De-Noise DSLR?

Hello. I can't seem to find a defininitve answer on the internet for this. If I have Canon 7D footage that I've converted via neoscene, or for that matter, the original .mov files if I wanted to edit natively and save time, do I need to de-noise the footage first before editing and color correcting? I've edited a film and am color correcting, but I stumbled on Shane Hurlbut's webpage about CC in Premiere and he very casually mentions de-noising so without elaboration I'm not sure whether I should do that or not. Some footage I don't even notice noise unless I look very closely, but I am just using one corner of the screen in premiere, so likely on a tv screen it'll be more noticeable. But is this a rule of thumb I should follow? Thanks.

If you have time and horsepower to denoise offline so that you can be denoising while you are editing with the original file, that's a smart way to go. Then all you have to do is replace the media with the denoised media prior to export and it saves a lot of time.
However, many people don't know they need to denoise, or only need to denoise a small proportion of their footage, so what we do is:
1) Edit.
2) Denoise
3) Colour
In the case of Neat Video and Colorista II (a combination we use a lot) we do the denoise and colour at the same time (on export), but put the denoise before the colour in the effects chain.

Similar Messages

Color noise in highlights in 16 bit comp (DSLR footage)

Hi,
I'm trying out a workflow to get the most out of my DSLR footage and it results in some weird color noise (not sure what to call it) as shown in the picture.
Here's the workflow I'm using: https://vimeo.com/39979623
Basically, I import the DSLR footage into a 16 bit project, apply Red Giant Denoiser and dither (noise). At this stage the footage looks fine.
I then render using Avid DNxHD as video codec and change colors to trillions. If I play that exported footage in VLC, there is no noise.
I re-import that footage into AE (same or new project in 16 bit) and now the highlights have gone weird and it also persists when I render the comp to h264. If I change it to a 8 bit project, that problem disappears.
Could anyone explain what's happening?
Thanks!
I'm using CS6.

Apologies
After Effects CS6 11.0.4.2
Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz, 3201 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 12 Logical
16GB RAM
GeForce GTX 680 (driver version 347.52)
I have installed NVIDIA GPU Computing Toolkit 6.0 but I think there is a new version - I have no idea if that has anything to do with this but I'll update it tomorrow in any case.

How do you retain the quality of Canon HD DSLR files?

     There is a noticeable loss of contrast (and color) when Canon 1D DSLR 1280x720 60fps files are loaded into Premiere Pro CS6, (by me). Many different project settings give this same result. Whether New Sequence - Project settings are Canon XF MPEG2, Digital SLR, AVCHD, or XD CAM HD422, I get nearly the same, (or identical) results. Changing New Sequence>Settings to enable Maximum Bit Depth and Maximum Rendering Quality, made no difference for me.
(NOTE - Edit>Preferences>Memory>Optimize Rendering for 'memory' was selected and the program restarted, before enabling Maximum Rendering Quality).
     Comparing source files played in Windows Media Player, VLC player, and Canon Zoom Browser, all showed higher contrast than in Premiere Pro: toggling between the different windows. Comparing identical frame screen captures from Premiere Pro CS6 (bitmap) and Canon Zoom Browser (jpeg-highest quality) showed the same results. At full zoom in Photoshop CS4, certain pixels showed near posterization in the Premiere screen shot. It seemed that gray tones of medium brightness were affected most.
     The Canon 1d DSLR stores files as a .MOV type, but I don't think Premiere considers this when loading source files. I don't own the Quicktime program.
     I don't have a CUDA graphics card, but I thought that this card was not supposed to affect file coding or de-coding, according to the Video2Brain hardware optimization tutorials. Although it might have been that read and write TIMES were unaffected. These tutorials covered a LOT of (good) material. My notes say that CUDA cards most affect scaling, blending, 'effects' operations, color corrections, and framing. Also, by setting New Sequence>Settings> to optimize rendering, I think I should have got results similar to a CUDA card.
     For me, the loss of contrast (and color) is a significant loss of image quality. You get the same results from a dirty lens, or shooting through an unfocused obstacle. I would appreciate any help in this matter.

     Thanks John T. Smith, using the Video2Brain tutorial method got me a sequence format of AVC-Intra 100 720 60p, which is one I had not tried before. I believe this format will give me the highest quality video for Canon 1D M4 1280x720 files.
     What I see as far as contrast is very close to what I saw before. Whether the contrast I see is good or bad depends both on personal opinion and monitor charactoristics; mainly the type of monitor and how the monitor is calibrated. Yes I still see lower contrast in the Premiere video, compared to how its displayed in VLC, Windows Media Player and Canon Zoom Browser. Based on my Photoshop experience the Premiere video seems to be going through some kind of low-pass filter. Yes the contrast is less, but the noise is less as well. How would the Premiere video look after adjustment layers, or Shadow highlight combined with resharpening I cannot say.   It might look good to me and bad to someone else or vise versa. What I can say for certain in my mind, is that the Premiere video seems to go through some kind of low pass filtering compared to little or no low pass filtering for what you see in the other 3 programs. And based on my personal habits, I would probably be tempted at this point to adjust that low pass filter in some way. However, it seems that standard practice would be to apply adjustment layers, etc as I mentioned before. I'll reserve my opinion for now.

Block noise in CC2014 Adobe Media Encoder Quicktime H.264 Export

I would love some input from the community here. Perhaps someone else is having a similar issue.
I've been wanting to make a full switch from CS6 to CC2014, but I am experiencing a host of issues that I don't experience in CS6. For one, when I export my Canon 5DMK3 DSLR timeline using Quicktime (H.264), I get an abrasive global noise all over my rendered video as if I was using a low data rate. I use the same settings in CS6 and experience no issues.
Since YouTube compression hides these artifacts, so please download and view original file: Dropbox - RenderArtifactsQuicktimeH264.mp4
Format: Quicktime
Video Codec: H.264
Quality: 100
23.976fps
progressive
Use Max Render Quality
Render at Maximum Depth
10,000 kbps
What I've tried:
1) exporting at 720p and 1080p
2) another codec (H.264 mp4 exports are clean)
3) all combinations of the "Use Max Render Quality" and "Render at Maximum Depth" settings
4) exporting straight from Premiere
5) rendering with and without effects (Magic Bullet Looks, sharpening)
6) GPU (CUDA) enabled and software only (on project and on Adobe Media Encoder)
Custom Desktop Specs:
Intel i7-3960X @ 3.3GHz
32GB RAM
GTX 780 Ti 3GB (and tested Adobe certified regular GTX 780 3GB)
GPU Driver: 340.52 (up to date)
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
SSD OS drive
WEstern Digital 2TB data drive
SSD adobe cache drive
I'm at a complete loss. What else could be contributing to this?

Hi Mark,
I did install the CC 2014.0.1 update and the issue remained. I had a colleague tell me that he experiences the same issue for Format= Quicktime, Codec= h.264 when he has the "limit data rate" option checked with a value. When I unchecked the limit data rate (of my standard 10,000 kbps 720p preset) I got a clean render devoid of the previously mentioned artifacts. However, it defaulted to a 70,000 kbps data rate which of course is higher than I'd like/need. For now I guess I'll be exporting .mp4 h.264, but I'm still curious why the limit data rate doesn't behave like it did in CS6.

How can i take Better pictures from my Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9V like DSLR?Kindly Best Settings...

How can i take Better pictures from my Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9V like DSLR?Kindly Best Settings...

Taking better pictures on an HX9v isn't something you can just 'do'. It takes learning and creativity.
Understanding how the camera works, and having a good imagination to use it.
Look at phone cameras for example, amazing photos.
If you're talking about image quality, that is, less noise, crisp sharp photos, etc, compact cameras in general just won't match the DSLR.
If you're talking about photos that look stunning, again, learn how to use the camera, and be imaginative (creative)
I have a couple of articles to understand the basics to a camera (I really need to find the time to add more) on my website:
http://d3studio.com.au/
One thing I'm definitely lacking on there is composition, and that's something you can learn on YouTube - compositions in a photo is very important when you're first starting out.
Put your 9v onto M (manual) mode, and try out the different things - learn how the camera works, think about what you want to shoot, and then do it.
Good luck.

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

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.

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.

Reduce noise while editing video from Cannon 550D

Hi Guys,
I recently purchased a Cannon 550D and with that a 50mm 1.4 USM lens for my short film that I would be filming because I was on a budget and this was one of the better Video Dslr's out der!
Anyways the video quality in meduim to good lighthing is amazing but when it comes down to low-light I see a lot of noise in the final product so wanted some help.
In low-light I make sure I dont go over ISO 400, well I could do IS0 200 but then the video image gets dark because of the lack of good light so ISO 400 is what I do and the Apperture is at 1.4 with the shutter speed at 1/30.
Couple of points I have noticed..
The video from the camera exports out in H.264 format but as you know editing with that codec is not very smooth,so I convert it to any one of the apple codecs (Apple pro res 4444 or Apple Proxy etc) and when I do that the picture quality goes bad, I mean the video becomes a shade darker and I suspect that it created some noise.
Can you help me with any workarounds?
-A

>I'm actually using embedded FireWire on the motherboard. I do have a PCI FireWire card, so that's worth a try as an alternative - I forgot about potential motherboard issues with embedded controlflers.
If you do that, it's worth noting what MOTU have to say about it:
>MOTU recommends using strictly FireWire PCI/PCMCIA cards based on the Texas Instrument chipset.
Very specifically, they say:
>There's an incompatibility between the NEC chip found in some FireWire cards and the MOTU FireWire line of interface.
I have a Belkin PCMCIA Firewire card with a Texas chipset, and that works fine. I also have a card with a VIA chipset, and whilst it's okay, I get the impression that the Texas one is more stable - had at least one unexpected crash with the VIA one. One one desktop machine I actually bought a Firewire PCI card
after reading MOTU's advice(!) and with those, it's relatively easy to get the right chipset if you look carefully.

MKIII video noise

So first off I should state that although I have had this camera for just under a year I am very new to the DSLR video world (this is my first "real" camera) so please forgive my ignorance or stupidity haha. Anyhow, up until recently I have been able to get really clear video even at higher ISO but for some reason lately, even at lower ISO settings, my video just seems way too grainy and I cant seem to figure out why, I havent changed settings or anything.
If anyone has any tips to try or knows of something that might be malfunctioning or wrong with the camera, tips would be greatly appreciated
Thanks

ryang1 wrote:
So first off I should state that although I have had this camera for just under a year I am very new to the DSLR video world (this is my first "real" camera) so please forgive my ignorance or stupidity haha. Anyhow, up until recently I have been able to get really clear video even at higher ISO but for some reason lately, even at lower ISO settings, my video just seems way too grainy and I cant seem to figure out why, I havent changed settings or anything.
If anyone has any tips to try or knows of something that might be malfunctioning or wrong with the camera, tips would be greatly appreciated
Thanks
Hi and welcome!
I'd like to mention some aspects that may affect the image quality you get from your camera (in stills and video), maybe you can check them and find your problem:
- Sensor heating: Every camera has a sensor, obviously. If you shoot in Live View mode (on which the sensor is always exposed and working), or do "long exposures" stills for long time, your camera' sensor will heat up (faster if you shoot under hot weather conditions).
This must always be kept in mind. For this reason is highly recommended to let the camera cool down after those kind of shots or long use (turning it off, for instance).
- ISO settings: It's widely known that there are specific ISO settings that deliver noiser images than others.
The real native ISOs of the camera are 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc. Although some people have called "native" to the ISO settings mentioned below due to their lower noise levels.
To be clear, if you want to get the less noisy images, you should select ISO multiple of 160. This means: 160, 320, 640, 1250, 2500. The technical reason is because the camera do a digital pull down of the next upper ISO level, with the side effect of reducing noise. This has a down side effect though: you loose a bit of information/dynamic range on the highlights (that may end up clipped easier than in other ISOs), so you have to be careful in this regard. Test and check it by yourself.
As the opposite reason, avoid using ISO settings multiple of 125 (125, 250, 500, etc.) because the camera do a digital push of the ISO below it, resulting in an increase of noise.
The noise is always lot easier to see on dark areas. Light areas won't be affected much.
- Special Camera settings: There are some features/functions that will indeed affect the noise in your image.
These are: Auto Lighting Optimizer and Highlight Tone Priority.
They're great functions, but you should knowing their utility and limitations, and use with caution. Please refer to the manual for an explanation of each one.
- Picture Styles: ALL pictures and videos taken with the Canon cameras are processed through what is called Picture Styles.
Usually the included built-in camera picture styles won't affect much the noise quantity on your shot (although they will certainly change the look of your stills & video, and may deliver different "banding" in strong gradient areas like deep blue sky, etc.).
BUT there are some 3rd party picture styles available for download (some of them mainly aimed for post-production, called "flat" picture styles, etc) that can really affect the noise on the final captured image/video. So be aware and check them before and important job.
Hope this helps!
Regards.
HD Cam Team
Group of photographers and filmmakers using Canon cameras for serious purposes.
www.hdcamteam.com | www.twitter.com/HDCamTeam | www.facebook.com/HDCamTeam

5D2 noise and banding worst in B+W

I have a problem where there is very noticeable banding (+ noise?) in black and white conversions of my CR2 files from my Canon 5Dmk2.
I assume I am using the correct terminology here; I might not be; by 'banding' I mean lines on the image, most noticeably vertical but sometimes also horizontal, giving a chequered pattern.
I only shoot in RAW (not sRAW or jpg) I mention this because firmware 1.0.7 was meant to address these issues but for when shooting in sRAW as I was shooting with the earlier version of the firmware on these files ( I have updated now but havent had time to check out the new firmware v.1.10). I have these probelms even though I shoot in RAW (not sRAW). It might be the camera, I realise that, however as it doesn't seem to be a recognised problem with that camera when shooting RAW, and as I haven't heard reports of it being the camera, I am looking for other solutions/causes.
As I open the RAW files in Prophoto in ACR I thought I'd ask your opinions here. I am quite prepared to accept that it's just me doing something dumb in Photoshop, so I'll give a brief rundown of my process: First I open through ACR and make global adjustments for exposure etc, then in Ps I process the colour version using adjustment layers to tweak levels and use masks to apply this to selective areas. Nothing dramatic. Then I flatten and add B+W adjustment layer and use masks to apply to selective areas. I don't crash the blue or cyan or magenta all the way to the bottom ( which I might expect to dramatically increase noise). In fact those only have very slight adjustments masked to the sky, on this image.
This image was exposed for highlights (sky) so I realise that the offending area will be the least exposed part of the image (i.e. effectively underexposed) but all the same should I be getting such artifacts?
thanks
example:
full pic:
556802641_LkNGo-S.jpg
100%crop of top RHS:
557888476_igLaZ-O.jpg
Forum profile refuses to update so I'll put info here: PsCS4 11.0.1. ACR 5.0.3, LR2.3, Mac G5 dual 2.3PPC 6GB RAM

1. The pattern noise (lines, cross-hatch) is characteristic to Canon DSLRs. The 5D2 exhibits this characteristic unfortunately very strongly (the 1Dxxx cameras are better in this regard). This pattern occurs with all ISOs.
2. The following capture shows the red raw channel on a noisy area (the red is the lowest here). This is past the tenth stop of the dynamic range (the displayed number, -9.18 EV is from pixel saturation). The next capture shows the appearance of the noise at this intensity with ISO 100 on a smooth uniform patch. That noise can be removed, but your shot is more difficult: the noisy area contains fine structures, which would get eliminated by aggressive noise reduction.
http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/Canon5DMkII_ISimonius_Adobe_2012_Noise_Red.GIF
http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/Canon5DMkII_CCC_ISO0100_Noise_Red-9.26EV.GIF
3. Higher exposure helps. Your shot was slightly underexposed; the exposure could have been increased by 2/3 EV without causing clipping of the pixels (in the camera). See the raw histogram: http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/Canon5DMkII_ISimonius_Adobe_2012_Hist.GIF
However, exposure with this accuracy requires either tightly bracketed shots, or a neutral setup resulting in histograms and clipping indication in the camera reflecting the raw data.
4. One possibility to increase the dynamic range of the camera: by a color correction filter, in this case by a magenta filter. As the histograms show, the green channel is half stop ahead of the blue one, even more ahead of the red channel. The magenta filter would reduce the greens more than the reds and blues, thus a 1/3-1/2 EV exposure gain can be attained (a WB shot with the filter on is required!). Unfortunately, there are no high quality color correction filters available.
5. Another possibility: give less weight to the red channel (and somewhat less to the blue as well), so that the green becomes more dominant. However, I don't know how this would affect the resolution. Play with it.
I Hope it helps
Gabor

Noise reduction won't display properly in LR 3.4.1 Develop Module

I encountered this issue first time last night - noise reduction will not show in "Fit" view of the Develop module for pictures that have a graduated filter applied as well. Having said this,
- The pictures display correctly in Library Loupe view (Fit and 100%)
- The pictures display correctly in Develop module when zooming in to 100%
- The pictures display correctly in Develop module when clicking in history on Luminance smoothing (first picture). Selecting the next step in the history, Add Graduated Filter, displays the picture without noise reduction (second picture - I tried on a virtual copy the other way round - first have a graduated filter and then apply noise reduction, but doesn't work either. Noise reduction just won't display in Develop module / Fit View once a graduated filter is applied as well.
Has anyone else seen this behaviour or, even better, found a solution? I already tried purging the raw cache, no success. Working on Windows 7 / 64bit.
Thanks,
Andreas

Jeff, I had difficulty understanding this same issue as presented at the link I posted above. With my low-noise Canon DSLR RAW images I simply couldn't see the onscreen rendering issues they were talking about. It even appeared this might be unique to Mac platforms and Windows 32 bit OS, since my Windows 7 64bit system didn't appear to have this issue.
Following suggestions to shoot a picture at -4 F stops and then increase exposure by +4 F stops in LR helped me get a better understanding:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3857767#3857767
Granted this is an extreme shooting situation, but it helps demonstrate what happens when using exposure, fill and HSL sliders to increase exposure significantly (+2 to +4 EV) in specific areas of the image. Now you have noise that will be visible in smaller exported scaled images, perhaps even those sized for posting to the web.
The issue is at lower ISO settings (camera specific), view sizes less than 1:1 have no noise reduction applied (Mac & Windows) or sharpening applied (Mac & Windows 32). There appear to be platform differences in the way sharpening is applied, because on my Windows 7 64bit system sharpening is applied at all ISO and all view sizes including "fit" view, but noise reduction is only applied at higher ISO settings – the same as all others have described. I wanted to point this out since it is one of the reason I had difficulty duplicating what the OP was seeing.
We know sharpness and noise reduction settings interact with each other, so it is important to have both applied in the onscreen image to determine their affect. Using images with additive Exposure, Fill and HSL slider settings approaching +2 to +4 EV, there is simply no way to see accurate rendering without both noise reduction and sharpness applied at all view sizes, including “fit” view. This can occur with low ISO images, not just at some predetermined camera specific high ISO where noise becomes predominant.

Noise Reduction tool not effective

Hard as I try, I can't see any effect in using the Noise Reduction tool. I've tried it on photos from both compact cameras, as JPGs, and also Raw images from my DSLR. I've tried some images with visible digital noise (low light, long exposure shots), but whatever I do with the sliders, it makes no visible difference to the noise level.
Am I missing a trick, or does this tool just not work very well?
Cheers.

I just tried that, but switching the tool off and on made no difference here. I did find I could type a larger number into the 'Radius' box, which takes it up to 4.00 (it goes to 2.00 on the slider). That did make a visible difference, although it just made the entire image blurry. Adjusting the edge detail only beings out the noise again.
It appears to me that this adjuster is not much more than a simple Gaussian blur with some sharpening. The effects are similar at least. Indeed, I just tried adjusting the same image in Graphic Converter (from a fresh Raw file copy), and it is very similar to using a straight Gaussian blur (radius 4 did the job in GC too), and then apply some sharpening.
The only time I've found Gaussian blur to work well is if you can switch into Lab colour mode, and apply the blur to the different channels.

Camera noise..in the dark...

Hi
lets do a test...
bring the camera up
put to superior auto mode
Now go into a dark room (best to do at night with lights off)
Now what do you see... if its lots of purple snowy effect down both sides
Then this is pure noise of the camera shown to you.
Now then how do you get rid of this noise
go to manual
go to settings and change the ISO to ...well anything....
the noise in the dark will go all together apart from ISO 3200 it will start to come back
so what would you say is the noise in superior auto?
A higher ISO that we can not use in manual?
here is the thing tho ...in manual as soon as you choose `any` ISO the image stabilier switiches itself off...?
So is the noise to do with the image stabiliser or a higher ISO we cannot use in manual mode...

rictv_me - I don't feel insulted You are right another time.
Higher ISO speed = more noise. That's the way digital sensor works (it's called grain on analog film). You can compare it to sensitivity to the light, but there must be any light anyway.
Even professional DSLRs can't shoot without any light, because light makes a photo. In image stabilization mode phone sets ISO automatically to be speed enough to capture the scene without making moved photo. And it is digital process, so there is no way to use IS with custom ISO, it can't work this way.
When everything have failed already, try to read the manual.
Kudos mean I am helpful. Am I for you? Then support me back

Manual Audio Level Controls! - Sony Alpha DSLRS (A65)

Dear Sony -I absolutely love your DSLRs. However, to use the camera as an acceptable tool for amateur/indie/professional film, manual audio level controls in video mode are a must-have. Equal Canon competitors all feature this simple leveling option for managing audio.Currently, the automatic gain control is the only option for audio recording capabilities on Sony Alpha DSLRS in video recording. While in theory OK, AGC leads to terrible problems such as unnecessarily high and distracting background noise/hiss. Filmmakers desire crisp, clear audio!For quality results using an external microhpone, manual audio levels are the only way for filmmakers to achieve decent in-camera audio to compete with Canon users. Many amateur and professional videographers are in desperate need of this function! Audio is often MORE important than the image quality of your film, although Sony seems to increasingly neglect its video DSLR users by not implementing this ability and falling short on video options (Auto-focus in Manual Mode, audio levels on HUD etc.).To keep my Sony A65 a viable option for video work - please see if anything can be done! (Should be able to be added with a firmware update to all current and existing Alpha DSLRS) Thanks!!! - Love, a filmmaker who would desperately like to keep their A65 for professional video work! (Also from "Join The Inspiration")

Though a great idea, you also have to understand that the a65 isn't as film oriented camera like other cameras.
DSLR cameras with the audio controls are designed with film making in mind, thus they have that option.
Most DSLRs (at least, back in the days) was simply a camera to take photos. If you wanted to do film, you'd buy a dedicated film recorder for that. Having video capabilities in a DSLR was a bonus.
Nowadays, it's merging, bang for buck, reaching to a boarder audience, one size fits all, etc, and unfortunately, the a65 wasn't part of that 'nowadays' era.
The a99 and a77ii, if I remember correctly, has audio controls.
A lot of the newer Sony models (mirrorless) also have audio controls, that is, the ones that a targeted towards film making and not just great photos with the bonus of great video.
Also, I would presume that a lot of 'professional' videographers will either use external mics such as on a pole, a lapel mic, etc, to capture perfect audio, or if not, at least a shotgun/boom mic attached to the camera.
When doing such, there technically shouldn't be a lot of problems with the audio quality. Of course, if those external mics are still recorded into the camera, then yeah... but if they're recorded separately and slapped on during post processing... shouldn't be any problems...
If you're relying purely on the a65 and it's AGC, then there definitely will be shortcomings here and there unfortunately.
I recently filmed my niece-in-law's wedding. I didn't have any fancy mic setups (can't afford it at this stage), and this wasn't any sort of 'professional' work, more of just something for the family (free), but the audio came out excellent. Yes, it caught ambient noise (obviously), but I don't hear any cutoffs or badly pitched noises, or anything. The loud music and people cheering on and such all came through very clearly. Sure, it's no 'professional' bitrate or anything, but at 192kbps, it did the job.
Anyways, that was off topic, but all I'm saying is, you can't expect much from a photo taking centred camera which has been slapped on with nice video capabilities unfortunately. Also, due to the a65's age, I don't think Sony's bringing out anymore updates. My advice is either get an a77ii for it's awesome AF, or if full frame is a desire, then the a99 or a mirrorless (up to you).The a99 has a controllable focus range which is something I like, that way, if you're using autofocus (yeah... what 'professional' videographer would use autofocus aye?), you won't lose focus on subjects if something goes in front/behind it.Also, the little wheel at the front really helps in allowing you to make adjustments without disrupting video or causing too much movement in the camera. Right now, I am planning on getting a RX10ii. Though I'd love to get something from the mirrorless range, it's just way out of my budget (even the RX10ii is, so there's a lot of saving to do right now also...). Anyways, good luck with your videos.

De-Noise DSLR?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for