New Noise Reduction Program

[ymun]

Refer to link:

http://helicon.com.ua/pages/index.php?id=347


Saw this in dpreview forum and feedback by users are apparently very positive, some even say its better than NI and NJ. Try it!

Cheers!

 

[junyang]

Just tried this software out! seems like theres no loss in sharpness after de-noising

Here are some 100% crops

ISO 1600, 50mm f1.8 at F8

ISO 1600, 50mm f1.8 at F8 - denoised

 

[chrisleng]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the link. Will try it out.

Regards

 

[ccplim]

Paisei, I don't have any pics using high ISO but I managed to try it out. See if you guys can see any different. I am using the default of 20.

On the very first pic that I tried, the color of the background actully came out different. Wonder why? :think:

ps. please don't blame me if this post doesn't help :sweat:

Original

Using NeatImage

Using NoiseFilter

 

[stroma]

Refer to link:

http://helicon.com.ua/pages/index.php?id=347


Saw this in dpreview forum and feedback by users are apparently very positive, some even say its better than NI and NJ. Try it!

Cheers!

Thanks - just downloaded it and it seems excellent. I'm going to go and have a good look at results in PS and compare to other noise reduction techniues but I have a feeling this one might just win it !!

thanks again - Stroma

 

[Winston]

Tried it on some pretty noisy pictures and 'pushed' the "Noise Level" indicator to 60 from the default 20.

And the results were great. Though the EXIF data was lost, but the output file is very clearly smoother and less grainy than the orinigal file which I backed up.

I think the strength of this software over Neat Image, is that it is so much easier to use.

Now if only it allowed batch processing of all the files in a same directory, using default options and saving them in the same directory with a suffix behind.
It will really speed up processing time of having to open each file individually, processing it and save it, giving it a new name...

The Professional version seems to allow batch operations.... too bad it's still under development. Won't mind paying a small fee for such a great program.

 

[ccplim]

Tried it on some pretty noisy pictures and 'pushed' the "Noise Level" indicator to 60 from the default 20.

And the results were great. Though the EXIF data was lost, but the output file is very clearly smoother and less grainy than the orinigal file which I backed up.

I think the strength of this software over Neat Image, is that it is so much easier to use.

Now if only it allowed batch processing of all the files in a same directory, using default options and saving them in the same directory with a suffix behind.
It will really speed up processing time of having to open each file individually, processing it and save it, giving it a new name...

The Professional version seems to allow batch operations.... too bad it's still under development. Won't mind paying a small fee for such a great program.

I have actually registered myself as a beta tester :sweat: Hopefully can try out the pro version soon.

Now.... I really got to start collecting high ISO pics :sweatsm:

 

[stroma]

I have actually registered myself as a beta tester :sweat: Hopefully can try out the pro version soon.

Now.... I really got to start collecting high ISO pics :sweatsm:

This is simple to operate and does the job, but only seems to work on JPEGS so either have to run at beginning or end of processing. presumably once it's developed as a PS Plug-in this won't be a problem. Also compared to NI it seems to work on any camera without having to profile its inherent noise.. or am I missing something?

 

[coke21]

Anyone used PixelEnhance before? Is it any good?

 

[sriram]

I tried this software over the past couple of days. It does a good job on some images, but on some others, the colours seem to change dramatically, I don't know why. There was a portrait where the skin tones changed to cyan. Repeated this once again, and same results. This is still too buggy for heavy duty use.

 

[tokrot]

I just tried it and think it's a Very good s/w. In my opinon it is slightly better than NeatImage. I have compared both using portriat pictures. It seems that NeatImage one gives too smooth PS quality whereas the other not just being able to reduce the red noise and produces better natural looking pic. Thanks for the link!

 

[cyrilng]

Seems to work quite well but a trade-off appears to be a slight loss of sharpness/definition. :think:

 

[ccplim]

Seems to work quite well but a trade-off appears to be a slight loss of sharpness/definition. :think:

The pro version will have a better performance. It's still in the development and testing stage

 

[Maxwellian]

I used Noise Ninja and gets very good result from it. I may try this now.

 

[devilicboy]

anyway, does anybody know of a good raw convertor program for my 300D & 10D??haven't got my hands on photoshop cs yet... :bsmilie:

 

[devilicboy]

anyway, does anybody know of a good raw convertor program for my 300D & 10D??haven't got my hands on photoshop cs yet... :bsmilie:

must be free and downloadable!!pls PM me the link!!thanksss :devil:

 

[tokrot]

Hi guys,

I just posted to their forum informing them of a lower Jpeg quality bug as compared to the preview. They just replied in the forum that that they are working on it for next beta release.

 

[cheersjy]

Hi guys,

I just posted to their forum informing them of a lower Jpeg quality bug as compared to the preview. They just replied in the forum that that they are working on it for next beta release.

After running the noise reduction process and saving, I found the picture file smaller in size (in terms of kb) compared to the original picture. It seems that this program makes a higher compression on the picture file. Is this what you mentioned above, or my setting is not correct?

 

[ccplim]

Hi guys,

I just posted to their forum informing them of a lower Jpeg quality bug as compared to the preview. They just replied in the forum that that they are working on it for next beta release.

Which version did you tried?

 

[tokrot]

After running the noise reduction process and saving, I found the picture file smaller in size (in terms of kb) compared to the original picture. It seems that this program makes a higher compression on the picture file. Is this what you mentioned above, or my setting is not correct?

I am not sure what you mean by that but I did a test using night shot. The hot pixel on the final picture was less brilliant as compare to the preview shot. So I guess they are using lower Jpeg Quality.