step if NR is really important, but tend to get ok results with most things wtihout resorting to Photoshop.

  • Why is my noise reduction lost in photoshop elements editor?

    I took some star shots recently in RAW format. When I open them in elements, I first get a window that lets me make changes to the RAW file, including exposure, clarity, sharpness, noise reduction... etc. I adjust the noise reduction with the luminosity sliders and get a good looking picture (a lot of noise removed). However, when I click "Open Image" to get it into the editor, it loads the image into the work space with all of the RAW edits I just made, except the noise reduction (it reverts back to the original amount of noise). Why is this and how can I stop it from happening?

    The top larger image is the "after" I save (.png form), the screenshot within photoshop is the "before"...
    I've also tried to the merge layers beforehand as well, but it actually just displays the image as if it were the saved version, with the noise coming through extremely hard. I just didn't save it yet.
    I appreciate the suggestion!

  • Noise reduction adjustments

    The blue skies are often noisy, and look ugly, while some details of the image may also be noisy, but in an irrelevant way. How about making it possible to adjust noise reduction based on color? After all, LR already has lots of great color based modification possibilities, why not also one for noise reduction? Also, I guess it'd be nice to have different noise reduction strength modifiers for shadows/midtones/highlights, maybe even a "noise reduction curve"?

    Personally, I like the total control aspect of Neat Image. It allows you to make a mask based on (I think) 10 levels of luminosity and per RGB color channel. Then it allows you to adjust noise based on frequency, and color/luminosity.
    I realize this amount of control over noise may be toooo much to ask for in LR. But I would like some of it. As this approach to noise control is the most effective!
    For example:
    Allow adjustable masking in the Shadows/midtones/highlights based on rgb data. Then allow luminous and color noise reduction. This level of control I think would do well in LR

  • Noise reduction query

    Hello! I'm not a new user to Adobe Audition, but feel a bit out of my depth in this regard. I was just wondering if anyone could suggest the best way to edit out all the noise in the track illustrated below? It's a dialogue track but there is a lot of movement / rustling in between. Can this be taken out easily without affecting the dialogue?
    Thanks in advance for any help!!

    My guess is that as long as you can get a good sample of only rustling noises, you may be able to reduce somewhat the rustling noise.  Knocking them out to the point where you hardly ever heard them would require painstaking editing that would not be worth the time in most situations.  Knocking them out entirely would either change the timbre of the speakers voice or add annoying artifacts to the recording, or both.  I would settle for a try at a slight reduction, reasonably quick, somewhat improved, nothing made worse.
    If I understand the display I'm looking at in the original post, someone is speaking and we see the spoken words as the most active part of the display.  In between the spoken words, we see minor activity near the bottom of the display, and you're hearing that activity as rustling noises, which you want eliminated.  Correct?  If that's the case, I would not be working in spectral view.  I primarily use spectral view for locating distinctive sounds  (particularly LP album clicks or pops) which do not show up distinctly  in waveform view because they blend in with the display of the music,  whereas in spectral view, they have a very distinctive signature (a  sharp red line which appears very distinct from musical peaks). There's nothing wrong with spectral view, other than slowing screen refreshes; it just doesn't add useful information for this editing job.  I'd switch to waveform view and highlight a portion of the rustling noise.  It should be average in amplitude, not the most annoying rustling, and it should have no trace of noise (including vocal reverb) other than rustling noises.  A couple of seconds is sufficient.  Sometimes when I can't find a couple of seconds of the target noise together, I'll splice shorter segments together to get it.  But it is important that the rustling noise be pure rustling and not unusually loud examples of it.
    Once you've highlighted a couple of seconds of random, average-amplitude rustling-only noise, in Effects>Noise Reduction>Noise Reduction, hit the Capture Profile button.  This samples the rustling noises and creates a profile of them.  Hit the Select Entire File button. The entire file should be highlighted.  Slide the Noise Reduction slider down to about 70, and hit Preview.  What you're doing is listening to what your file, and you'll key in on voices now, will sound like with the rustling noises dampened down.  Listen very carefully to determine if the vocal timbre of the speaker is changing, or if you hear any odd digital artifacts, which will often sound like faint wind chimes.  (You shouldn't, with the Noise Reduction slider set to only 70; at 100, you might, or if you run Noise Reduction repeatedly, you eventually will hear artifacts.)  If you don't like the effect, move the slider.  It can be better to make two passes (particularly on a loud portion of rustling, highlighting only that part instead of Select Entire File) of Noise Reduction with the slider set in the 50-70 range, than one pass at 90-100.  Listen again to the file, and Undo if necessary.  Only Save to a copy, or to the original if you're absolutely sure the entire file is better.  Otherwise, if you save back to your original file, you can lock in digital artifacts you introduced with Noise Reduction that cannot be later removed after you realize how annoying they are.

  • How do PS CS3 Noise Reduction Filters compare with dedicated third-party plug-ins?

    Am I missing something by not installing a dedicated Noise Reduction application into my PS CS3? Can Neat Image, Noise Ninja, Noiseware Pro, etc. do something that the PS CS3 Noise Filters can't do? Do these third-party aplications do it better?
    Since I like flashless photography, and I generally carry with me small-sensor compacts when I travel, I'm frequently confronted with the problem of digital noise. I've always wondered how the third-party noise reduction applications perform in comparison with the Photoshop Noise Filters. I hope someone in this Forum has been able to acquire direct experience on this topic and will be kind enough to share this experience with us.
    Kindest Regards,
    Conrad

    Conrad,
    ACR 4.3 has better NR (noise reduction) than previous versions and can handle NR in most normal situations. However, available light photography with a small pixel sensor may require more NR and the specialized plugins such as Noise Ninja, NeatImage, and NoiseWare Pro can do a better job. I have all three and they do an excellent job, but I currently use NoiseWare most of the time.
    Here is a demonstration of NoiseWare vs ACR NR, using 100% crops of an image taken with the Nikon D200, 1/320 sec at f/2.8. The image is reasonably sharp at normal viewing conditions, but has quite a lot of luminance noise. It was rendered with ACR and the settings were exposure +0.85, brightness +60. One thing you learn early in this type of shooting is to expose to the right to reduce noise, but this may conflict with stopping action and reducing camera shake. More exposure would have helped this image, and one should try to avoid exposures requiring this amount of positive exposure adjustment.
    The results are shown below, followed by some discussion. Other comments are welcome. Color noise is not prominent in this image and I left color NR at its default.
    ACR, No sharpening, no NR
    ACR, Luminance NR 53, no sharpening
    ACR, No NR, No sharpening, NoiseWare default, no sharpening
    Noise reduction and sharpening are antagonistic processes. It is important that NR is applied before sharpening--you don't want to sharpen noise. Following NR there is an inevitable loss of detail, and some sharpening is necessary to restore the detail, but this also brings back the noise. One can use masks and blend if sliders in Photoshop in both NR and sharpening to mitigate some of these effects, and Bruce Fraser discusses the details in his excellent book on sharpening.
    If you use an add on such as NoiseWare, you should turn off luminance sharpening in ACR. In doing so, you lose all those nifty sharpening features that have recently been added to ACR. I leave color NR at the default. It has a minimal effect on detail.
    In adjusting the NR in ACR at 100% viewing, I estimated that a luminance setting of +53 was optimal. Beyond that, blotchy artifacts appear in the image.
    For NoiseWarePro, I used the default settings with no sharpening. The NR effect is dramatic, but detail is lost and some sharpening is needed. This could be applied in NoiseWare or in Photoshop, perhaps with a plugin such as PhotoKit Sharpener. Personally, I have found that PK does not work well with this type of image because it bring back noise and produces artifacts.
    In all of these examples, sharpening is needed following the NR. One could try to use surface masks to keep sharpening in Photoshop with the unsharp mask away from the edges. However, I find it is difficult to get a good surface mask, and I don't take the trouble.
    For now, I use the sharpening built into NoiseWare. I don't know how it works internally, but it does have a slider for detail protection, and you can play with this to get the best result. It would be best to have the robust NR of the add ons built into ACR much like NoiseNinja is built into Bibble Pro. However, this is an ACR forum and I would expect that ACR is the preferred raw converter of those who frequent this forum.
    After expending this much effort on the post, I hope to get some helpful feedback.

  • How to separately control color and luminescence noise reduction?

    Most of the time a little bit of Chroma noise reduction is all I need. I don't want to degrade the sharpness by applying luminescence blur unless I have to. Lightroom 3 has separate sliders. Is there a way to do this in Aperture 3?

    What code do you already have for changing the color and the number of elements?  Whatever it is you need to somehow tie that to being able to control it with a slider.  Would this be one slider to control both properties, or a different slider dedicated to each?

Maybe you are looking for