Noise reduction on almost chroma key edges

I have a footage of a person in a white tee shirt in front of a very intense bright yellow backgroung (It looks like a chroma-key).
On the edges of the person and specialy on the edges of the white tee shirts (that is a over-exposed) there is some noise / artefacts.
I desaturated in FCP with the 3 way filter for the yellow to get less intense.
I checked plugins sites like: Natress, CHV, Kurt Hennrich and revisionfx and they have noise reduction plugins.
But I was wandering if anyone knows what's the best plugin (or filter) for this kind of noisy / artefact edges problem ?
Also, is there any setting in Compressor that could help to reduce this ?
I filmed on DVCAM NTSC, and this is for a DVD (replications).
Thanks.

Wow, you've got a bunch of problems here starting with your camera of choice which I'm assuming since it was DVCAM, was something like a PD150/170, the choice of video format which is extremely compressed, the exposure.
I think your main issue stems from video format and exposure, however. Depending upon the camera model, you probably should dial down your chroma settings and for something like this, I may have been inclined to under-expose a bit.
There is a very good reason that good lenses cost as much as cars or houses. Cheap cameras with cheap lensing exhibit a bit of chromatic aberration which you've also got going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
Your best solution would be to reshoot with a more robust video format if possible. You can try creating an edge matte for the yellow background and applying a light blur/defocus to the edge matte.
If Goggi comes up with a suitable solution be sure to post the details for future readers.

Similar Messages

Canon 5D2 ACR chroma/luminance noise reduction

Admitting to being somewhat lazy w/respect to experimentation, can anyone recommend chroma/luminance noise reduction settings in ACR for the 5D2, as a function of ISO?

Well, if we deal with the subject here at this level of details, then I need to add some points:
1. For the advanced digital photographer: if a lower ISO is enough for a correct exposure, but one is aiming at achieving "exposure to the right", then it is useful to turn up the ISO
i without reducing the exposure
in order to "get to the right edge".
2. Mitigating the above: the vast majority of cameras do not have true 1/3 stop ISO steps, i.e. there is no analog gain associated with the 1/3 steps; they are achieved by numeric manipulation of the nearest (lower or higher) full stop ISO result. For example from the Canons, only the 1Dxxx models support real 1/3 step ISOs.
There is no point of using these ISO steps with raw data.
3. Almost all cameras offer high ISOs, which are fake, i.e. numerical derivations of lower ISOs; in some cases they are
b not only
those characterized as "High", "Extention", etc. For example ISO 12800 and 25600 are marked as "high" with the Canon 5DMkII, but in reality already 6400 is fake.
There is no point of using these ISO steps with raw data (yes, I wrote this already).
4. The top
b useful
ISO is usually even lower. For example the graphs in http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon5DMkII_Noise.GIF show, that the loss from 1600 to 3200 with the 5DMkII is precisely one stop, i.e. there is no point to use ISO 3200 with raw data. Some other cameras can not utilize even lower ISO settings in raw (the usefulness of those settings is when recording JPEG in-camera).
Using those ineffective ISO steps causes cutting off the one stop of the dynamic range with each ISO stop.
This is an ACR forum, thus these issues are off-topic, but so much can be perhaps tolerated.

EARS ALMOST BLOWN OUT by Noise Reduction window

OK, I'm exaggerating a little here, but what just happened with STP could have caused some quite serious hearing damage, had I had the headphone volume turned a little higher.
Was listening to my mono 48khz 32-bit audio file for fine-tune detail... I set the noise print on a quiet section of noise, then opened the Reduce Noise window.
Now, I should say here that each time I played the mono audio it would play through both channels evenly, and show up in the master as bouncing around -20dB.
When I hit play in the Reduce Noise window, the left channel was playing at normal level, and the right channel began playing in my headphones at +6dB, causing my ears to ring for the past 5 minutes!!
Here are the settings I had in the Reduce noise window when this happened:
Noise Reduction: -60dB
Reduction: 100%
Tone control: middle
*anything I've done wrong here?*
I have had lots of issues with the stability of this application in the past, but this, to me, is completely unacceptable! I realize this is a discussion board and not a customer complaint board, however I would like to remind users who may check here frequently to be cautious when using this software that you don't damage your equipment or your precious ears!

Yes, this is very much a known issue. See the following posts:
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=9034765
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8646103
I was very close to losing my hearing last Christmas when I experienced this "feature" for the first time. I really do hope no one actually gets his/her ears blown because of this bug. It's been a known issue for at least a year, and still no word or fix from Apple. Please remember to leave a note at Apple's feedback area; this forum is not the best place to write bug reports: http://www.apple.com/feedback/soundtrackpro.html
HeiLei

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.

Feature request: local noise reduction...

I love the local corrections in LR2, and I'm using especially the local sharpening feature a lot. But I'm really missing a local noise correction feature (at least for luminance noise). It's such a shame to be able to do about any correction that I need inside Lightroom, but still having to make a round trip to an external noise editor to remove local noise. Especially since doing noise reduction as the last step doesn't seem to be very efficient at all.
Local noise reduction would make this already great program so much better (at least, to me).
Richard

>My understanding is that sharpening does not add noise, but emphasizes the noise that's already there, making it appear from being insignificant to noticeable.
We're being overly semantic here of course, but it just depends on how you define it. If you define noise as for example the root-mean square deviation from the "real" image (a very common definition but it ignores the noise's spectral distribution), than absolutely sharpening a noisy image adds more noise. Sharpening operates as a high frequency amplifier, amplifying edges that are just noise instead of real edges, so it basically amplifies the noise that is there, leading to an increase in apparent noisiness. The same is true for clarity. Clarity is basically a sharpening operation at a very high radius. If your source image is noisy (especially if it has a lot of low-frequency noise - i.e. "grain"), it will also amplify it. Conversely, negative sharpening results in reducing high frequency noise. as it is just a small radius blur effectively.
>Moreover, sharpening in LR develop is considered capture sharpening, where the small loss in sharpness form the RAW format is regained.
The sharpening brush is different as it is meant to be a creative sharpener. It definitely amplifies noise if you push it. And even so, using Develop's capture sharpening, it is indeed possible to amplify (=add) the noise using the capture sharpening if you use the controls wrong. The capture sharpening has the superb mask generator that can be used to protect areas that are not edges, limiting its tendency to amplify noisiness. However, it will amplify noise near edges, sometimes making them appear as if you have a waterpainting. This is also an example of amplifying noise. Remember, even if these tools are meant to do a certain thing, it doesn't mean they cannot be made to do something else.
>To just regain lost RAW sharpness at the expense of noise would seem almost like defeating its own purpose.
Sharpness and noise go hand in hand. There are smarter and less smart algorithms but fundamentally, sharpening always amplifies noise, and noise reduction always reduces sharpness. As I said some algorithms are better and limit the effect, but the bottom line is that there really is no way around this.
>Or, is it more correct to say that applying -ve clarity/sharpening will make the noise "Appear" less obvious, but not actually get rid of it.
Appear less obvious is exactly the same as reducing it. Your eye is very good in judging noisyness as it is very good at recognizing patterns and so you can easily see what is noise and what isn't. If an image appears less noisy, it is less noisy. Computers are not that smart yet and if you call a tool clarity, it does not magically know how to not amplify noise or how to not reduce noise when using it negative. Same with sharpening.
Conclusion: negative sharpness & negative clarity == noise reduction. They are just not as good as some dedicated noise reduction algorithms as they are not primarily coded to do noise reduction. They do have that effect however.

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.

Cant get noise reduction to work

when I apply the noise reduction feature to a grainly picture nothing happens. am I missing a step?

It's subtle. Maybe zoom in and look at it. The M key will let you toggle to the Master file so you can look at the before and after quickly.

Are there any other enhancements in noise reduction tools in CS6

Are there any other enhancements in the noise reduction tools besides the improvement mentioned of the spot healing brush. Are there improvements on the click and pop removal tool and the noise reduction in the spectral editing view. Quite anxious to know...

Paul:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. There is a hidden feature for changing the Redeye and Retouch tool size:
How to Change the Size of the Retouch and Red-Eye Removal Tool
Type Caps lockControl9
Undo caps lock
Click on the Retouch or Red-Eye Removal tool
The tab key will toggle between cursor types, a cross or a circle
The "[" and "]" keys decrease or increase the size accordingly.
NOTE: Using the "{" "}" keys will will change the value next to the circle and that represents the degree of change or intensity that the tool imparts on each pass.
Also check out the tip at the end of my signature for backing up the library database file on a frequent basis.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application, iPhoto dB file backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

How to separately control color and luminescence noise reduction?

Most of the time a little bit of Chroma noise reduction is all I need. I don't want to degrade the sharpness by applying luminescence blur unless I have to. Lightroom 3 has separate sliders. Is there a way to do this in Aperture 3?

What code do you already have for changing the color and the number of elements? Whatever it is you need to somehow tie that to being able to control it with a slider. Would this be one slider to control both properties, or a different slider dedicated to each?

"Photo Booth" Chroma key

anyone know of a plugin in FCP that will do a "chroma key" like the way photo booth does its' chroma key effect?
pretty much instead of keying out blue or green, photo booth asks you to step out of frame then saves the image, when you step back into frame it keys out the background the same way you could key out the color green.
I haven't seen it, but I'm wondering if there is a way to do this in FCP.

ok so most of my experience is w/ chroma key, so that is how I think of this. I understand that FCP takes the difference layer & thinks of it similar to a green screen. you adjust tolerance & threshold to fine tune the matte / key. I also know that there is a little bit of noise in the video (I'm shooting these tests on -6db gain to get the cleanest image) which will make the same pixel "NTSC" (never the same color frame to frame.
but this is the best I can get it w/ my tests
http://i30.tinypic.com/2dt3k3b.png
http://i31.tinypic.com/2hg6b2q.png
http://i28.tinypic.com/15eju4o.png
this is w/ the threshold at -90 & the tolerance at 0. is this filter really this poor, because I've hit the wall in the parameters and it feels like I should have more room to move around. is this the best FCP can do? if so is there a third party app that can actually do this better?
or are there any more tricks, like progessive vs interlace, DV vs HD, etc.
these are some of my first attempts that were creating more of a blended key.
http://i30.tinypic.com/k53fo2.png
http://i26.tinypic.com/9saplg.png
http://i31.tinypic.com/fvdxth.png

Chroma key, dv

I want to make a video with 1-4 musicians. I´d like to have no background (=color white), "chroma key" seems to be the word. I´m using a dv camera. Would this work with the chroma key effect in FCE?

Ok, so here's a voice from the other side.
I do chroma keying all the time. It's nowhere near as fussy as people make it out to be. I've even used wrinkled green fabric with less than stellar lighting and still got acceptable results. OK, it's not videophile hi def on a big screen, but it's quite acceptable for most viewers on a 'regular' TV.
You would shoot your musicians against a green screen background (make sure they don't wear any green or blue). Put a white slug on your base video track. Then put your actual video on the track above it, apply the Color Smoothing 4:1:1 filter, then the chroma key or green screen filter, and you've got your musicians on a white background - kinda like the Morpheus & Neo 'loading program' scene in The Matrix. Depending on how it looks you might also need to apply the Spill Suppressor and Matte Choker to clean up the edges.
Will you like the results? You'll have to try it and see for yourself.
While it's true that the DV codec isn't nearly as good at chroma keying than other (higher end) codecs, it's not terrible, either.

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.

Improvements: Noise Reduction Shadow Details, Geometry Correction & More

Loving what I'm seeing so far. Experimented with this last night and was very pleased what I could do in 10 minutes:
http://frontallobbings.blogspot.com/2012/01/lightroom-4-beta.html
Almost negated any need for HDR bracketing. I'm impressed. That said there's a few things I'd like to see still:
1. Noise Reduction shadow weighted areas. It would be nice to selectively control noise in only areas that really need it. Especially in terms of shadow recovery, only that area needs the noise reduction applied. It would be nice to have a dark/light slider to apply to that specific function.
2. Geometry Correction. This needs a serious update guys. It fixes a few things, but there's many other applications that do it way better (DxO Optics for one). It's a little too basic and could use better keystoning controls. I get better results from DxO Optics rather than use a Tilt-Shift lens.
3. The publish modules are still very antiquated and limited. No control over profile selection and still no way to update folders from previously published images. You guys need to really hire Jeffrey Friedl to do your modules. He's done amazing work with most of his plug-ins.
Good work so far with this version, looking forward to the release.

terrylam wrote:
1. Noise Reduction shadow weighted areas. It would be nice to selectively control noise in only areas that really need it. Especially in terms of shadow recovery, only that area needs the noise reduction applied. It would be nice to have a dark/light slider to apply to that specific function.
This, please!
Selective NR with brushes it great, but trying to use that to do NR in shadows is a real pain. Just a slider to weight NR to shadows would be a real boon. Ultimately it would be nice to have a full set of NR controls for shadows with a threshold slider to adjust when it kicks in.

Poor quality noise reduction for Canon G10

I recently bought a Canon G10, and I am disappointed at the quality of RAW conversions done by ACR/LR at anything approaching a high ISO. The out-of-camera JPEGs show much superior noise reduction to what I can get from RAW files, no matter how I tweak the noise reduction settings.
At ISO 80-100 both look essentially identical.
At ISO200 JPEGs show less and tighter grain than I can manage with RAW (unless I nuke the details with luminance reduction), but both are still very good.
At ISO400 ACR/LR's RAW conversion starts to fall apart. Chroma NR in RAW is still handled well, the grain size in RAW is much larger than the camera's JPEGs. I need to apply a lot of luminance NR to reduce the RAW grain to match the JPEGs, and when I do that I lose a lot of detail. And even then, the larger grain isn't as attractive as the JPEG.
At ISO800 this problem is even worse. Big ugly blobs abound in the RAW conversion. The JPEGs don't look great, but they're very usable, especially if you're willing to dip the shadows a bit to hide the worst of the noise.
ISO1600 is interesting. The JPEGs don't look great; there's a healthy amount of noise, and NR kills a lot of fine details. But the image is usable for 4x6's or sometimes even an 8x10. But the RAW files are awful! Even cranking chroma NR to 100, there's color noise to be seen. And even with very careful use of luminance NR and sharpening I can't results that are anywhere close to JPEG's level of detail and noise.
I understand that P&S cameras like the G10 are very noisy by DSLR standards and so this might not be a focal point of ACR/LR development, but I'm surprised and disappointed that the JPEG engine in the G10 can do a better job handling noise than ACR/LR. I guess my hope is that ACR/LR will at some point offer improved NR so I can create photos using RAW that look as good as JPEGs straight out of the camera. As it is right now I'm in the unfortunate position of shooting JPEG at high ISO to get usable noise performance. My dilemma is whether to even bother shooting RAW+JPEG when this IQ might be the best I ever get from ACR/LR for the G10.
I suppose my favored solution would be to either implement or license NR technology that matches NeatImage/NoiseNinja/NoiseWare. That feature alone would be worthy of justifying a 3.0 version for me. :)

Jeff, I won't debate that the output from the G10 at ISO800+ is poor. It most certainly is! And I know that simply eliminating the scads of noise in a G10 high ISO shot won't restore the detail the noise killed in the first place. But with every other camera I've used with ACR and LR, the color noise slider eliminates all color noise at or before the "100" setting. So I was surprised when that wasn't possible with the G10.
I don't currently own a camera that puts out an image quite as noisy as the G10 at ISO1600, but what about the A900 at ISO6400?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900hLL6407XNR.HTM
Or the 50D at ISO12800?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DLL12807XNR.HTM
Both of those are horrifically noisy. Worse than the G10 at ISO1600, I'd say. But those cameras certainly aren't crap. They just offer ISO settings higher than some consider acceptable. But then again, some people consider anything higher than ISO200 on a 5D unacceptable, so it's obviously all relative. Point being, I would expect ACR to do the best job it could for any camera it supports, not just the best job it can do for only some of the cameras it supports.
In any case, I want ACR to be able to remove the color noise from my G10's images, just like it can with my other cameras. I know the images are sub-standard when measured against a DSLR, but at least to my eyes, even very noisy images can look decent in small prints so long as there aren't big color blobs all over the place.
As for the luminance noise, I'm happier to live with that. I'd be happy to eventually pay for a LR upgrade that gives me NR similar to what the high-end third-party apps do, because that feature would make each of my cameras geniunely more useful--and retroactively! But a simpler request it seems is to recalibrate what "100" means for the G10. At least then I could dispense with the JPEGs and still make an 8x10.

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

Noise reduction on almost chroma key edges

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for