Very neat algorithm for noise reduction for high ISO

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

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

Similar Messages

Canon 6d needs lots of luminance noise reduction at all ISO settings

Hi all,
I've been trying out LR 5.4 with a new Canon 6d. I've noticed a lot of what appears to be luminance noise even with photos taken at ISO 100, this requires the "Luminance" slider in the "Noise Reduction" develop setting to be at around 80 to remove. This seems extremely high for ISO 100 photos with shutter at 1/1000 and obviously good light, I wouldn't expect to have to use any NR in this situation. Oddly, pretty much the same level of luminance NR will also clean up high ISO photos, I'd have expected to need a lot more NR on high ISO photos. Some sharpening is then required as usual.
The luminance setting of around 80 gives the photos a similar look to those from the out of camera jpeg, or the cr2 file processed in DPP.
Has anyone else observed this when processing raw file from a Canon 6d in LR? Or maybe there's a setting somewhere that I've missed?
Thanks in advance

Hi,
Thank you for replying. Hopefully there are some images attached to this post, it's the first time I've posted here...
The shots are of an area of very clear sky with the stalk of a plant in the foreground.. There is a 1:1 compare of the LR default import (right) compared to my luminance and sharpening adjustments (left). There's also a 2:1 compare to show the noise a little better. I've added a shot of the detail panel with my adjustments.
Thanks,
Paul

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

Noise reduction applied to high ISO .tif files in ACR 4.1?

Evidently ACR 4.1 applies noise reduction to high ISO raw files from Canon cameras, even when noise reduction is turned "off" in the plug-in (and this results in smeared detail). I have a 5D that I bought specifically for its lack of noise in high ISO files, and I don't want a software program forcing me into using noise reduction and ruining all those marvelous details in my high ISO raw files. Can someone tell me if there is a similar problem with ACR 4.1 if you open a .tif file with it? If not, I'm thinking I'm going to use Canon DPP 3.02 to convert my raw files to .tif, and then use ACR 4.1 to quickly adjust exposure, black point, etc., all of which is awkward and slow in DPP 3.02.
Rob

No, although ACR v4.1 does apply some baseline noise reduction to many raw files, I do not think that it applies any default NR to TIF files. Lightroom v1.1 does not apply any noise-reduction to TIF or JPG files by default, at least as far as I've noticed, so I believe this will likely carry over to ACR v4.1 as well. Of course you *can* turn the NR sliders up from zero and then it will! In any case, you'd be advised to test that theory yourself just to make sure, before designing a workflow around that assumption...

Does LR store the in-camera Noise Reduction settings in it's Metadata?

I am trying to understand the impact of in-camera noise reduction on High ISO images. To do this I have taken a series of pictures with different in camera Noise Reduction settings. I have then imported them into LR. What I want to know is whether I can see the in-camera Noise Reduction settings in the metadata stored in LR?
Thanks

If it's proprietary to the camera maker, you won't see it in LR. Won't most of that in-camera stuff be stored in the MakerNotes? If so, you can see the sort of info via Exiftools - see an example here http://forums.adobe.com/message/6155513#6155513

Noise Reduction question for Aperture

I recently purchased my first iMac (after years of being a windows user) and decided to try out Aperture (to use with Photoshop Elements 10 as an outside editor). I am basically an Olympus user and like the way Aperture handles the Olympus ORF RAW files a bit better than Lightroom (which I have used since it was released).
Anyway, I do think that Lightroom did a better job of handling/adjusting the noise in the higher ISO Olympus RAW files than Aperture - again just starting with Aperture.
2 Questions:
(1) Am I missing something or is the only Noise Reduction controls in Aperture the two sliders that come up in the Inspector column?
(2) What is a good plug in for noise reduction that works with Aperture?
Thanks, Steve

People like Noise Ninja.

Is There A Noise Reduction Plug-in For FCP?

Wondering if I could find a plug-in for FCP5 or Color that will reduce the noise shot with high ISO in low light. Does anyone have a suggestion. Thanks!
Message was edited by: sburst7

I have found the 'Noise Reduction' in the CHV repair collection for FCP to be the best out of anything that I have ever tried. The noise reduction is fantastic and the sharpness loss is the best out everything I have seen.
http://www.chv-plugins.com/cms/Fx-Script/Repair-collection/Repair-collection.php
The default settings can be a little excessive, I almost always end up with a setting of 10 and 15 regardless of the footage.
Also, you can try grain reduction inside of colour - pair it with a vignette and alpha blend to limit it to specific areas.
Cheers,
Liam.

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

Video Noise Reduction Plugins (Neat Video, Natress, Etc.)

We are doing some finishing on a short documentary film and some shots (HVX-200 in a dark, poorly lit, blue-starved, turkey barn) need a small amount of noise reduction to maintain the overall look of the film.
We tested a demo of Neat Video's noise reduction plugin and feel the quality is acceptable. But I am curious if there are any other suggested alternatives. The only other plugin than interests me is the Natress Smart Denoise which works as a Color plugin and would be even more appropriate for our workflow.
Are there any other options we should be checking out?
Thanks!

We are doing some finishing on a short documentary film and some shots (HVX-200 in a dark, poorly lit, blue-starved, turkey barn) need a small amount of noise reduction to maintain the overall look of the film.
We tested a demo of Neat Video's noise reduction plugin and feel the quality is acceptable. But I am curious if there are any other suggested alternatives. The only other plugin than interests me is the Natress Smart Denoise which works as a Color plugin and would be even more appropriate for our workflow.
Are there any other options we should be checking out?
Thanks!

6D vs 5d-mk3 for long exposure high ISO

Some on line info of unkown accuracy shows the 6D has better long exposure high ISO performance. This is known as amp glow.
The intended usage would be for astro phorotgraphy or night photgraphy where 30 second exposures at ISO1600 and up are required.
I already have a 5D-mk3 comming for evaluation where I will compare it to my 1DS-mk3. But I thought this is a good question for this forum. It seems strange that the lower cost camera would have supperior performance.
Anyone have personal experince or a technical explanation? Or is the information incorrect?
The same info also shows a vast improvement over the 1DS-mk3 and 5D-mk2

I know this topic is long dead, but somehow I was searching more comparisons at night shooting scenario between 6d vs 5dm3 and came across that topic (also in this forums here).
I think that below article comparing 6d to 5dm3 (and later also to 5dm2) at iso 3200 & 6400 with 15 sec & 30 sec exposure time, shows pretty good results in favor of 6D. the maker of that comparison also intended to use 6D camera for astrophotography.
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/canon-6d-and-5dmk3-noise-comparison-for-high-iso-long-exposures/
hope it helps.

Allow integration of Noise-Reduction plug-ins to ACR

My experience is that the noise reduction plug-ins like Neat-Image, NoiseNinja, etc. are significantly better than NR in ACR 5.x. The marketing material about LR-3 (ACR-6) touts that NR is better, that my limited experience with the LR-3-beta is that its NR is stll underwhelming.
My budget is limited ... it stung to spend big bucks on CS4, then about $70 on Neat Image 6.1 because ACR 5.x NR was, IMO, inadequate.
I'm not an ACR/CS4 expert, but my impression with high ISO pictures is that you want to do sharpening near the end of the workflow, especially after NR. I would like to use the much improved sharpening (and Clarity) that is available in ACR 5.x, but that detracts from the effectiveness of the NR plug-in, especially for high-ISO pictures. It doesn't seem to matter that much with low-ISO DSLR images.
I would appreciate the Adobe PS team working with the the NR plug-in vendors to give them a "hook" into the ACR pipeline. Their plug-in would be invoked by the ACR "engine" at the appropriate point in the pipeline, perhaps very early even before White-Balance and exposure/brighness/contrast adjustments.
In a batch of "sync-all", my impression is that you want NR to act on the "raw - raw" image before any exposure or contrast adjustments. When you increase exposure for an underexposed image, the shadows becomre noiser, and this can throw off pre-built noise profiles (as least that is my experience with Neat-Image 6.1).
My preference is to do as much of the Post-Processing as possible in ACR for images that don't need layers. That way I can minimize use of PS when appropriate. At this time, I find myselft invoking PS for all images to do NR.
But perhaps I'm mis-informed (wouldnt' be be first or last). I've had email correspondence with the Neat-Image support person (also may the be developer?), and my understanding is that such as "hook" isn't available.
Of course, the really preferred suggestion would be for ACR to have as good or better NR as the plug-ins, but until then, it would be appreciated for Adobe CS4 to be more "plug-in friendly".

My experience is that the noise reduction plug-ins like Neat-Image, NoiseNinja, etc. are significantly better than NR in ACR 5.x. The marketing material about LR-3 (ACR-6) touts that NR is better, that my limited experience with the LR-3-beta is that its NR is stll underwhelming.
My budget is limited ... it stung to spend big bucks on CS4, then about $70 on Neat Image 6.1 because ACR 5.x NR was, IMO, inadequate.
I'm not an ACR/CS4 expert, but my impression with high ISO pictures is that you want to do sharpening near the end of the workflow, especially after NR. I would like to use the much improved sharpening (and Clarity) that is available in ACR 5.x, but that detracts from the effectiveness of the NR plug-in, especially for high-ISO pictures. It doesn't seem to matter that much with low-ISO DSLR images.
I would appreciate the Adobe PS team working with the the NR plug-in vendors to give them a "hook" into the ACR pipeline. Their plug-in would be invoked by the ACR "engine" at the appropriate point in the pipeline, perhaps very early even before White-Balance and exposure/brighness/contrast adjustments.
In a batch of "sync-all", my impression is that you want NR to act on the "raw - raw" image before any exposure or contrast adjustments. When you increase exposure for an underexposed image, the shadows becomre noiser, and this can throw off pre-built noise profiles (as least that is my experience with Neat-Image 6.1).
My preference is to do as much of the Post-Processing as possible in ACR for images that don't need layers. That way I can minimize use of PS when appropriate. At this time, I find myselft invoking PS for all images to do NR.
But perhaps I'm mis-informed (wouldnt' be be first or last). I've had email correspondence with the Neat-Image support person (also may the be developer?), and my understanding is that such as "hook" isn't available.
Of course, the really preferred suggestion would be for ACR to have as good or better NR as the plug-ins, but until then, it would be appreciated for Adobe CS4 to be more "plug-in friendly".

Noise Reduction is a PITA! Will this ever get easier?

One of the things (and there are many) that I like about LR is the
non-desctrcutive nature of the changes it makes. Recently I had a couple a
hundred shots where I had to use ISO 1600-3200. The LR noise reduction can
not hold a candle to the 3rd party tools. I use Noise Ninja myself. In order
to make sure that I had the best image to work from I had to export from LR
as a PSD in 16 bit and then run NN on the PSD file. The resultant PSD file
is 4 times larger than the DNG in LR. I now also have to deal with 2 files.
I remember reading about an SDK for LR that should allow NN and others to do
this in the same way that LR does its edits in a non destructive fashion.
Is there any progress on this front?
Does DxO 5 offer this?
The current way is really akward.

L. Little,
I haven't lost all hope that Adobe will get more into this. Raw Shooter Pro did not have near the issues with NR that LR has, had some nice pre-processing aspects for Noise (you can set up similar things under LR), and did not seem to create the issues frequently seen in LR especially with High ISO. Hopefully Adobe can pull more of that into the product. I think, from some of the readings on forums, that the whole NR engine in LR was a new redesign, maybe this is a case of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" at play, with that comes a desire to make whatever the new design is work.. so I guess we'll have to see if the refinements keep coming. I don't think they can ignore all the complaints from people.
The possibility of 3rd party tools linked in from the folks at Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc. is also something to look forward to. For high ISO images, I tend to let NR tools in CS3 handle the exported JPG after I've done any other adjustments, as opposed to sending it out via conversion, and bringing it back into LR.
Jay S.

High ISO noise handling

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

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

Base Sharpening and Noise Reduction D800/E

Has anyone set up a base sharpening and noise reduction at different ISOs for the D800/E?
I had LR all set up for my D300 and D700 so the base settings where used at import.
Now I need to do it with the D800E and was wondering what others might be using.
Thanks
Jim

Order doesn't matter in Lightroom.

Vocal Irregularity after applying Noise Reduction

In this new project I followed Bob Howes instruction:
‘Set the FFT size (on the advanced menu) to 2048 and grab a noise print from a gap of "silence". Select the entire filed and do reduction by 7 or 8 dB and 15%ish reduction. Set the FFT size to the next one up, get a new noise print and do another pass with the same low settings. Keep going, upping the FFT size each time.’
This new project I started out first with a Hard Limit. Then I followed Bob's advise with managing by steps the FFT size.
Sample One is a piece of the original.
Sample Two is the results of the effects.
It sounds as though the speed of the vocals did changed - though one can listen to the vocal their conversation sounds - unnatural.
After removing noise is there another approach to redeem the vocals of those speaking?
Thanks!
Original Sample One
HardLimit - Noise Reduction Sample Two
Your video has been published at http://youtu.be/K63D5QNGb_I
Your video will be live at: http://youtu.be/uOtLUYiZyQc

Yes, you have very much overdone the Noise Reduction!
First, I'm not sure why you would need to first apply a "Hard Limit".
Second, are you sure you followed Bob's advice exactly, i.e taking a new noise sample and changing the FFT size on each pass? Are you sure you set everything exactly correct on that first pass?

Very neat algorithm for noise reduction for high ISO

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for