New noise reduction king!

Kiat · Nov 6, 2003

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one program to keep an eye on!

Mike Warren · Nov 6, 2003

Kiat said:
Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

--
Mike
---
http://www.pbase.com/mikew714

Kiat · Nov 6, 2003

Mike Warren wrote:
Isn't there a Windows emulator you can use?

Mike Warren said:
Kiat said:

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

Click to expand...

--
Mike
---
http://www.pbase.com/mikew714

Mike Warren · Nov 6, 2003

Kiat said:
Isn't there a Windows emulator you can use?

Not worth the expense or hassle-too slow.
So this is out. Neat Image might support OS-X, later.
Gem works on a Mac.

David's Noise Reduction is actually pretty good. (Free)
See comparison to Neat Image:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=6518777

feivel says:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=6526668

David's Action Link:
http://www.canonians.com/noise.htm

Mike
---
http://www.pbase.com/mikew714

Dmitry K · Nov 6, 2003

Wow! It isn't SLIGHTLY better; my first impression is that it beats NeatImage hands down! More efficient, muuuuuch faster and no plastic look at all. Thanks!

Pro version IMO is overpriced, though.

Dmitry

Kiat said:
Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

VG · Nov 6, 2003

Pros:
Fast and easier to use than Neat Image
Cons:

It doesn't handle large, high ISO images as well as Neat Image. It has difficulty with high frequency artifacts. It doesn't function as a plugin for Photoshop. Doesn't allow custom camera profiles. Noise profiling not as precise as Neat Image. More expensive than Neat Image.

Anytime I hear someone mention 'plastic look' in Neat Image, it is always an indicator that they don't understand how to use the program.
Noise Ninja has promise but still needs a lot of work for serious use.
VG

Dmitry K said:
Pro version IMO is overpriced, though.

Dmitry

Kiat said:

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

Click to expand...

MissMouse · Nov 6, 2003

Like when neatimage first came out there was no Photoshop plug-in which meant to use neatimage you had to alter ones photoshop work-flow. Once neatimage developed its plug in it integrated seamlessly into work-flow that used photoshop. If an image needed noise reduction or noise reduction in selected parts you filter it with NI plug-in. If Ninja develops a Photoshop plug-in and is faster then NI it would be worth the higher cost. The time savings coupled with a reduced price for a completive upgrade might make it worthwhile for current licensed users of NI.
--
JJMack

Kiat · Nov 6, 2003

VG said:
It doesn't handle large, high ISO images as well as Neat Image. It
has difficulty with high frequency artifacts.

Really? I tried both Neat Image and Noise Ninja on an ISO400 (very noisy) photo I took with my A70.

The included A70 profile worked perfectly and the results were noticeably better than Neat Image.

VG said:
It doesn't function
as a plugin for Photoshop. Doesn't allow custom camera profiles.
Noise profiling not as precise as Neat Image. More expensive than
Neat Image.
Anytime I hear someone mention 'plastic look' in Neat Image, it is
always an indicator that they don't understand how to use the
program.
Noise Ninja has promise but still needs a lot of work for serious use.

Yes the interface is veru clunky and the program keeps crashing on one of my PCs. Not worth the money yet but when v1.1 comes out (or better yet v2), I may upgrade from Neat Image.

Anthony Game · Nov 6, 2003

Kiat said:
Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've just been trying it and have got results decidedly visually better than Neat on scans of old colour slides. And although the trial won't let one save it will save if one loads another image and replies YES to the request to save which means one can properly compare it. This is one to watch I suspect.

--
Anthony Game

Dmitry K · Nov 6, 2003

Yes I also have noticed this 'hidden feature'

I also like it more than NI so far; it appears to be better in reduction of chrominance noise, which is the most noticeable on printed photos. Actually the results are more like subtle film grain than digital noise. Where NN seems worse is very low frequency chrominance noise, NI deals with it better. Very promising tool all in all, let's see what next version will be.

Dmitry

Anthony Game said:
Kiat said:

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

Click to expand...

I've just been trying it and have got results decidedly visually
better than Neat on scans of old colour slides. And although the
trial won't let one save it will save if one loads another image
and replies YES to the request to save which means one can properly
compare it. This is one to watch I suspect.

--
Anthony Game

Jay Bean · Nov 6, 2003

Saying "better than neatimage" without indicating what your profile & filter settings are set to, is like saying "car" without saying what the make/model is. People that are getting "plastic" looks with neatimage have the filters turned up way too high. As with any tool or instrument, it will only perform as well as you tell it to perform.

Kiat said:
VG said:

It doesn't handle large, high ISO images as well as Neat Image. It
has difficulty with high frequency artifacts.

Click to expand...

Really? I tried both Neat Image and Noise Ninja on an ISO400 (very
noisy) photo I took with my A70.

The included A70 profile worked perfectly and the results were
noticeably better than Neat Image.

Kiat said:

It doesn't function
as a plugin for Photoshop. Doesn't allow custom camera profiles.
Noise profiling not as precise as Neat Image. More expensive than
Neat Image.
Anytime I hear someone mention 'plastic look' in Neat Image, it is
always an indicator that they don't understand how to use the
program.
Noise Ninja has promise but still needs a lot of work for serious use.

Click to expand...

Yes the interface is veru clunky and the program keeps crashing on
one of my PCs. Not worth the money yet but when v1.1 comes out (or
better yet v2), I may upgrade from Neat Image.

PictureCode · Nov 6, 2003

Hello dpreview readers,

I'm the developer of Noise Ninja. Feel free to send me email through my dpreview profile if you have any questions, feedback, or bug reports.

I'm glad to hear the favorable comparisons. I have a lot of respect for

NeatImage, so it's good to hear that Noise Ninja is pushing the envelope instead of just adding to the clutter.

I also want to squash any bugs quickly. The product has performed
flawlessly during testing, so please help me figure out what's going on.
I'll try to contact those of you who have mentioned problems.

Cheers,
Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

Kiat said:
Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

--
Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

PictureCode · Nov 6, 2003

A Mac port will probably be the highest development priority once
the launch of the Windows version settles down. At this point,
I can't commit to a date -- probably a few months at least.
It will depend in part on how quickly the Windows version reaches
a sustainable levels of sales. (Mac users, tell all your Windows
friends to buy Noise Ninja

).

Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

Mike Warren said:
Kiat said:

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

Click to expand...

--
Mike
---
http://www.pbase.com/mikew714

PictureCode · Nov 6, 2003

Hi Dmitry,

Glad your getting good results.

I'm happy to debate pricing. It's a tricky thing to decide. The Pro price was based on advice from a number of professional photographers and the owner of the leading camera store in my area. The clear consensus was that $99 was not a problem for pros if the product does its job.

I have considered offering an "Enthusiast" version at an intermediate price. The issue there is figuring out a feature set that is meaningful to that segment of users without taking too much of a bite out of the professional sales. If there's a big group of potential customers that are "stuck" between the Home and Pro editions, I'd like to try to find a solution.

What do you think would be a fair price? How would you describe yourself (enthusiast, pro, etc.?) What features do you require? I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks,
Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

Dmitry K said:
Pro version IMO is overpriced, though.

Dmitry

Kiat said:

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

I've tried a couple of noise reduction programs (such as Quantum
mechanic and DigitalGEM) and found that Neat Image would blow them
ALL away, especially for very noisy images.

But Noise Ninja seems to do a slightly better job (quite surprised
really). The program still has a few bugs (I can't build a noise
profile!) and the interface needs a bit of tweaking but this is one
program to keep an eye on!

Click to expand...

PictureCode · Nov 6, 2003

While it's not a substitute for a plug-in, you can drag images from PhotoShop or another application and drop them into Noise Ninja. At least it saves a couple of steps.

I've had a couple of PhotoShop users try the product who were a little concerned about the stand-alone nature of the app, but after they tried
it and got comfortable with the interface, they didn't mind so much.

I do want to develop a plug-in version, but I can't yet estimate when
that will happen.

Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

JJMACK said:
Like when neatimage first came out there was no Photoshop plug-in
which meant to use neatimage you had to alter ones photoshop
work-flow. Once neatimage developed its plug in it integrated
seamlessly into work-flow that used photoshop. If an image needed
noise reduction or noise reduction in selected parts you filter it
with NI plug-in. If Ninja develops a Photoshop plug-in and is
faster then NI it would be worth the higher cost. The time savings
coupled with a reduced price for a completive upgrade might make it
worthwhile for current licensed users of NI.
--
JJMack

PictureCode · Nov 6, 2003

I'd love to hear from other folks who use Noise Ninja for film scans.

What specific film/scanner combination do you use, and how well does Noise Ninja cope with it?

Also, thanks for the heads up about the "hidden feature".

Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

Anthony Game said:
Kiat said:

Check out Noise Ninja (tacky name huh?) at http://www.picturecode.com

Click to expand...

I've just been trying it and have got results decidedly visually
better than Neat on scans of old colour slides. And although the
trial won't let one save it will save if one loads another image
and replies YES to the request to save which means one can properly
compare it. This is one to watch I suspect.

--
Anthony Game

PictureCode · Nov 6, 2003

Hi Kiat,

Can you tell me the characteristics of the machine that is crashing?
(CPU, Windows version, etc.)

Also, can you tell me why you think the UI is "klunky"? (I've gotten
a lot of other feedback saying it is very intuitive and easy to use, so
I'd like to know how I can improve it.)

Thanks,
Jim Christian
PictureCode
http://www.picturecode.com

Kiat said:
VG said:

It doesn't handle large, high ISO images as well as Neat Image. It
has difficulty with high frequency artifacts.

Click to expand...

Really? I tried both Neat Image and Noise Ninja on an ISO400 (very
noisy) photo I took with my A70.

The included A70 profile worked perfectly and the results were
noticeably better than Neat Image.

Kiat said:

It doesn't function
as a plugin for Photoshop. Doesn't allow custom camera profiles.
Noise profiling not as precise as Neat Image. More expensive than
Neat Image.
Anytime I hear someone mention 'plastic look' in Neat Image, it is
always an indicator that they don't understand how to use the
program.
Noise Ninja has promise but still needs a lot of work for serious use.

Click to expand...

Yes the interface is veru clunky and the program keeps crashing on
one of my PCs. Not worth the money yet but when v1.1 comes out (or
better yet v2), I may upgrade from Neat Image.

feivel · Nov 6, 2003

PictureCode said:
I have considered offering an "Enthusiast" version at an
intermediate price. The issue there is figuring out a feature set
that is meaningful to that segment of users without taking too much
of a bite out of the professional sales. If there's a big group
of potential customers that are "stuck" between the Home and Pro
editions, I'd like to try to find a solution.

Here's the pricing problem as I see it.
I agree that there are primarily 3 groups that are interested.

The problem is that the middle group, the serious amateurs or enthusiasts, have the same requirements as the professionals but not the same budgets, i dont think you can find a feature set that will satisfy the middle group yet be too limited for the professional.

Is there a way to distinguish between the two groups with a licensing arrangement (instead of a feature differential) whereby the professionals would pay extra for the privelege of being able to sell images processed via the ninja? or would that rely too heavily on the "honor" system?

ps, i cant dpwnload the demo until tonight, im trying to keep you busy here instead of removing the "hidden feature"

feivel

VG · Nov 6, 2003

16 and 3200 ISO images are much different dogs than 800 and below.
VG

Kiat said:
VG said:

It doesn't handle large, high ISO images as well as Neat Image. It
has difficulty with high frequency artifacts.

Click to expand...

Really? I tried both Neat Image and Noise Ninja on an ISO400 (very
noisy) photo I took with my A70.

The included A70 profile worked perfectly and the results were
noticeably better than Neat Image.

Kiat said:

It doesn't function
as a plugin for Photoshop. Doesn't allow custom camera profiles.
Noise profiling not as precise as Neat Image. More expensive than
Neat Image.
Anytime I hear someone mention 'plastic look' in Neat Image, it is
always an indicator that they don't understand how to use the
program.
Noise Ninja has promise but still needs a lot of work for serious use.

Click to expand...

Yes the interface is veru clunky and the program keeps crashing on
one of my PCs. Not worth the money yet but when v1.1 comes out (or
better yet v2), I may upgrade from Neat Image.

feivel · Nov 6, 2003

or perhaps keeping the 16 bit (which now with the new photoshop, and the raw capability of the cameras that the enthusiasts are embracing, is becoming standard) but limiting the middle version to a batch of say 10, and imposing NO limit on the professional license for batching

feivel

New noise reduction king!

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts