Microfon problems s400 with noise reduction

Hello people,
have a problem with the microfon sound.
This recording is either noisy (without HD driver and with HD drivers without noise reduction) or it is distorted (with HD drivers and noise reduction).
Drivers I've tried from the Lenovo page and also from Realtek already.
here are a few tests
Noise: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1182020/test% 20HD% 20with% 20the%% 20treiber 20nachhallred.wma
distortion: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1182020/test% 20with% 20HD% 20treiber% 20with% 20rauschunterdr% C3% BCckung.wma
in the device manager for microphone stands for the version: 6.2.9200.16384 Microsoft.
Use Windows 8 Pro which I installed by myself.
Would be grateful for suggestions, I can not skype otherwise.
greeting

Dark areas have less bits to encode their values so a single bit of noise is a higher proportion of the total value.
For the basis of the default processing, to match the human eye’s response to dark and light, darker areas are brightened more than bright areas, using a non-linear gamma curve.  This magnifies the noise in darker areas.
If you boost the brightness of dark areas using Shadows or Clarity, you are making that noise even more visible.   Think of brightening as digitally increasing the ISO. 
Adobe’s noise-reduction is calibrated to the original photo’s ISO setting, not how much you have digitally increased the ISO by brightening it, so if you have magnified the noise by extreme processing, you may be beyond what maxing out the NR sliders are calibrated to remove.
Exporting sharpening will sharpen any remaining noise.
Are you using the Mask slider in sharpen to keep from sharpening the noise grain in the Detail section?  Use the Alt key while moving the mask slider to determine the optimal Mask level for a particular photo, where you can’t to have the edges indicated but not the wide areas of little detail.
It’s hard to guess what you’re seeing without seeing a screenshot.

Similar Messages

  • RAW conversion bug with Noise Reduction

    Hello,
    I have found a serious bug in the RAW conversion when noise reduction is applied. When converting from two types of Canon RAW files (a CRW from a Powershot G6 and a CR2 from a 20d) I found that if you apply Noise Reduction to a RAW file on very low settings (the default setting in the NR function will produce this reliably) single-pixel lines appear at regular intervals throughout the image. Here is an example:
    You can see several lines in this image:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/3821480263171e76604b.jpg
    A 100% detail of which is here:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382148021af6586d27eo.jpg
    Has anyone else had this problem? Can someone from the Aperture dev team fix this?
    -Steve G

    Well I find this filter is quite good in 'masking' block artifact that codec like xvid, or other low compression codec have. I only apply it if I find the block artifact is too much and I find this filter is less offending to my eyes than the block artifact.
    In manual it said that if you have noisy video and want to lower the size then you can use this filter. It also blur the video a bit. But I suspect it is more than blur as I try gaussian blur in time line and the result is not as good. You can see the result as well. There is the tab between source and target and you can compare the result by togling between source and target tab.
    BTW, anyone with 1 core, dual, or quad core, can you tried to encode with it? Just cancel it after few minutes as I want to see what is your processor utilization with this filter on. Also you can see how long does it take to process this video from the 'estimation time left'.

  • Weird Banding with Noise Reduction Filter

    Working on a night shot of a building and processed through ACR7.2 and forgot to reduce the noise - and opened in Photoshop. Went to Filter/Reduce Noise and immediately get wierd banding in the window blinds. This banding is there regardless of the noise reduction settings and could not get it to go away - See attached screen shot of before and after applying the filter. So I went back and opened the file again in ACR7.2 and applied the Noise Reduction there and bingo, noise level dropped and looked good with no banding. Looks like the Noise Reduction capabilities in ACR7.2 are way better than the Noise Reduction filter - but surely the banding should not be there; especially if images do not get processed through Camera RAW.
    Running latest version of Photoshop CS6 (latest patches applied), Windows 7 x64 16GB RAM, Intel 4000 with latest drivers installed.  Camera file was ACR2 from Canon 5DMKII imported as a DNG file - then opened in ACR 7.2
    Before Image Opened in Photoshop before applying the Noise Reduction Filter
    After Image in Photoshop after applying the Noise Redcution Filter
    Seems like a bug to me
    By the way, the screen captures are from the image viewed at 100%
    Mike

    The aliasing effect you're showing is obvious, but are you saying the noise reduction operation also changed the color of the image?
    I didn't think so.  Your "before" image appears several steps removed from your "after" image.
    It would be best if you'd capture a "before" image of your entire display just before and just after applying the filter that causes the aliasing pattern, and also specifically describe or screenshot the exact parameters being provided to the filter causing the problem as well.
    In general, if you're getting aliasing introduced into high detail / high frequency parts of your images, you might find it advantageous to work at a higher pixel count - i.e., change the output size in Camera Raw so that you're opening images at an upsampled resolution.  That's the only way I work, and I find it advantageous to have more pixels representing the image while editing in a lot of ways.
    -Noel

  • Photos with noise reduction filters applied shows too much noise in preview mode

    The Noise Reduction filters do an impressive job in Lightroom, but the preview of photos when zoomed out is sometimes poor.
    This becomes especially visible on photos with a high amount of noise reduction applied.
    When zooming in to 1:1 I see that the noise reduction works as it should. Also when exporting the images the noise is removed as it should.
    I wish the non-zoomed preview inside Lightroom was able to show the image with the noise reduction applied more correctly than in version 3.4.
    I'm using Lightroom 3.4 64-bit in Windows 7.
    See samples of image with heavy noise reduction applied in 1:1 screen shot, and then a unzoomed screen shot of the same part of the image. As you can see the unzoomed preview contains much more noise than the zoomed image does.

    I've had to encode with no noise reduction which is a shame, but have to get this DVD done.
    Any ideas for the next one?
    Thanks
    Mark

  • Lightroom 3.6 DNG and Noise Reduction Problem

    Hello,
    I did a search and couldn't find this issue listed. I convert my Nikon D90 raw files to DNG. Never seem to have a problem with that except that the display(s) seldom shows the results of applying Noise Reduction (Color or Luminance). If my display is at Fit or Fill I don't see the results of what I am doing. If I zoom in to 1:1 or more, then I can see the results. All works fine if I am using a jpg file, it is just the DNG files that do this. If I want to see the entire picture with Noise Reduction applied I have to switch to the Library Module. Then when I go back to the Develop module the main display goes back to not showing the Noise Reduction, but the secondary display is ok until I apply another effect then boom, back to Noise Reduction not displaying. All of the other changes I make work just fine. It is just the Noise Reduction that causes the problem. This is really a killer when I am working on photos. This problem existsed before 3.6. Does anyone else have this problem? FYI - When I switch to the Library Module it takes a few seconds before the secondary display shows the photo with the Noise Reduction applied.
    I have a quad core 2.4ghz with 8gig of ram and Windows 7 Pro 64bit OS. Plenty of CPU and memory available.
    Thanks,
    Harold

    LR is designed this way to improve speed.  I think it varies, somewhat, with how high the ISO is where higher ISOs show NR more.
    I find this annoying, too, and which there was a setting to allow LR to compute the NR at lower resolutions if one chooses, instead of Adobe choosing things for us.

  • In-camera noise reduction

    This question is directed to the technically knowledgeable out there and has to do with in-camera noise reduction settings. Although I'm shooting with a 1D4, I would guess the same would apply to all models. In a nutshell, is in-camera noise reduction (assuming it's enabled) applied to RAW files or just to JPEGs? If it's applied to RAW files (which is all I shoot), have any of you shot RAW with noise reduction disabled, and if so, how were the results? I tried to do a search here on this topic but was unable to find any information. Thanks.

    hsbn wrote:
    No, with all due respects, it is Long Exposure NR. Why would it make it worst with High ISO if it is "High ISO Noise Reduction".
    6D Manual page: 128 - 129
    5D Mark III manual page 144-145
    "Images taken at ISO 1600 or higher may look grainier with the [Enable] setting than with the [Disable] and [Auto] setting"
    With Auto setting, camera will not do LENR if the ISO is higher than 1600.
    I've tested this and it's give many kind of artifact with high ISO from time to time. Others it just gives more noise.
    Hi,
    - Great to know, thanks! It's very surprising indeed.
    LENR is supposed to remove hot pixels and noise due to long exposure. It's (sadly) surprising the in-cameras LENR may be worse than in post...
    We'll take a review about it , since shooting long exposure at higher than ISO 1600 is not uncommon for astro photography.
    I think 5D Mark 2 didn't have this "problem". Will check that too.
    - The manual tells that in-camera High ISO NR applied is lower at high ISO than the NR that can be applied in post, not "worse", sorry, my mistake.
    Thanks once again.
    EDIT: The User manual of 5D Mark 2 doesn't tell anything about this matter. The manual of 7D does, as well as 6D and 5D3 as you mentioned.
    Since I used to work with 5D2 I didn't realize the 5D3 could be different. Or at least the manual of 5D2 doesn't say the final result of LENR at 1600 or higher could be worse. Good thing to keep in mind.
    Sitll doesn't understand why the result "may" be worse, the 5D3 has enormous computing potential with the Digic 5+
    This seems to only affect if  LENR is set to "ON" / "Enabled", not to "Auto". Very likely a more agressive NR is applied in such case.
    We'll carry some test indeed.
    EDIT 2:
    In just brief tests with the 5D Mark 3 we found some inconsistency on the results between setting Long Exposure NR to "OFF", "Auto" & "On".
    We set High ISO NR, Peripheral Illumination Correction and Chromatic Aberrations to OFF, to see only the effect of LENR in JPG (not RAW yet).
    This camera (5D3) applies High ISO NR even when you set it to OFF (very noticeable in video mode).
    At ISO 6400 we didn't see a hot /stuck pixel (even when LENR set to "OFF") that appears at ISO 3200 when setting LENR to OFF or Auto. Of course "ON" deletes all hot /stuck pixels, but also increaed grain.
    We all already know that the more the sensor heats up (shooting and shooting long exposure stills - or using Live View for stills or video), the more noise we'll get in the pictures (and video).
    So far we couldn't get a "rule". Sometimes the "Auto" works better than "ON", it seems it depends on the selected ISO value and how hot is the sensor too.
    I pesonally don't understand WHY the LENR delivers more grainy images when set to "ON", if the NR is more agressive the grain should be finer than in "OFF" or "Auto", so it doesn't make sense...
     We'll test the 5D Mark 2 to compare with 5D3 in this regard
    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

  • "noise reduction" not applied to exported photos

    I've always used iPhoto to slightly modify my photos, before exporting and sharing or uploading to Flickr.
    But, since yesterday, the exported photos do not include my "Reduce Noise" modifications. When I export them, they include the color, retouch and so on, but they look as they were BEFORE I applied the "Reduce Noise" filter.
    When I look at them in the browser, they appear WITHOUT noise reduction.
    When I press space to see them zoomed, they appear WITHOUT noise reduction.
    When I double-clic to switch to edit mode, they appear WITH noise reduction.
    And when I export them (either by dragging and dropping to the desktop or an application, using the export function or opening in an external editor), they appear WITHOUT noise reduction.
    I have tried to delete the preferences of iPhoto, but the behaviour of iPhoto remains the same.
    This applies to all the photos I've tried it onto. And this never happened before yesterday.
    I didn't install anything new, I have no plug-ins or things like that. I've repaired the permissions, even restarted and zapped the PRAM. The only thing I've done recently is install Aperture with the 30 days trial offer. Could this be the origin of the problem?
    iPhoto is an important tool for me and has always worked perfectly. I hope someone will help me solve what is a big problem for me.

    I sent to the trash the iPhoto preferences I could find and launched it again
    This time, I got the same behaviour, but also got console messages, as follows:
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BilateralFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS /BilateralFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BlackAndWhitePointsFilter.plugin/Cont ents/MacOS/BlackAndWhitePointsFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BlackAndWhitePointsFilter.plugin/Cont ents/MacOS/BlackAndWhitePointsFilter.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BlackAndWhitePointsFilter.plugin/Cont ents/MacOS/BlackAndWhitePointsFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BlackAndWhiteFilter.plugin/Contents/M acOS/BlackAndWhiteFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BlackAndWhiteFilter.plugin/Contents/M acOS/BlackAndWhiteFilter.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/BlackAndWhiteFilter.plugin/Contents/M acOS/BlackAndWhiteFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/SepiaFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Sep iaFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/SepiaFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Sep iaFilter.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/SepiaFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS/Sep iaFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/SaturationFilter.plugin/Contents/MacO S/SaturationFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/SaturationFilter.plugin/Contents/MacO S/SaturationFilter.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/SaturationFilter.plugin/Contents/MacO S/SaturationFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/ColorCorrectionFilter.plugin/Contents /MacOS/ColorCorrectionFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/ColorCorrectionFilter.plugin/Contents /MacOS/ColorCorrectionFilter.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/ColorCorrectionFilter.plugin/Contents /MacOS/ColorCorrectionFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/LightingFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS/ LightingFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/LightingFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS/ LightingFilter.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/LightingFilter.plugin/Contents/MacOS/ LightingFilter and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/EffectsFilter01.plugin/Contents/MacOS /EffectsFilter01. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/EffectsFilter01.plugin/Contents/MacOS /EffectsFilter01.
    *18/05/08 00:51:17 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/EffectsFilter01.plugin/Contents/MacOS /EffectsFilter01 and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/EffectsFilter05.plugin/Contents/MacOS /EffectsFilter05. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/EffectsFilter05.plugin/Contents/MacOS /EffectsFilter05.
    *18/05/08 00:51:18 [0x0-0xa1ba1b].com.apple.iPhoto[54170]* objc[54170]: Class PlugInLoader is implemented in both /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/EffectsFilter05.plugin/Contents/MacOS /EffectsFilter05 and /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/RemoveBlemishFilter.plugin/Contents/M acOS/RemoveBlemishFilter. Using implementation from /Applications/iPhoto.app/Contents/PlugIns/RemoveBlemishFilter.plugin/Contents/M acOS/RemoveBlemishFilter.

  • Noise reduction makes robotic voice

    I have been using Noise Reduction feature on "Audition" with no problems. When I have upgraded to "Adobe Soundbooth" I have an issue with this feature. When I turn it on I hear robotic echo of the voice no matter what the parameters are, even if the slider of parameters is on the 0 point (no noise reduction at all). Furthermore, it makes no difference if I am doing it with noise reduction profile or not.

    I tried using noise reduction for old recordings namely background hiss...then I discovered the audio effects work better for this...called "remove hiss" and also in the simple effects "Parametric" called "Under a blanket"

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

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

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

  • Noise Reduction output Issue

    Every time I apply noise reduction in LR3 Beta 2 the adjustments appear in the preview window in LR but as soon as I export as jpeg the processing dissapear.  It only happens with noise reduction - all other processing stays on the image.  Any Help?

    I do notice a difference between the image quality in the Library vs. Develop and noticed that shortly after i had posted the most recent response. I am just a little confused by your post when you say that the effects are only displayed on a 1:1 or higher scale.  When i apply any form of NR the previewer - even at FIT - still shows adjustments happening. Is it simply rendering what it thinks may be adjusting or can it not comprehend the larger scale so it just smooths out some details?
    And even at that, if i am able to achieve a desired effect in the previewer of Develop - shouldn't Lightroom be able to export that image that is it showing me?  I am confident that i am able to reproduce the desired look in photoshop - basically through some smoothing - but the ability to create that in LR would save a lot of time. 
    I digress i am not very confident in my use of Lightroom as i have only been using it for a brief time - switching primarily from aperture i find lightroom a lot easier and more efficent. 

  • 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

  • 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.

  • Adjustment brush with exposure setting cancels noise reduction

    Hello,
    I just noticed the following problem:
    1) Camera Raw 6.5; Bridge CS5 (4.0.5.11); Mac OS X 10.6.8; Mac Pro 3,1; Dual Quad-Core Xeon; 8GB RAM.
    2) Start with a noisy raw file (mine is from a Canon 5D II).
    3) Apply Noise Reduction (Luminance:30; Lum Detail:75; Lum Contrast:0; Color:25; Color Detail:50).
    4) Go to Adjustment Brush and set a non-zero Exposure value.
    5) Apply brush to image and notice the Noise Reduction effects disappear (noise returns).
    6) Click Clear All button to clear Adjustment Brush and Noise Reduction works again.
    This seems to only happen with Adjustment Brushes with a non-zero Exposure value (applying brightness or other settings don't seem to produce the problem).
    Anyone else seeing this?
    Thanks!

    Richard (and others),
    Yes, very good idea to check that. The problem does indeed get applied to the full sized, opened image as well as to the display previews. After working with this more, I now notice that I was wrong to say that the entire noise reduction is cancelled - rather it "changes", sometimes subtly, sometimes more dramatically depending on what the noise reduction settings are set to. Further, how dramatic the "changes" appear depend greatly on the preview zoom (the changes are more subtle at 100%, but it can look like the noise reduction is completely turned off at 50% and 66%).
    Now I realize that the noise reduction does not ordinarily display at all preview sizes (especially smaller ones), but this is different. At preview sizes where it does normally get applied, applying an adjustment brush with any non-zero exposure value (even just +0.05) can have the appearance that the NR is completely turned off for the whole image. Simply nudging the exposure value back to zero brings all the noise reduction back.
    Also, to be clearer and avoid confusion for others, the change in noise I'm seeing is not localized to just the brushed spot. Obviously if one increases exposure, you'd expect to potentially see more noise. Instead, what I'm seeing happens to the entire image, even if I simply paint a single small brush dot, say in a far corner. Having the image change globally in response to painting a small spot with the adjustment brush cannot be a correct result. Further, this does not happen with any of the other adjustment brush settings like brightness, contrast or saturation. There must be something unique about the exposure setting that perhaps introduces a new step into the processing pipeline, and this step is affecting the entire image.
    In any case, the problem only seems to be an issue in somewhat extreme cases and is less noticeable at 100% (and the finally opened image). It's more just annoying when previews are generated for viewing in Bridge, for example.
    I suppose one alternative might be to rob a bank and go buy one of those new 1D X's. Then maybe I wouldn't have to worry about noise anymore.
    Thanks for the responses!

  • Noise reduction problems LR3.4

    I have some problems with the noise reduction.
    1. When watching photos in library mode the noise reduction is not working. Switching to development shows the correct image with nr removed.
    2. When using the brush (reducing exposure on face) on an image the complete NR for this image isn't  working. As soon when the brush is removed everything is fine!!!

    Hi
    You can't really do effective and selective (that's what you want) audio editing with FCP filters. But if you HAVE to, you can use the following filters (not sure if they are all in version 4.5):
    Hum remover
    compressor
    equalizer (3band)
    Sound editing is an art, and may take a while to get the best filter settings and combination. Good luck.
    Hisham

Maybe you are looking for

  • Movies from another computer do not show up in items not in my library

    From one computer to another, all items show up in Home sharing, however when I switch to items on my computer only, nothing shows up even though there are item that should.

  • How to create a optional filter condition in Universe

    Dear All I am using BI 4.1 ( .Unv ) , we need to add a optional condition in Universe. I tried different ways to do it, but unable to do it correctly. In one of my approach, I created a report and put a optional prompt there then edited the SQL and c

  • Using second computer with iMac monitor

    Does anyone know if it is possible to use the imac as a monitor for a second computer? I have speciality software that must run on XP and dual booting would be a problem secondary to need for a set IP address and support at my place is lousy. I used

  • Call Transaction "MIGO" in display mode only

    Hi friends, I have changed the standard the SAP standard program MB51 to a Customer Program 'ZMB51' based upon the user requirement.Iam able to get all the values (output) Now my requirement is .... iam trying to call transaction "MIGO" when the user

  • Overlapping images in an applet

    Hello, I'm a Java beginner and I would like to write a small applet for a web page. My goal is the following: The webpage has a background image. So far no problem.The applet should also show a small menu- which is also no greater problem. Further on