Noise reduction in binary images

I am new to labVIEW.
I want to do niose reduction in binary images. Is this possible using LabVIEW IMAQ tools?
Thanks in Advance
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Best to attack some before going to binary and once in binary there is a binary filter that can filter on many different conditions such as area.  Check out the visions concepts manual from NI, it is a great resource for imaq functionality.  you might also post an image here or in the vision forums.
Paul Falkenstein
Coleman Technologies Inc.
CLA, CPI, AIA-Vision
Labview 4.0- 2013, RT, Vision, FPGA

Similar Messages

  • Noise reduction for 32bit images acting totally different

    The noise reduction behaves totally different when used for 32bit images in ACR.
    It appears like it is applying some kind of strange blur or glow effect instead of working like expected from 8/16bit material.
    Can anybody confirm this and is this intended behaviour?

    Joe_Mulleta wrote:
    The noise reduction behaves totally different when used for 32bit images in ACR.
    How did you get your raws into HDR?
    Did you use raw files in ACR? Did you set the sharpening and noise reduction to optimal parameters in ACR on the raw files BEFORE going into HDR Pro?
    You should...I've found that it's important to optimize the raw files in ACR/LR before actually processing the raw files into HDR Pro...you need to realize that once the raw files are demosaiced, the best place to apply sharpening and noise reduction has been bypassed?
    Yes, a 32-bit TIFF opened in ACR 7.1 will not have the same sharpening and noise reduction opportunities once the original raw files have been processed. I've found it's useful to apply all ACR image optimizations (including tone, color and sharpening/noise reduction) to the raw files BEFORE doing a conversion to HDR Pro...
    And yes, the noise reduction settings in 32-bit in ACR 7.1 are _VERY_ tweaky (meaning you need to be very careful on the settings).

  • Local noise reduction too weak

    I often need to add a touch of additional noise reduction to some image areas such as the sky and use to apply the adjustment brush (can't say how much Lightroom lacks a layers feature). In some cases, even increasing the noise lever to 100% will still not give me enough noise reduction. I currently don't know any other way to get what I want than to escape to Photoshop with its masks, layers and filters. I'd prefer to stay in Lightroom for noise reduction, is there something I could try or would the developers need to make the effect of the slider stronger?
    Andreas

    Andreas: the solution is simple, even if it isn't intuitive. Just click on the "new" button next to the adjustment brush to start a new adjustment in a new location. Now start painting in another location in the sky. (Don't get to close to the original pin you started with your you'll reselect it and continue that adjustment.) Now you can paint 100% noise reduction over the sky a second time for a total of 200%. If that's still not enough, lather, rinse and repeat.
    I first learned about this technique from Matt Kloskowski's Lightroom Killer Tips blog. Here's a video he created that shows this technique in action: http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/video-stacking-multiple-adjustment-brush-settings/
    Brad

  • 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

  • Noise Reduction on slideshow or image export

    Hello, does any one know why the Noise Reduction does not work when creating a slideshow or exporting the image ? It simply ignores my noise reduction settings.

    Which version of Lightroom are you using.

  • Is there a way to apply noise reduction based on ISO value?

    I shoot a lot of sports using auto ISO which means I get hundreds of images from a day with a variety of different ISO values, including all sorts of intermediate values (like ISO 280, for example).  There are times when I'd like to apply LR noise reduction across the whole batch of images, but I'd like to apply it based on the ISO value of the image.  For example at ISO 1250 and above, I want a particular NR Luminance value.  From 640 to 1250, I want a different value.  From 400-640, a different value.  I know you can define some things at import time based on ISO, but that doesn't seem practical when the ISO value can be nearly anything as it would take hundreds of import profiles.
    So, any ideas how to apply NR based on the ISO across a batch of images?

    jfriend0 wrote:
    How do "defaults" interact with a preset applied upon import?  I shoot RAW and apply a preset upon import for every import I do.  If I apply a preset upon import will it override the "default" anyway?  If that's the case, then defaults are of no use to me.
    Yes - Lightroom presets are absolute, but unlike the default settings, presets don't have to specify all the settings. If a preset setting is specified, it will blindly overwrite the previous setting, if not specified then the previous value will remain unaltered.
    DevAdjust supports relative presets:  final-value = present-value +/- relative-preset-value
    Rob

  • How do I permanently disable Detail (sharpening / noise reduction)?

    I did this a while ago with the LR3 beta, but I forgot how I did it.
    Anyway, I want to disable Detail (sharpening and noise reduction) in the right hand panel forever, so that when I import new pictures, it's disabled by default when I start developing them (so I don't have to disable it manually for each picture, which is very annoying). The reason is, I handle sharpening & n.r. as a separate step outside of LR (export as TIFF and then n.r. and sharpen).
    Any hints please? I know it's simple, I just can't remember it.
    Thanks.

    first select an image, then drag the Sharpening Amount and Noise slider to zero, next choose Set Default Settings from the Develop menu. When dialog opens hit the Update to Current Settings button. If you have photos from more than one camera model you'll need to repeat process for each camera. The following tutorial should might also be worth reading http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_camera/lr2-camera-defaults.htm

  • 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.

  • Upscaling and noise reduction in ACR

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

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

  • 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

  • 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'.

  • 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

  • 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/grainy problems with images exported into photoshop cc from lightroom after photoshop & lightroom updates

    I can't figure it out. After updating photoshop from the c6 version to the newer cc, and after also an update to lightroom through my creative cloud app, all photos exported now from lightroom into photoshop are extremely noisy and poor quality. I have adjusting settings I thought to back where I had them, but the images still don't look right.  Can you help me? Slammed with photos to edit for paid gigs! Panicking. These are raw files.

    My interpretation of what the OP’s situation, that they are adjusting noise-reduction and sharpening to their liking in LR, the using Edit In PS (not Exporting despite using that word) into PS and what they see in PS is much nosier than what they saw in LR and are wondering why things look different between LR and PS.
    My guess as to the problem is that they’re adjusting LR-Detail settings (Sharpness and NR) using Fit zoom instead of 1:1 zoom and then viewing the image in PS, perhaps at 1:1 zoom or even at Fit-to-Window zoom in PS, and that LR’s resampling and PS’s resampling of the image for fitting to the screen are a bit different and PS’s looks rougher.
    Unless the OP is comparing LR and PS at 1:1 or 100% zoom, differences are to be expected.

  • Noise reduction vs de-noise?

    Can someone explain to me the difference between these noise reductions?  The former (immediately below) is located in RAW Fine Tuning and seems to do quite a bit of noise reduction. 
    The latter (below), is its own adjustment and I fine does virtually nothing. 

    I fully agree, Kirby.
    The latter (below), is its own adjustment and I fine does virtually nothing.
    John, You are probably seeing no effect because of the very high value of the "Edge Detail" slider you have set. Try, if using a lower edge detail value will help.
    The noise reduction does essentially do a kind of smoothing by analysing the image within the area described by the radius setting. This will blur the image if the radius value is high. The "Edge Detail" prevents smoothing out the edges. If your image has areas with a lot of texture, a high value for "Edge Detail" will prevent any smoothing at all, because textured areas have edges everywhere.
    For example: two sections from Canon EOS MK II RAW images:
    Left: Edge Detail= 4.0, Radius=4.0;  Right: Left: Edge Detail= 0.0, Radius=4.0;
    With a high edge detail value (left) only the homogeneous regions (the hull of the ship) has been smoothed by noise removal, but the textured regions not. The image is still sharp, but the sea surface is still noisy.
    With a low edge detail value (left) noise reduction has been applied everywhere, also across strong edgest. The image is looking blurred.
    The setting for "edge detail" is your choice between scylla and charybdis - set it high enough to get the noise removal you want, but low enough, to prevent the strong edges from being blurred.  I usually apply it selectively to the shadows, and only, if the signal to noise ratio is very poor.

Maybe you are looking for