Noise reduction in v.2.0.2 may be broken feature

Since using this update, noise reduction feature does not seem to function. Setting a noise print and running noise reduction does not result in reduced noise. The timeline waveform does not redraw, and noise is still audible regardless of db setting. However, low db settings do introduce the familiar gurgle noises. Does anyone know if this can be fixed, is there a workaround, or do we need to wait for another dot release?

I am having the same problem plus I get an "Uncaught Exception" error when I try to use it and then it crashes.

Similar Messages

  • Color Noise reduction with BxW

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Noise reduction doesn't work?

    Hi All,
    New user here (testing the demo). I have a moderately loud
    air conditioner system, and as a result there is a constant hum.
    I'm trying to get the noise reduction to work, but to no avail.
    Here's what I do.
    I record a clip. then select Edit Timing. Then Adjust Volume.
    Then check "Dynamics (boost quiet sections), then I play with the
    Noise Threshold and Ratio sliders (primarily Noise Threshold).
    These don't seem to do anything, though I *can* adjust the volume
    of the clip successfully.
    What am I doing wrong here? Thanks!

    Hi carloshl
    Welcome to the world of Captivate!
    Seriously, the audio editing bundled inside Captivate is
    always reported as being rather anemic. I compare it to the jack in
    the trunk of a new car. Enough to change the tire once in a while,
    but if I'm gonna do it more often than that, I should probably
    invest in a different tool.
    The really super good news here is that your investment need
    not be cash! There is a wonderful and totally free audio editor out
    there called Audacity. You may download it by
    clicking this magickal
    link.
    Oh, and you should probably also find a quieter room to
    record in.
    Any possibility of turning off the air for a brief
    period?
    Cheers... Rick

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 - Doesn't get quite all the noise

    I'm having trouble removing 60Hz hum. I just got Soundtrack Pro after trying Soundtrack that was included in FCE. I didn't have much luck with Soundtrack and the Apple quick tour made noise reduction in ST Pro look like child's play.
    I have a friend on the PC and he ran my audio thru Adobe Audition and it did a really good job. I downloaded the 30 day demo and it's Noise Reduction is simple and works well. But, I kind of have a need to complete my entire project on a Mac...
    Anyway, I select a portion with just my hum and do 'Set Noise Print'. Then I remove the noise from my enitre clip. I typicall have to move the slider down to -25db. At that point it starts to effect my dialog and there is a small amount of buzz or hum still left around.
    How in the world can I fix this? I've been told that my hum may be at 60Hz and at all the harmonics of 60Hz. I can't seem to find a Notch Filter in Pro, where Soundtrack does have one. So, how can I eliminate 60Hz and all the harmonics?
    Also, any idea why Adobe Audition does a better job than Soundtrack Pro in this quick NR area? Am I missing something that I should be doing in Soundtrack Pro?
    I'm a total audio newbie so any help is appriecaited.

    I've had good luck using the EQ editor, where you can adjust various parameters like the spread of the frequency, the amplitude, and also check for other frequencies (try overtones undertones of the main sound).
    If you need to cut out so much that it interferes with the quality of your dialogue, you can fool the ear by adding bit of high register to make it more articulate, or middle-low register to make it more resonant.
    By saving the presents you create, you can easilty try different combinations.
    a bunch   Mac OS X (10.4.4)  
      Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

  • Noise reduction - RAW fine tuning and the Noise Reduction tool

    Hi,
    1- If I get it right, Aperture's RAW fine tuning "Automatic noise compensation" (translated from French) option uses the camera's information to adjust the noise. Is that correct?
    2- The Noise Reduction tool is there to provide additional noise reduction, but this makes you lose some details. Is that correct?
    3- How do you use them? I often find the Noise Reduction tool a bit overkill, but that's me.
    4- This one is just out of curiosity. How does A3 compare to LR3 beta for you in that regard? In my testing, LR3 did a slightly better job (but A3 totally beats the crap out of LR2 for noise). BUT I have an old D50, and newer cameras handle noise better (especially Nikon), so does it really make a difference for a 2008 or newer camera?
    Thanks!
    Manu

    Manusnake wrote:
    pilotguy74 wrote:
    I don't even have this option/checkbox in my Raw Fine Tuning brick.
    I wonder if it's due to the type of files (Canon 7D). Do you still have those 7D files I sent you? Does the checkbox appear in Raw Fine Tuning for you with them?
    I noticed this option in the manual the other day, but forgot about it until now.
    True, it doesn't have the checkbox with the 7D files. However, it as a slider "noise suppression" (again translated) in the RAW fine tuning options (and still has the Noise suppression brick).
    If you don't have this one too, have you reprocessed your images with Aperture 3? Since it has a new raw engine, it may be the cause of it.
    I find it strange that Apple didn't tout the new RAW engine on Aperture 3 new feature, it clearly is an improvement over Digital Camera RAW 2, especially in noise suppression.
    I agree the built-in noise suppression is much better than A2, but IMHO it pales in comparison with the Noise Ninja plugin from Picturecode. The key is that you calibrate a profile for Noise Ninja by shooting a color chart full screen on your computer at varying iso settings with each of your cameras. You then feed the images back in to Aperture, and tell Noise Ninja to create a noise profile for each setting. The results are amazingly good.
    Now with a lot of new cameras, noise processing is getting less important because the high iso performance is so good....but this is what makes Noise Ninja special...even when the noise adjustment is subtle, because it is working from a profile created with your camera, at the iso the shot was made at, its effects are seamless. They just announced a 64 bit plugin for Aperture 3, so no bouncing into 32 like other plugins at the moment...
    Sincerely,
    K.J. Doyle

  • Neato Video Noise Reduction Filter

    Merry Xmas
    A fellow filmmmaker has used the 'Neato Video Noise' plug in with pretty good success. Was wondering if anyone else out there has tried it?
    I have some underexposed footage shot on a DVX100, (low daylight footage), which I tried tweaking with the FCP HSL Filter. But as you may know, the HSL Filter must be used carefully (sparingly), or it will cause grain.
    Anyone know if Neato's Noise Reduction Filter works more efficiently?
    http://www.neatvideo.com/
    Thank you
    Mike
    http://vimeo.com/7340608

    No, there are no built-in noise reduction filters.
    There are a number of free and commercial solutions out there ... the free ones are obviously worth checking out but less capable (try TMTS Noise Reduction and Smart Noise Reduction), of the commercial filters http://www.neatvideo.com/ and http://www.revisionfx.com/products/denoise/ seem popular.

  • Noise Reduction Programs as External Editor

    Can anyone tell me if I can set up a noise reduction program (Noiseware, Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc) as an external editor to LR and use the "round trip" feature used with PS/PSE? I don't currently have either PS or PSE, since LR has been able to handle my editing needs with the exception of noise reduction. Hence my research into free-standing programs.
    Thanks in advance.
    Adam

    From the Noise Ninja web site:
    http://www.picturecode.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
    "It is usually best to apply noise reduction as early as is practical in the workflow. Post-processing adjustments like sharpening, contrast stretching, and color balancing can alter pixel values and noise levels in unpredictable ways. Depending on the amount of adjustment, this can make it more difficult for Noise Ninja to estimate noise levels. Sharpening, for instance, is a nonlinear operation that can significantly distort the distribution of noise values.
    If your workflow requires that you use Noise Ninja after some other operations, then try to create noise profiles using calibration images that have been put through the same operations.
    Running Noise Ninja early in the workflow is a good rule of thumb, but Noise Ninja can be applied at any time. Sometimes it may not be possible or practical to run Noise Ninja at an earlier point in the workflow. For example, most users are not using a RAW processor with plug-in that allows Noise Ninja to be run before other adjustments in the RAW processor."

  • Encore 2.0 Noise Reduction Filter Information

    Adobe Staff and Forum Members,
    Would somebody please explain how changes in the noise reduction filter change video quality. It seems the standard setting is 30% and I don't have a manual with the trial version to understand what changes to make on order to best transcode older video. I'm waiting for my hard copy of Encore 2.0 now but in the mean time any information would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day!
    Thank you,
    Don

    > How much time does a change in the noise reduction filter have on transcoding time?
    I don't have any hard data to quote, but it's significant (and also depends on whether you use CBR vs. VBR 2-pass). But offhand, I'd say the filter will at least double your transcode time. You may find the results worth the wait...the output preview should help you to decide this.
    -Joe

  • Are sharpening and noise reduction working in 1.0?

    I went to see if they'd made any improvements in the noise reduction area, and can't get any of the noise reduction or sharpening settings to effect the image at all. The settings definitely aren't making any changes to the visible image in normal or 100% view.
    I tested this on an ISO1600 image to make sure there was visible noise.
    Is anyone else seeing this lack of effect?

    The server may think it's serving that page to some user-agents, but it ain't working for any over here:
    $ curl -o file.jpeg -v http://learningtosee.org/aux_photos/sharpening_test.jpg
    * About to connect() to learningtosee.org port 80
    * Trying 204.16.138.5... * connected
    * Connected to learningtosee.org (204.16.138.5) port 80
    > GET /aux_photos/sharpening_test.jpg HTTP/1.1
    User-Agent: curl/7.12.2 (i386-pc-win32) libcurl/7.12.2 zlib/1.2.1
    Host: learningtosee.org
    Pragma: no-cache
    Accept: */*
    < HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
    < Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:31:06 GMT
    < Server: Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS)
    < Vary: Accept-Encoding
    < Content-Length: 311
    < Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
    % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
    Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
    100 311 100 311 0 0 2159 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
    * Connection #0 to host learningtosee.org left intact
    * Closing connection #0
    $

Maybe you are looking for