d7i - noise subject again -

*isteve said:

However in camera noise reduction is applied to every shot in the
same way. Using NeatImage you can tune the NR specifically for the
image. This means you can eliminate noise AND retain detail AND
sharpen at the same time. However its tough to use for images
without a fairly large area (60+ pixels square) of a single colour
and it can take a LONG TIME to get right on some pictures and build
up a decent library of profiles.

Click to expand...

I tried Neat Image but although I tried various settings I found that it tended to slightly blur the whole image while removing noise. It seems there is a compromise to find between noise and blur and I found photoshop intereting to this respect because it allows you to accurately select the area of the image in which noise has to be removed. This way you only blur the selected area and not the whole image.
maflu

Geraint Morgan said:

Do you really think the in-camera noise reduction software is
superior to PC noise reduction software? Considering the PC has a
larger processor and more time to do the noise reduction.

It is interesting to consider whether you wish to accept what is
imposed on you against having control of what happens...

Click to expand...

i haven't heard a single person complaining about the f707's noise reduction. my guess is that it is pretty conservative, so by all means i let it impose on me...

You're so right. Dang it! Since we all can't see noise on the D7i shots, then the D60 is a waste of money with it's clean image. And I thought the D60 with it's noise free image was a big advantage. Dang it! If we can't notice it on the D7/D7i, why would we notice any improvement with a D60 image?



No noise at all in the shadow areas of the face at all. Cool!

Just ribbin' ya. ; ) LOL

B A H

Clifford said:

All this talk of "NOISE" (grain in film) is a joke! ALL cameras
have to have
something to record the image on. In film, you have Panatomic X (fine)
to countless high speed films, but you WILL have grain in ANY photo
you
take. The same holds true in digital. In film we used hundreds of
processes
to try and reduce the grain. Now, compared to films, when I print a
JPG
11X17 inchs, from my D-7, I don't see no stinking noise! Get real,
please.

Clifford
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide
http://adigitaldreamer.com

B A H said:

You're so right. Dang it! Since we all can't see noise on the D7i
shots, then the D60 is a waste of money with it's clean image. And
I thought the D60 with it's noise free image was a big advantage.
Dang it! If we can't notice it on the D7/D7i, why would we notice
any improvement with a D60 image?



No noise at all in the shadow areas of the face at all. Cool!

Just ribbin' ya. ; ) LOL

B A H

-------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

Don't care what camera the posted photo was taken with, the sky
IS "noisy". BAH, even in the old days there were a couple of developers
that desolved out the silver grains and replaced the image with dye
stains. First Kodachrome 25 did that. Maybe the D-60 does that with
in-camera "developing". Oh well, it's the problem of the
ages for both film and digital users. Good to hear from you! Sometimes
wonder if anyone reads this stuff.
--
Clifford
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown

There are lots of people complaining about the 707's noise
reduction. That is the primary reason not to buy the camera.
The crazy color is the second, and the MemStick issue is the
third. No RAW is the fourth. Design is the fifth. The flat area
smoothing is terrible, and the color and smoothing together
make a lot of landscape shots look like watercolor paintings, not
photos. If you have read nothing about the noise reduction
being a problem, then you have read almost nothing about the
camera since the first review was posted.

michaelmichael said:

Geraint Morgan said:

Do you really think the in-camera noise reduction software is
superior to PC noise reduction software? Considering the PC has a
larger processor and more time to do the noise reduction.

It is interesting to consider whether you wish to accept what is
imposed on you against having control of what happens...

Click to expand...

i haven't heard a single person complaining about the f707's noise
reduction. my guess is that it is pretty conservative, so by all
means i let it impose on me...

Click to expand...

Bob Williams said:

There are lots of people complaining about the 707's noise
reduction. That is the primary reason not to buy the camera.
The crazy color is the second, and the MemStick issue is the
third. No RAW is the fourth. Design is the fifth. The flat area
smoothing is terrible, and the color and smoothing together
make a lot of landscape shots look like watercolor paintings, not
photos. If you have read nothing about the noise reduction
being a problem, then you have read almost nothing about the
camera since the first review was posted.
michaelmichael wrote:

Click to expand...

you are exaggerating quite a bit, don't you think?

maflu said:

maflu said:

However in camera noise reduction is applied to every shot in the
same way. Using NeatImage you can tune the NR specifically for the
image. This means you can eliminate noise AND retain detail AND
sharpen at the same time. However its tough to use for images
without a fairly large area (60+ pixels square) of a single colour
and it can take a LONG TIME to get right on some pictures and build
up a decent library of profiles.

Click to expand...

I tried Neat Image but although I tried various settings I found
that it tended to slightly blur the whole image while removing
noise. It seems there is a compromise to find between noise and
blur and I found photoshop intereting to this respect because it
allows you to accurately select the area of the image in which
noise has to be removed. This way you only blur the selected area
and not the whole image.
maflu

Click to expand...

I think Neatimage is doing something cleverer than blurring. I use it to sharpen my pics! It did take some practise to prevent it introducing some strange artifacts but I have started getting the hang of it now. It would be nice if you could select areas of the picture in NI to "de-noise" I admit, but by using moderate settings for everything I'm getting great results.

But, I only bother if I am printing a crop with more obvious noise at 100%. The rest of the time the prints look pretty good without it at 300dpi.
--
Steve

No, I am not exaggerating at all. Go to Steve's Digicam, and look
back thru the PTOD winners from the 707. You will find a
very nice landscape that you will swear is a watercolor. This is an
extreme example. Many people see the noise reduction effects
in about 85 percent of the shots taken with the camera. I am one
of them.

michaelmichael said:

Bob Williams said:

There are lots of people complaining about the 707's noise
reduction. That is the primary reason not to buy the camera.
The crazy color is the second, and the MemStick issue is the
third. No RAW is the fourth. Design is the fifth. The flat area
smoothing is terrible, and the color and smoothing together
make a lot of landscape shots look like watercolor paintings, not
photos. If you have read nothing about the noise reduction
being a problem, then you have read almost nothing about the
camera since the first review was posted.
michaelmichael wrote:

Click to expand...

you are exaggerating quite a bit, don't you think?

Click to expand...

*isteve said:

I think Neatimage is doing something cleverer than blurring. I use
it to sharpen my pics! It did take some practise to prevent it
introducing some strange artifacts but I have started getting the
hang of it now. It would be nice if you could select areas of the
picture in NI to "de-noise" I admit, but by using moderate settings
for everything I'm getting great results.

Click to expand...

Steve, could you share any of your workflow for Neatimage please? I'm OK about the simple noise reduction part, less than clear about the second tab on their bar, and very unclear about how best to use the third (what was than one?) and sharpening. Any assistance, from those with there hands already dirty, would be greatfully recieved !

Robert

michaelmichael said:

you are exaggerating quite a bit, don't you think?

Click to expand...

No, he isn't. I was looking seriously at the 707 as a contender with the Canon G2 and Minolta D7i, but when I saw some of the watercolor shots, which were also aggravated by the rather obnoxious colors, that was that.

No post processing can save that. Noise can be fixed in any of several ways, in the few cases it's a problem - which to me isn't often.

--
Jesper

Hi Robert. Have some very obvious NI before and after crops on

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=2

Following workflow seems to work for me, but read other threads and advice on

http://www.arnason.no

as well. Mine is very much trial and error and I'm still learning but my last print of a 60% crop (for 2X telephoto effect) worked really well.

Workflow:

Try and find a uniform dark greay shadow area as the start. Used the boats hull in this case to build initial profile.

In equalizer (tab 2) I fine tuned the settings by measuring samples from the sky (lighter) and dark shadows (water and under jetty) until there were no more "red" slider headers. I have preferences set to "take minimal" measurement so as not to introduce aritfacts in other areas.

In filter (tab 3) I set noise filtration amount to 80% and leave the rest well alone.

In sharpening (tab 4) I set Yellow Channel Only, 20% threshold, 80%HF, 20%MF and 0% LF sharpening.

Tricks: Start with darkest grey shadow areas first. Will be most accurate even if you dont fine-tune. Starting with the light areas (eg Sky) leads to strange "birds footprints" in darker areas. If you can't get a big enough area (as above) pick the darkest area you can find and fine tune in equaliser using some smaller dark patches and light patches. Alternatively pick a picture with similar overall contrast and brightness and build a profile from that.

Use the preview (glasses) button to preview critcal areas - these include: Areas with random detail and small detail (eg Sea/Sand/Wheatfield) to make sure it has not erased any detail or turned them into strange patterns.
Dark shadow areas and dark colours (to check for bird's feet).

Thats it - now takes me about 10 minutes and 1 filter pass. Hope you have fun.

Steve

Robert said:

Robert97943 said:

I think Neatimage is doing something cleverer than blurring. I use
it to sharpen my pics! It did take some practise to prevent it
introducing some strange artifacts but I have started getting the
hang of it now. It would be nice if you could select areas of the
picture in NI to "de-noise" I admit, but by using moderate settings
for everything I'm getting great results.

Click to expand...

Steve, could you share any of your workflow for Neatimage please?
I'm OK about the simple noise reduction part, less than clear about
the second tab on their bar, and very unclear about how best to use
the third (what was than one?) and sharpening. Any assistance,
from those with there hands already dirty, would be greatfully
recieved !

Robert

Click to expand...

Works well but you lose a lot of fine details, the image is blurred (particularly visible if you look at the water).
Maflu

Steve Jacob said:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=2

Following workflow seems to work for me, but read other threads and
advice on

http://www.arnason.no

*isteve said:

Robert

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, this is a 200% crop and the "details" in the water were mainly noise. Fine detail like nets and lines in the shot are not affected. But, everything in life is a compromise. Try it though.

Steve

maflu said:

Steve Jacob said:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=2

Following workflow seems to work for me, but read other threads and
advice on

http://www.arnason.no

maflu said:

Robert

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Steve

I was doing battle against the birds feet today... problem I had was the sky was the only flat area I had but it was a nice dark grey cloud.

I'll have another go tomorrow... in the end I applied Photo-Brush RGB noise removal. Which was nicer overal but removed stone detail in my castle walls.

Steve Jacob said:

Steve

maflu said:

Steve Jacob said:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=2

Following workflow seems to work for me, but read other threads and
advice on

http://www.arnason.no

*isteve said:

Robert

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Steve

Click to expand...

Major C Henderson said:

Richard V Lamprecht wrote:
Those images definitely DO show noise. But, most peoples's pictures
taken with the D7i don't have that much noise. I don't know why
Steve's samples were this noisy. The only significant noise I've
seen in my own pictures has been in the blue sky.
I'm just putting up with it, because Neatimage does not work with
Macs.

Click to expand...

Hi Major!

That was exactly the same question I came up with.

I didn't want to get anybody upset here I actually got upset seeing som of the guys photos and than get on those 'pro' pages and got down.

Thanks Major for understanding

Melanie Kipp said:

Examples of low/no noise D7 shots ... low light, too.
Use tripod and ISO 100:

http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/EndlessSummer.html

http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/capatdusk.html

http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/stargazer.html

http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/Escher.html

Keep in mind these were reduced to load on the web, so there has
been some degradation in image quality. No neat image or other
noise reduction methods used.

Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

Click to expand...

Hi Melany!

I really like your photos. Actually they made me a little angry at all of 'pro' guys who claimed grainess of d7i photos. I also like your Oly 2100uz gallery.
It takes more than camera to make good photos.

Cheers,
Sunny

Robert97943 said:

Deary me Clifford. Perhaps you have eye problems? I have printed
a number of D7i images (only 8x10, didn't need to go to 11x17) and
can clearly see the noise. However, I also ran them through
neatimage and printed them again - now I'm much happier

This was the images from Phil's review on an Epson 1270, A4 paper,
720ppi.

Click to expand...

I tried something similar. I printed the one with the picture of the tower at 10x8 because it had a lot of blue sky and so thought that would be where the noise was most obvious.

Looking on screen at 72 dpi you could see a grainy effect. At 240 dpi printing you could not see it.

So I ran the image through Neat Image and you could see it make a difference on the monitor.

So I printed that as well.

Put the prints side by side and I can't tell the difference.

Dave

Hi Geriant - the birds feet bothered me for days until I realised that fine tuning in the equaliser does not require such a large area. Pick a few small dark and coloured patches to fine-tune the profile and - as if by magic - no more birds feet.

I took several pictures at an opera at ISO400 - the black habits of some nuns (!?!) got terrible problems so I just measured the shadows on the walls and then did some small samples on the habits themselves and it worked great.

Steve

Geraint Morgan said:

I'll have another go tomorrow... in the end I applied Photo-Brush
RGB noise removal. Which was nicer overal but removed stone detail
in my castle walls.

Steve Jacob said:

Steve

maflu said:

Steve Jacob said:

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=2

Following workflow seems to work for me, but read other threads and
advice on

http://www.arnason.no

wgm-cp4500 said:

Robert

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Steve

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Steve