Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Which noise reduction method do you prefer?

  1. #1

    Default Which noise reduction method do you prefer?

    Hi, got a short survey here to be done. I have below an image taken at ISO800, with lots and lots of noise. I tried 2 different methods of noise reduction, hereby wanna hear your opinion as to which one you think is better. The original image is:



    Method A

    The noisy pixels are reduced to grey shades as you can see....no loss of details but image looks very grainy

    Method B

    The details are smoothened out in this case, so image looks very very soft.

    Yep, so I would like to hear from you guys, which do you think is better. Wanna say that I'm requesting to hear about their relative performance, which is better compared to the other. Please refrain from saying things like both sux. Cos I know they suck.

    Thanks guys!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    haha.. actually both sux
    Canon Lover :)

  3. #3

    Default

    Originally posted by Klause
    haha.. actually both sux



  4. #4

    Default Method A

    I prefer method A, at least some of the details are still there.
    Method B is too soft that it becomes blur.

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks leroy for your feedback
    I've just done more experimenting with Method A, applying it on various situations when noise is bad. And I've had some really positive results! For example, the following weaver pic taken at ISO200:


    Can see some shadow noise and high ISO noise in the picture....

    After applying noise reduction:

    Much better!

    Here's a closer look at the effect:

    Before

    After


    Now I'm quite convinced Method A works much better than Method B. Will dump Method B from now on!

    Btw Method A is Quantum Mechanics from Camera Bits.
    Method B is isoX from Fred Miranda.
    Last edited by Tweek; 26th January 2002 at 10:54 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    yup...i think method A is better....btw, both are not free rite???

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    Is this any better?

    I used iColorDeNoise, auto-levels and Ultra-Sharpen 3.0 Pro. Both iColorDeNoise and Ultra-Sharpen 3.0 Pro are free.



    Last edited by mpenza; 27th January 2002 at 10:13 PM.
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  8. #8

    Default

    Yup, method A is better. I guess its still best to prevent using higher ISO.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UP NORTH
    Posts
    727

    Default

    method A is my preference....

  10. #10

    Default

    Originally posted by Goose
    yup...i think method A is better....btw, both are not free rite???
    Yar, both not free. In fact Quantum Mechanics is far far more expensive than isoX. But, hehe....there's a taboo word that I can't use here, but we all know what it is.

  11. #11

    Default

    Originally posted by mpenza
    Is this any better?

    I used iColorDeNoise, auto-levels and Ultra-Sharpen 3.0 Pro. Both iColorDeNoise and Ultra-Sharpen 3.0 Pro are free.
    Thanks for the try out, KC. Yup the DeNoise seems to work pretty well, but still got hints of red and blue although individual pixels seemed to have been denoised. The effect is a bit similar to Quantum Mechanics actually. As for ultra-sharpen I think it is too harsh....I will stick to unsharp mask. Thanks!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •