High ISO noise handling

First, I must say thank you for DNG Profile Editor and generic Camera * profiles. You did really outstanding work!
The last part that we need to completely abandon Nikon Capture NX2 is better noise model for high ISO NEFs. Please see following samples how NX2 compares to ACR 5.2. For my eyes the NX2 render noise in very pleasing manner: fine and smooth texture. I didn't find way how to get similar results with ACR.
ACR 5.2: http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6147/acr52ba7.jpg
NX2: http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/2139/nx2fi6.jpg
Please see both images in 100% zoom.
Any chance to introduce NX2-like noise look into ACR?

>Jeff, you can say the same for example about capture sharpening.
No, you can't...noise is supper high frequency texture, edges in an image may or may not be high, medium or low frequency but most images do not contain super high frequency along the lines of the noise. Hence the ability to sharpen the edge and not the noise (and the ability ti reduce the noise) So, ignoring the capture sharpening is leaving image detail on the table, ignoring noise is not.
Some people fall in love with the film grain look of digital camera noise. It ain't film grain. If you like film grain you CAN put it in an image after the fact but noise simply breaks up the continuity of the photographic image.
In your posted example, you had noise eduction off and sharpening at default. Both of which combine to reduce the image quality you can get from that image. Considering the ACR was at default, I think it did pretty darn good against NX.
Again, you really need to understand what you think you are seeing. Everything you see on a computer display is 3-4 times as large as reality at a 100% zoom. It's meaningless if the final result is a print.

Similar Messages

High ISO Noise Setting on 6D

Just got a 6D as a companion to my BMCC for when I need low light shots and wider shots. It's been a little while since I had my 5D MKIII and I am trying to remember how I had my camera set up for video. Right now I am trying to figure out if I need to have High ISO Noise Reduction set to off or another setting. I have heard from photographers that it can cause you to lose some detail, and it's best to address the noise in post. Since I will be shooting at higher ISOs I am wondering how I should set it. For those who shoot a lot of video, what has been your experience in different situations?
Also, what do you guys think about the current picture styles? I have heard a lot about Technicolor. People praise it a lot but I also hear that it has some noise problems. Would love to hear some opinons on current picture profiles.

See below for text from the 6D manual . This paragraph sounds like HINR is added to the metadata of a RAW file and not directly applied. It also could mean that LightRoom and Adobe RAW don't use this metadata? Does anyone know if this guess is correct?
EOS 6D Manual:
If you play back a RAW image with the camera or print an image directly, the effect of high ISO speed noise reduction may look minimal. Check the noise reduction effect or print noise-reduced images with Digital Professional (provided software).

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

High ISO noise

Anybody else getting nasty noise in high ISO images, especially in the dark areas? I know ISO 1600 is going to be noisy, but when I process such an image in Aperture, it's ugly.

Running the image through Noise Ninja (which is excelent, of course) either a Photoshop plug-in or directly through the stand-alone NN, is clunky and obviates one of the claimed advantages of Aperture: it saves the master and some (small) parameterization of the changes that have been made. If you run an image through an external editor, it must save the whole result (I think as a new master).
The conclusions are not only that Aperture should support plug-ins - but the plug-in interface needs to be pretty sophisticated to retain the Aperture advantages. It must return a succinct parameterization of the changes made.
The Aperture noise reduction is essentially dysfunctional. It is not nearly as good as Adobe, which is not nearly as good as NN. Even if NN was licensed to Apple and built into Aperture, I think there would be a problem: one pays for the quality of NN in computation - if Aperture had to redo the NN modifications to the master every time the was displayed, one would probably want at least an eight processor G5! (Or whatever the Intel equivalent would be.)
PowerMac G5 2 x 2.3 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.3) Canon 20D

Is the 70D significantly better than the 7D at handling high ISO situations?

I have a 6D and it has really spoiled me with it's low noise high ISO capabilities. I'm wondering if the 70D is significantly better than my 7D when it comes to handling high ISOs. It has the same sensor as the 6D and I really like that view screen on the 70D.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

The 6D has a "full frame" sensor - physical dimensions are close to the 36mm x 24mm size of a 35mm film negative frame.
Both the 7D and 70D have APS-C sensors - physical dimensions are close to 22mm x 15mm and close to the same size of a negative frame from "Advanced Photo System - Class" size film.
While the 7D and 70D have sensors which are roughly the same size, the sensors themselves are very different because the 70D has the new dual-pixel AF technology.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

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...

Very neat algorithm for noise reduction for high ISO

I thought of this algorithm for the suppression of parasitic points occurring at high ISO
ISO 6400
before
http://i053.radikal.ru/1009/26/ba1c56f4837b.jpg
after
http://s56.radikal.ru/i153/1009/73/ffcdcd185821.jpg
Operation for photoshop, but for the Russian version and the English version must rename the layers ...
http://rapidshare.com/files/417172652/Noise15.atn
P.S.
Maybe it will help you to further improve noise reduction algorithms

Hi travojed !
Thank you for your message
I came to the conclusion that the high level "Median" (or "Dust&Scratches") destroys parts in this algorithm.
And it seemed to me that the best result (when the contours remain sharp) will be if, instead of a "median" using the Topaz Denoize (Raw-moderate), because Topaz protects the sharp contours in this algorithm.
Example (at full resolution - copy the address into a separate window)
(RAW 6400)
before
http://s57.radikal.ru/i157/1009/73/ec1fbac57a83.jpg
after
http://s43.radikal.ru/i101/1009/fd/c30219adfc74.jpg
P.S.
I do not recommend using a constant value "Threshold" because at different values of the ISO get different noises
travojed If you give me your example of a noisy image, I can see how best to remove the noise

Hi. I'm having trouble with noise at high ISO settings with 5D Mark III.

I've only recently starting using this camera and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. The high ISO NR is set on high but I'm still seeing noise above ISO 1000. Am I perhaps just not focusing correctly. I had a daytime shoot today, but we were in low light areas at times and I cranked up the ISO but when I processed I had to do NR in LR which only slightly remedied the problem. Please advise. I noticed on the forum that there was a firmware upgrade. I bought the camera in December do I have to do an upgrade as well?

Yeah, with older versions of LR and PS I would specially convert high ISO RAW files using DPP, instead of my usual process with Lightroom and Photoshop. But now I've seen a big improvement in NR with the later versions of Adobe products... Lightroom 3 and later Photoshop CS5 and later. Now using LR4 and CS6, I rarely see need to use Canon DPP.
But I also use Noiseware Pro at times, with particularly high ISO shots. It can be used as a stand-alone or as a Photoshop plug-in. (I do the latter.)
If shooting JPEGs, make sure your in-camera NR settings are correct. All digital images start out as RAW files.... when you set the camera to produce JPEGs instead, you are simply doing the RAW conversion in-camera and all the "extra" data is thrown away in the process.
The key thing in any case is to avoid underexposure at all costs.
In order to minimize noise at all levels, you do not want to be increasing (pushing) exposure at all during post-processing. In fact, it's often better to be pulling or reducing exposure a bit. I know folks who regularly over-expose +1/3 or even +2/3 stop at higher ISOs... sometimes even more depending upon the situation. They get really good results.
Canon's metering seems to still follow the old rule of slight underexposure that was useful with slide/transparency film. You had to be very careful to prevent over-exposure with slide film, because the highlights in transparencies are a lack any "data"... the final image on the film is nearly or completely clear in those areas.... while shadow areas have a wealth of "data".
With digital files, it's just the opposite. Shadows are an absence of data, while highlights are a preponderence of it. So you are a lot better off over-exposing slightly... In other words, with digital files highlights are more "recoverable" than shadows. Just don't do too much, as it's still possible to "blow out" highlights to the point that fine detail is unrecoverably lost.
I also agree that one of the mistakes people make is viewing their images too large on their computer monitor. If you are looking at an image "100%", that's the same as viewing a 5 foot wide print from 18" away (assuming that your computer monitor is a typical modern one and is set to it's native resolution). Unless you are planning on making a 40x60" print, and even then since you will likely be viewing it from a much greater distance, back off to 50% or less when evaluating your images (feel free to zoom in when retouching, just don't expect miracles).
The best way to evaluate your images is with a print, anyway. You'll be stunned at the dynamic range, additioanl fine detail and overall quality of an image, once it's printed. It is nearly always far and away better than what you see on your computer monitor. When printing use a high quality printer and smooth, matte paper, for the the most critical evaluation . If your printer isn't able to print large enough, crop out a section of the image. Glossy and lustre/semi-gloss papers actually hide a lot of fine detail.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Disappointed in the quality of the 1.1 raw converter at high isos

I've been using Lightroom since the first Windows beta, and the very first thing that jumped out at me was the wonderful way it handled digital noise at high isos. It seemed to convert it to a unique kind of grain -- I thought of it as digital grain.
I started shooting at ISO 1600 intentionally just to get that look. ISO 1600, jam the color noise reduction up to 100 percent, and leave the luminance slider at 0. Ah, heaven!
I upgraded to 1.1, and since I've been doing some high-key work at lower isos recently, I didn't notice a change. Then, a few weeks ago I was editing some old stuff, and I zoomed in, and thought "That's odd. It looks like there is some luminance smoothing going on." I checked the luminance slider, and it was still at 0.
I was absolutely positive I found a bug, so I googled, and that lead me here, where I read numerous threads on the subject. OK, I get it, the new de-mosiacing algorithms can reduce the level of noise for a certain level of perceived detail. I've checked it out, and in some of my images I can see what that means. I'd have to say I like the new look in 3 out of the 250 or so ISO 1600 images I've looked at so far. I tried just living with it -- maybe I was being too afraid of change, and maybe I would get used to it over time. Sadly, that wasn't the case.
The fact is, even if the overall level of noise has gone down since v. 1.0, the
type of noise changed, and it's something that I can clearly see in my larger prints. Do I see it in my smaller prints? Not really. But every time I zoom in to 100 percent on an image, I grate my teeth, and become just a little bit more resentful.
For me the whole point of Lightroom is that I'm able to process my images, come back in six months, and have them be exactly the same as they were before. If my older images start shifting around and changing themselves behind my back every time I upgrade, what's the point?
I butt my head against this every time I process stuff at high isos, and I get extremely frustrated when working with some of the 1.5k+ shots I intentionally shot at 1600 just to get the wonderful luminance noise look.
So I'm going to plead with the development team here:
please give me my old noise profile back! Don't make me downgrade my entire library to 1.0 and live with version 1.0 on Windows forever. Give me some hope!

I knew about this issue with the version 1.1 but, sincerely, I was quite happy with the new improved sharpen and noise reduction tools, and also with the clarity tools and all the improvements... until now.
I just have printed a more or less big print (20x25cm), I looked at the print and... "what's that?". My print seems a paint. It just seems this kind of pics you get after applying some "oil paint" filter in your favorite image editing software. HORRIBLE. I don't know if the print interpolation (I just added some resolution in the print module) also accentuated this effect.
Definitively I don't like this "look". It's too different from any other raw converter. It doesn't seems a photograph, digital or not. Version 1.0 had some issues, maybe it was too noisy and the sharpening wasn't good but you could use your favorite noise reduction sw or your editing sw and improve noise/sharpen. What can I do with this "paint"?.

Problems sharpening high ISO-files from Sony A700 in ACR 4.2

According to the reported problems with sharpening/noise-reduction high ISO-RAWs from Canon-cameras, the same issue seams to appear on ARW-Files of the Sony alpha 700.
Many of A700-users claim, that the pictures show a sort of watercolour effect. These effect will be the more recognizable, the higher the ISO-setting at the camera was. To explain what I mean, heres a 100%-crop of an shot at ISO 1600:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The writing seems somehow rough; there are a lot oft artifacts at the edges. Settings were:
Basic: Dynamic/Vibrance 0
Detail: Amount 33%, Radius 0.6, Detail 0 (!), Masking 20, Luminance 14, Color 10.
(The edges would have been much rougher, if I had set Detail to 25 (default) ore more.)
And here is what the Sony Image Data Converter did:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The edges are clear, I cant see any artifacts.
Now my questions:
Is this problem typical for the Sony A700 or does it appear to other cameras too?
How can I avoid this problem using ACR 4.2? I really dont want to use the Sony-Converter, because its slow and complex to handle.
Which are the best settings for sharpening and NR files from the A700 in ACR 4.2?
Please excuse my English Im German.
Anna

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

A77- High ISO colour cast

Hi everyone,
I am a proud owner of a shiny A77 and was greatly pleased to see LR3.5 supporting this camera.
General impressions of the LR conversions are very good until I get to ISO6400 or higher. No problems with grain or noise (except that it's high ISO, of course there is some grain!) but the LR conversions start to show an increasingly obtrusive red/pink colour cast which is particularly noticeable in darker parts of the picture.
I've shot 'RAW+JPG' and compared the output from the camera's JPG engine to what I can get out of RAW in LR3.5 and at ISO6400, the LR conversion has a hint of pink. At 12800, the LR is definitely pink and at the ultimate ISO of 16000, LR is positively rose tinted! The out-of-camera JPGs are not showing this colour cast.
I've tried resetting the LR develop settings all to zero, then reimporting files with no develop presets, tried the built in 'zeroed' preset. I even tried using my colorchecker passport to build a one-off colour profile, but it still comes out pinkish.
Is this because the camera Adobe Standard profile is quite new and needs a bit of tweaking? My A55 colours are handled quite nicely in LR by comparison. I had a sneaky peak at the Adobe Camera profiles folder on my computer (c:\documents and settings\all users\application data\adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\AdobeStandard) and noticed the file "Sony SLT-77V Adobe Standard.dcp" is 115kb along with the A65's equivalent and most others are only 55kb or 56KB.
In fact, the only large (115kb) .dcp files are all dated 15/9/2011 and belong to recently launched cameras. (Ricoh A12, Panasonic FZ150, Pentax Q etc).
Can anyone give me a clue?
Has Adobe invented a new type of .dcp file? Is it not handling high ISO colour very well?
Cheers

mikey: Lr does not currently adjust the black point for very high ISO images (any differently than low ISO images). So, you may see a magenta cast in the shadows at very high ISO. You can partially compensate for this by adjusting the "Shadow Tint" slider in the Camera Calibration panel.

High pitch noise in CS4 and CS5.5

Hello.
Firstly I want to say that yes I know people have asked this question before but as far as I can tell none of them have been solved. Some have somewhat useful answers but none of them truely solve the problem. This thread in particular probably has the most information about the problem I'm having http://forums.adobe.com/message/4298535#4298535
I recently tried Premiere Pro CS5.5 and CS4 (trial version) to replace my Corel Video Studio X6 which tried to replace Windows Movie Maker. Video Studio and Movie Maker both crash whenever I imported large video files.
Anyway I'm getting a problem where the video files I import to Premiere Pro CS4 and CS5.5 have a high pitch noise in the video preview.
It's a high pitch noise almost like it's getting feedback from something. Also when someone is supposed to be talking there's a very low distortion, like the audio started playing in very slow motion but the high pitch noise is still present.
I'll put a link at the end with the video file that's giving me trouble.
The video and audio are in a single AVI file. The video format is H264 shot at 60fps and the audio should be Mpeg-1 L2, 48khz at 320kbps. I don't know if the video's audio is in 24bit or 16bit.
I've tried different settings for premiere. Trying 60fps and 30fps for the framerate for the project. Trying 44khz and 32khz and 96khz didn't fix it. Using the "Desktop" preset in CS4 and Custom for CS5.5.
My audio hardware is a Logitech G930. It's a wireless USB headset with microphone. My motherboard audio is Realtek HD Audio. Both are enabled but I only use the headset now and nothing is being sent to the Realtek audio chip (according to Windows' sound options). The headset plays audio at 16bit 48khz.
The video file plays fine in every media program I own that can play the h264 codec. With the exception of Movie Maker and Video Studio x6. Video Studio will preview the video and audio just fine but when I try and skip around the program hangs and crashes. Movie Maker just plain crashes when I try and import the video. Some of the programs that can play the video are VLC, Media Player 11, and Media Player Classic.
I'm not sure if Final Cut Pro has the same problem. I don't have a Mac so I can't test it.
Here's a sample video that works the way it should. I pulled a BIK file from a game and converted it to H264 in AVI. Not sure what it's audio format is.
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/15fr85n78xfu94x/Opening_Cinematic_Placeholder.avi
Just click the download button at the top right.
Here's an afflicted file. Not the exact specific file I have been talking about, but it has the same codecs. This one is shorter in length and smaller in size. It still has the high pitch noise, but since there is no one talking in this you don't hear the weird low pitch distortions.
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/qqbk0n6io0lspn5/eso_2014-02-28_20-08-18-959.avi
Just click the download button at the top right.
If there's anymore infor you need let me know.
Thanks.

>single AVI file. The video format is H264
H.264 will not work inside an AVI wrapper http://forums.adobe.com/thread/854115
-Insignia camera uses H.264 to either AVI... SOME to MOV wrapper
-so use the MOV wrapper if YOUR Insignia camera offers that option
-Says VLC will convert in reply #6 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1172956
>can't believe a professional piece of software can't handle something this simple
As Jim said, not within the design specifications because it is non-standard video

ACR v4.1 vs v4.0: baseline high ISO NR - Part 1

Hi there,
I have been participating in a couple of threads in both this forum and the Lightroom forum with regards to additional "baseline" noise-reduction that appears to be happening on high ISO Canon files. To start, here are the links to the other threads:
ACR Forum (I started that thread):
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc4323e/
Lightroom Forum:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc44a00/
Here is a summery of the issues as I see them so far:
1) I, and numerous other photographers, are objecting to what appears to be additional baseline smoothing being done to high ISO raw files in ACR v4.1, even with the luminance NR slider at zero. Most users complaining appear to be shooting with Canon.
2) At issue is the (apparent) smearing of some micro-detail due to noise-reduction and an overall artificial looking rendering of detailed scenes when examined closely. In addition, out of focus details can start looking a little posterized and indeed, I have seen that all of the above effects can be worsened by the new sharpening controls, if one is not careful in their application.
3) Not all users are unhappy with this new processing.
4) I asserted that previous versions of camera raw did not appear to do additional ISO dependent smoothing but was corrected by Thomas Knoll who indicated that they did. Regarding this, I now have confirmed that indeed he is absolutely correct (as he should be!), but the effect is far more subtle in comparison to what ACR v4.1 is doing.
6) While this might all be construed as "pixel-peeping", several of us have confirmed that the effect is also visible in larger prints. In addition, some users (myself included) are unhappy with this apparent new "direction" that Adobe is taking since many felt that in the past that ACR produced the best compromise raw conversions - lots of fine detail preserved without any *obvious* smoothing. Without the ability to disable (or minimize) this smoothing, one is now forced to live with the default levels of NR on high ISO files in ACR v4.1.
7) While I claimed that I could not see this smoothing effect in other raw files from a Fuji S5 Pro, a Nikon D2X and a Leica M8 at higher ISO's, I am now beginning to think that the "chunkiness" of the noise in some of these other cameras might simply be making the new high-ISO smoothing less effective and thus less visible than it is on Canon raw files since ISO 1600 noise it quite tight and fine on my EOS-30D and most other Canons tested.
8 ) Further to point 7, Thomas Knoll also indicated that it was only Bayer-pattern sensors that "benefited" from this new raw conversion. That is why my initial testing did not show the Fuji S5 Pro (which has a complex hexagonal array Super CCD and not a simple rectangular array sensor) to suffer these same effects.
9) I presume this ACR comparison to hold true for Lightroom v1.0 compared to v1.1 as well.
In any case, what I have done is take a several ISO 1600 images from my EOS-30D and one ISO 1600 image from a D2X and make two versions of each image. One is the original CR2 or NEF file and the second, I used "exifedit" softare to modify the EXIF "iso-speed" field so that it no longer reads 1600, but rather 100. Opening these two versions of each raw file will show if there is any additional high-ISO-dependent differences in the raw conversions.
Indeed both ACR v4.0 and ACR v4.1 show a greater degree of noise reduction on the original ISO 1600 versions than when they are "tricked" into thinking the raw was shot at ISO 100. The effect is much greater in ACR v4.1 however and was immediately apparent to me within seconds of opening my first high ISO raw file. However with previous versions of ACR, it was so subtle that I never noticed it at all.
[...continued, with samples in next posting]

[Part 2 ...continued from previous post]
I have assembled several PSD files, each with 4 layers labeled as such (with description following the -->):
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> same raw file but with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.0
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> raw file with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.0
In both versions of ACR, the luminance NR slider was at zero, the chroma at the default of 25 and all the sharpening off or minimized. I have not found the chroma NR slider to have any visible impact to actual image detail, at least not in any of these samples, so I left it at 25. White balance was As-Shot and other controls at default/zero. No additional processing or sharpening was applied to any of the samples, apart from cropping the image to make it smaller for download.
Here are the samples:
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/D2X_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.39 Mb) An ISO 1600 D2X raw comparison. I use the word "blur" since we are looking at an out-of-focus background portion of the shot. Sadly the shot has no truly sharp detail to compare.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(6.06 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. Included to have a similar image to compare to the Nikon.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Outdoor_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(13.14 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The outdoor shot I had linked to in my other posts.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Statue_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.79 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The indoor Las Vegas statue shot I had linked to in my other posts.
The above files are just crops from the original full images. Decompress the zip and open them up in Photoshop, either at 100% or 200%. Simply check and uncheck each layer as needed to make comparisons between the different versions. When comparing, you might try to apply a small amount of sharpening (one pass of "Sharpen" for example) equally to each layer as the differences might become more apparent. Also, people viewing the samples on a CRT might find the differences less obvious than those using an LCD display.
My conclusions are as follows:
1) I believe that ACR v4.1 is indeed doing additional "baseline" smoothing of high ISO files. This is most apparent on the Canon examples but the noise is so coarse on the D2X file that is hard to be certain whether (a) there is no additional smoothing on the high ISO version, or (b) whether the smoothing is of insufficient strength (or radius?) to be clearly visible.
2) I personally believe there to be a slight reduction in "micro-detail" when using "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600". On some images more so than on others. In addition, there is a "smoothed" and "edge-detected" look to small details as well as some slight "furriness" where the NR algorithm appears to be deciding where edges of detail are and where smoothing should occur.
3) More to point #2, I prefer all three other versions of the converted files. That is, to my eye, the worst looking ones are "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600", at least on the Canon files.
4) However the very best version, when all aspects of image quality are being considered, is the "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100" version! The ever-so-slight reduction in overall noise does not appear to affect micro-detail to any significant extent, yet there is a significant reduction in "white-specks" in darker areas (especially after post-sharpening) and certain areas of color in the images are identified and rendered better - the last item being really hard to describe. Look at the dark engraved lines on the head of the statue: ACR v4.0 fills them in as slightly "reddish" whereas in ACR v4.1 they are black and look more "normal" to me. On the outside shot, looking and the red brick colour of the wall in the distance (the one with all the patios on the right), ACR v4.1 seems to better identify where the colour should be, whereas ACR v4.0 slightly desaturates portions of that wall between floors.
5) Further to point 4 is that indeed there is obviously some very complex processing going on, and if one could reduce the level of NR on an ISO 1600 file, down to the level which ACR uses when fooled into thinking it is an ISO 100 file, I would certainly be quite happy with the results. I imagine many others would be too...
6) Finally, this effect will certainly not be visible in smaller prints however the more you push a file (for example a 20x30 print from a 30D will have a source resolution of about 117dpi) or if you end up cropping an image, thereby increasing the overall magnification and thus also the defects, well then those processing artifacts can become visible upon close and critical inspection - large prints of landscapes for example.
My humble request:
In ACR v4.2 or LR v1.2, please have the luminance NR slider, when set to zero, have the same degree of effect as when an ISO 1600 file is processed as though it were ISO 100. Alternatively, put in a "Preserve all texture detail" checkbox in the detail section that does the same thing. That way we'll have the best of both worlds: for some types of images, one can use this new-found intelligent NR but for those where the most natural look and finest detail is of utmost importance, we can turn it off - or at least reduce it to more-or-less the same level as previous versions of ACR.
In general, the new NR processing does seem quite "intelligent" and is a big step up from the previous version's crude luminance slider. I certainly do not want to change back to the old system as there are many real and visible benefits to the processing in the new ACR! In addition, the new sharpening controls are also a big step up from previous version, offering much more fine control and less artifacting, when used judiciously.
However, please leave the majority of sharpening and noise-reduction decisions to the individual user. That way, one can selectively apply these effects in layers or by using the history brush. I would be equally unhappy if suddenly there was an aggressive new baseline sharpening applied to all raw conversions, when the sharpening controls were at zero!
I realize now that maybe there never was a true "zero" in NR and sharpening, but with previous versions of ACR, this processing appeared to be very subtle and lent itself very well to post-NR and post-sharpening. This is why, even after trying out virtually every other raw converter made, I always came back to Adobe Camera Raw, time and time again.
Please don't give up on progress and on new and innovative ways to improve ACR, but also please don't take away those qualities that have made a legion of photographers use Adobe Camera Raw as their raw converter of choice!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander
http://www.sublimephoto.com

How much can high ISO RAWs really be improved?

Hi everyone,
I've taken some test pictures with my new Panasonic FZ150, some of them in difficult conditions (night and/or lens at full tele) and at various ISOs. I then tried to see how much of an improvement can be brought about by the processed RAW file, in comparison with the JPG that was produced by the camera at the same time. I did this test because, in my opinion, the JPGs of the FZ150 at high ISO are too noisy to be of any use, and to see whether the (already good) low ISO ones can be improved even further.
Howver, after playing around with the Develop settings in LightRoom 3 (lum/hue NR, sharpness, detail, etc), I did not manage to get the RAWs to really look any better than their JPG counterparts, at least in terms of the trade-off between noise and detail. So I am now wondering if this is really the limit of the camera's RAW pics and/or of LightRoom (in other words: whether it's worth even bothering with RAW), or whether I am simply not using LightRoom skillfully enough!
Therefore, if anyone enjoys a RAW challenge, I'd be very curious to see just how good the following RAWs can be processed to become, particularly the high ISO ones. Many thanks in advance!
http://www.2shared.com/file/y20QhJHX/observator3200_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/GDWtbYlG/observator800_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/qI1xsZC0/P_ISO100_16s_RAW.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/7ebRkMrI/cladiri800_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/AopjNfPz/night_ISO100.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/WePPfmbb/day_ISO100.htmld
http://www.2shared.com/file/zRT_oTwt/cladiri3200_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/eGK68E1U/P_ISO3200_RAW.html

Been playing around with LR some more, as well as with RawTherapee, but still can't obtain a significant improvement in terms of noise/detail. Any input from more experienced RAW users out there would be very much appreciated

LR 1.2 ISO Noise filter good enough?

I read that noise reduction algorithm in LR version 1.2 has been upgraded with respect to the previous one. Downloaded 1.2 just now, coming back home from a long travel abroad, so I had no time to test.
Shot a Jazz concert last night. ISO 1600 in RAW with my Olympus E-300 (I know it is severely limited in ISO noise performance!), and had to accept underexposure in many pics, in order to get shutter speed fast enough.
The question is:
Under these challenging conditions,should I manage to deal with ISO noise through filtration in LR, or should I better run:
1. export to external editor (Photoshop CS)
2. run 3rd party NR plugin (Neat Image 5.8 Pro+)
3. reimport to LR for further processing steps.
In the latter case, it is better to leave LR Color and Luminance Noise filter parameter to defaul values, or zero everything, or set the sliders for the best possible noise suppression / image sharpness compromise?
I know, I shoud better experiment myself... but I am hard-pressed by the client asking pro-grade prints within minutes, so your help will be highly appreciated.
Best regards.
Andres Bernhard AKA 'Rapick'

Well, your example shows exactly why I think LR needs a lot of improvement. I surely hope that the LR-engineers take a good look at this.
The LR image has horrible NR/sharpening. Just look at the lady's hair (please forgive me my bad English - I mean the 'massive' part, not the individual hairs at the side of her face). Flat structure, strange colors, less detail than both DPP-pictures. Look at the skin on her cheek - oversharpened, unnatural colors (compared to the DPP-pictures). And the crown is heavily oversharpened in the LR-version (I would have been much more conservative here).
DPP-max clearly has the most noise, but produces by far the most natural picture. If this shows the philosophies of both Canon and Adobe, I would say Canon DPP + Noiseware is my best bet (natural and not too processed versus artificial/overprocessed), result-wise.
But I want LR to be that great converter. Dismissing other products than LR as useless doesn't help to improve LR, especially the parts where it should be far better. I don't buy the specialist-tool argument either. LR IS(!) a specialist tool and it is marketed that way. We should expect a flawless RAW-conversion from LR, no second-best solution. So instead of defending LR again and again, let's only define what should improve and how it should be done. This what I miss most in this forum. I think the developers should be visible here and discuss their choices. That would benefit them and us...
I like the way LR is designed and I like the idea how Adobe has managed to integrate the workflow. That's why I'm still sticking to it. Let's hope they bring out the LR-API soon, so we can use Noiseware (amd our own tools) within the LR-workflow...
Cheers,
Alex

High ISO noise handling

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for