Promising results for FZ300 with DXO Prime Noise reduction

woodepgh said:

As suggested by another poster, I modified the EXIF from my FZ300 test images to fool DXO into thinking that they were from an FZ200. I shot this image at ISO 6400 and cranked up the shadows to about 35 to better uncover the noise. The resulting TIF image with DXO's Prime Noise Reduction is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing. Even though I would avoid such a high ISO normally, it is good to know that I can capture a usable high ISO shot if necessary.

I don't know what is causing the delays in releasing the FZ300 patch, but if this test is any indication, results from the eventual release should be incredible!


Raw file from FZ300 before DXO Prime noise reduction is applied


TIF file of image after DXO Prime noise reduction is applied

Click to expand...

Digital Nigel said:

Digital Nigel said:

I'd suggest you've gone a bit too far there, and ended up with a very plasticky looking image. I'd maybe dial the Luminance setting down a bit, reduce the Low frequency setting to perhaps 70, and add a dash of ClearView (try a setting of 10 or 20).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

woodepgh said:

Digital Nigel said:

woodepgh said:

I'd suggest you've gone a bit too far there, and ended up with a very plasticky looking image. I'd maybe dial the Luminance setting down a bit, reduce the Low frequency setting to perhaps 70, and add a dash of ClearView (try a setting of 10 or 20).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Nigel. I wasn't going for a perfect final product, only one that clearly showed the noise reduction without loss of detail. As mentioned, I increased the shadow setting to an abnormally high level intentionally, and accepted the default settings for the Prime noise reduction. However, point taken for when I start to use this for non-testing purposes!

Ed

Click to expand...

Grizzly Steven said:

Not trying to be cheeky here, but I want to understand what you mean by "Plastic". The object photographed IS plastic, so obviously looking plastic would not be a bad thing. I think you're getting at something else and I wonder if you could explain.

Click to expand...

woodepgh said:

woodepgh said:

Digital Nigel said:

woodepgh said:

I'd suggest you've gone a bit too far there, and ended up with a very plasticky looking image. I'd maybe dial the Luminance setting down a bit, reduce the Low frequency setting to perhaps 70, and add a dash of ClearView (try a setting of 10 or 20).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Nigel. I wasn't going for a perfect final product, only one that clearly showed the noise reduction without loss of detail. As mentioned, I increased the shadow setting to an abnormally high level intentionally, and accepted the default settings for the Prime noise reduction. However, point taken for when I start to use this for non-testing purposes!

Ed

Click to expand...

Nigel, here it is with your recommended settings:

Click to expand...

woodepgh said:

As suggested by another poster, I modified the EXIF from my FZ300 test images to fool DXO into thinking that they were from an FZ200. I shot this image at ISO 6400 and cranked up the shadows to about 35 to better uncover the noise. The resulting TIF image with DXO's Prime Noise Reduction is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing. Even though I would avoid such a high ISO normally, it is good to know that I can capture a usable high ISO shot if necessary.

I don't know what is causing the delays in releasing the FZ300 patch, but if this test is any indication, results from the eventual release should be incredible!


Raw file from FZ300 before DXO Prime noise reduction is applied


TIF file of image after DXO Prime noise reduction is applied

Click to expand...

old jim said:

woodepgh said:

As suggested by another poster, I modified the EXIF from my FZ300 test images to fool DXO into thinking that they were from an FZ200. I shot this image at ISO 6400 and cranked up the shadows to about 35 to better uncover the noise. The resulting TIF image with DXO's Prime Noise Reduction is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing. Even though I would avoid such a high ISO normally, it is good to know that I can capture a usable high ISO shot if necessary.

I don't know what is causing the delays in releasing the FZ300 patch, but if this test is any indication, results from the eventual release should be incredible!


Raw file from FZ300 before DXO Prime noise reduction is applied


TIF file of image after DXO Prime noise reduction is applied

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing this illustration woodegph! I sure wish that more people would nag DxO to get the release for FZ330/300, previously forecast for December 2015, on their web site. I know DxO must be tired of hearing from me:-(, as I go on their chat/support page weekly with that question;-(. I decline to do the hack, and will continue to do so. I will also not encourage others to use the hack . I will plead that they contact DxO and advise them of their disappointment with the delay. They need to know there are a lot of us out here waiting!

Warm regards,

p.s. what does CGI stand for?

--
DP Review - Where else?
Old Jim ;-)

Click to expand...

ANAYV said:

Good removal of noise. Impressive.

But what about detail retention?

I wonder the results of fine hair, feathers, etc, which subjects many FZ users would be shooting .

This subject is void of any real detail, so yes , the noise is all gone, but how much detail will be preserved/ removed if shooting, say at ISO 1600 or 3200, with a subject that has plenty of detail ?

Maybe try a diffent subject, like text, hair, fur, feathers.

Click to expand...

Digital Nigel said:

ANAYV said:

Good removal of noise. Impressive.

But what about detail retention?

I wonder the results of fine hair, feathers, etc, which subjects many FZ users would be shooting .

This subject is void of any real detail, so yes , the noise is all gone, but how much detail will be preserved/ removed if shooting, say at ISO 1600 or 3200, with a subject that has plenty of detail ?

Maybe try a diffent subject, like text, hair, fur, feathers.

Click to expand...

Like this?

Click to expand...

woodepgh said:

Sure, Nigel, but apples and oranges. These were captured by the FZ1000, not the FZ300 - and I am guessing at a much lower ISO setting. The FZ300 can't come close to capturing this kind of detail in the original ISO 6400 shot - let alone the noise-reduced version from DxO.

Click to expand...

woodepgh said:

Digital Nigel said:

ANAYV said:

Good removal of noise. Impressive.

But what about detail retention?

I wonder the results of fine hair, feathers, etc, which subjects many FZ users would be shooting .

This subject is void of any real detail, so yes , the noise is all gone, but how much detail will be preserved/ removed if shooting, say at ISO 1600 or 3200, with a subject that has plenty of detail ?

Maybe try a diffent subject, like text, hair, fur, feathers.

Click to expand...

Like this?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Digital Nigel said:

woodepgh said:

Sure, Nigel, but apples and oranges. These were captured by the FZ1000, not the FZ300 - and I am guessing at a much lower ISO setting. The FZ300 can't come close to capturing this kind of detail in the original ISO 6400 shot - let alone the noise-reduced version from DxO.

Click to expand...

I think the falcon was at ISO6400, but will have to check back with the original to be sure, as this version of DOP isn't showing the ISO. I can't remember what ISO the penguin was at, but will check tomorrow. I know it was shot in dim light, just before sunset.

Digital Nigel said:

Digital Nigel said:

ANAYV said:

Good removal of noise. Impressive.

But what about detail retention?

I wonder the results of fine hair, feathers, etc, which subjects many FZ users would be shooting .

This subject is void of any real detail, so yes , the noise is all gone, but how much detail will be preserved/ removed if shooting, say at ISO 1600 or 3200, with a subject that has plenty of detail ?

Maybe try a diffent subject, like text, hair, fur, feathers.

Click to expand...

Like thi

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

woodepgh said:

My point being: I know that my FZ300 won't have the IQ of the FZ1000 with regard to sensor noise/usable ISO, DOF, and whatever else the tiny sensor brings to the table. I am merely comparing before and after of an already substandard image, and hoping to make the image usable. If I want the advantages of a large sensor camera, I will use my DSLR and forego the convenience and cool features of the FZ300. <stepping off soap box now...>

Ed

Digital Nigel said:

woodepgh said:

Sure, Nigel, but apples and oranges. These were captured by the FZ1000, not the FZ300 - and I am guessing at a much lower ISO setting. The FZ300 can't come close to capturing this kind of detail in the original ISO 6400 shot - let alone the noise-reduced version from DxO.

Click to expand...

I think the falcon was at ISO6400, but will have to check back with the original to be sure, as this version of DOP isn't showing the ISO. I can't remember what ISO the penguin was at, but will check tomorrow. I know it was shot in dim light, just before sunset.

woodepgh said:

Digital Nigel said:

ANAYV said:

Good removal of noise. Impressive.

But what about detail retention?

I wonder the results of fine hair, feathers, etc, which subjects many FZ users would be shooting .

This subject is void of any real detail, so yes , the noise is all gone, but how much detail will be preserved/ removed if shooting, say at ISO 1600 or 3200, with a subject that has plenty of detail ?

Maybe try a diffent subject, like text, hair, fur, feathers.

Click to expand...

Like thi

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Digital Nigel said:

I'd suggest you've gone a bit too far there, and ended up with a very plasticky looking image.

Click to expand...

PC Wheeler said:

Digital Nigel said:

I'd suggest you've gone a bit too far there, and ended up with a very plasticky looking image.

Click to expand...

Given the target, wouldn't "plasticky" in this case be the same as realistic?

Click to expand...

Digital Nigel said:

Like this?

Click to expand...

Digital Nigel said:

Click to expand...