![]() After many thousands of pictures, I never had to go back and rework a single picture manually!įor very strong noise, I found that NeatImage gives better results if you first take out only part of the noise (40-50%)using the corresponding preset then I do a second pass in Auto mode (at this point I don’t have a preset for the reduced noise picture), again at 40-50%.Įven a picture taken at max ISO (12800 on EOS 7D) comes out quite smooth, and adding the right amount of sharpening on the second pass gives sharp pictures. Although the Auto mode is usually very good, preparing and using the preset modes saves the scanning time for each picture.Īlso because I KNOW that the noise algorithm is the right one, I don’t need to check if the picture came out actually ok. ![]() This way I can exactly reduce noise even when I don’t have a very smooth area in the picture for the Auto mode to work with. I took the time to build my own noise database with my cameras: for each body and each ISO I have a preset noise level see in NeatImage Help how to do it. I pass every single picture I take through it. Noise reduction in lower frequencies may now be adjusted separately though dedicated sliders, allowing you to more accurately fine-tune your results. ![]() I have been using NeatImage for some years now. Neat Image 8 now automatically processes Very Low and Ultra Low frequency ranges, which is important given today’s high resolution cameras. This photo was under-exposed by a stop, and was shot with the Canon 1D mk2N.ġ/160 f2.8 800 ISO a touch of on-camera TTL fill-flash.įiled Under: digital imaging, software review, Uncategorized Tagged With: digital imaging, digital noise reduction software, neat image So while the software offers all types of controls and fine adjustments for those who want to fine-tune their settings for optimal results, I really like it that the defaults give impressive results. I’m just too busy to go delving deeply into every bit of software I end up using … so it’s a real time saver when a bit of software just works without effort. I like software where the defaults already work and make sense. Here are 100% screen-grabs of the image above, to show you what the noise looked like, and how Neat Image handled this instance. In the example thread above, Neat-image had two issues that the others did not (not just compared to. In my view, it is a better program overall. I’ve tried several software programs, including Noise Ninja and Topaz DeNoise, but prefer the results from Neat Image. Filter reviews by the users company size, role or industry to find out how The Neat Company works for a business like yours. Neat Image, in contrast, has none of these issues, although it, too, will sometimes produce a different kind of artifact. Then we have to use software to clean the image up.įor those times when I do have to deal with an image with noticeable noise, and need to correct for it, then I use Neat Image. But sometimes (hopefully only sometimes), you have to deal with an under-exposed photograph from an older camera … and then the digital noise becomes apparent. Then digital noise mostly isn’t an issue unless you start pushing the upper limits of what the camera is capable of. The best way to deal with digital noise in photographs is to start with having a correctly exposed photograph taken by a high-ISO capable camera. ![]() For other processing it uses both.Digital noise reduction software: Neat Image DxO made it clear that PRIME noise reduction does not use the graphics card for calculations, only the CPU. My Canon 5DMk3 RAW files used to take between half and a minute on a 6-core i7 (one or two steps back from Skylake generation) in DxO 9. So, I did my own tests.ĭxO Optics Pro 9 noise reduction takes about 5 seconds (in Prime mode) on my modest system (I5 Skylake, GeForce 1060, 8 gigs of ram). Like you, I came here to find out which software is better for noise reduction but noticed that many people praise the software that they use without ever trying anything else. I also compared NeatImage with Topaz Denoise and other software which I forgot already. I bought NeatImage when I already had DxO because I needed noise reduction for JPEGs, and DxO is not very good for JPEG noise reduction. That's what I did when I was testing NeatImage. Take a very noisy RAW file, process it both with DxO and ACDSee/NeatImage, and see how you like the resulting JPEGs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |