NeatImage vs NoiseNinja vs Noiseware

[ddan daniel]

My prefered settings for NoiseNinja are not the default either, but
I try to make this comparison as fair as possible.
By using default settings we give also an advantage to not so
experienced users that want to use a denoising software. So in case
they don't do any adjustments at least they can get an idea of how
their images will look aproximately after denoising at default
settings.

How about doing a 'baseline' series using the defaults, as you have already, and then a few examples of adjustments? As similar as you can get with each program- reduce luminance, increase chrominance reduction, say. Some well-marked attempts at just showing people how each program can be adjusted to give different effects.

I know that I was quite amazed with Noise Ninja when I reduced the lum and upped the chroma, changed the contrast. It wasn't until I started doing this that I thought that I could make the program work for me.

So some rough samples of how each program can be pushed in different direction might be very helpful to others. It might also help people who have no experience decide to go ahead and dig in and start moving some sliders around and make the best use of the programs.

Well, all of this is easy for me to say-I just type for a couple of minutes and off to eat dinner while you're the one who would be spending the actual time on the article!
Dan Daniel

 

[linuxworks]

I will probably return the canon because its not 'processable' as
much and I like to do PP quite a lot.

I'm surprized to hear this.
I found the opposite,on older Canon models vs. FZ line..
Must be DIGIC II processing.

maybe. its DOES have lots of pop right out of the cam. but compared to, say, the lx1, I can't push the sliders around nearly as much before things go to hell in a handbasket real fast

that said, I just got a really nice pano done with the nodal ninja and the a620:



(small version here; larger one on my flicker page).

I did add some saturation, highlight/shadow control, a little USM and 2 resizes down. it needed no de-noising and I didn't even want to try doing any.

I suspect its not as sharp as the fz or lx, but it was no slouch either. it comes close to being a 'do-all' camera. but I still do find the user interface kind of clunky and with 4 AA's, well, it weighs almost as much as my carbon fiber tripod and head! seriously - I do really hate the 4 AA's.

but the main thing is that I bought this for total remote control and I just found out that it won't be controllable for manual focus. in fact, NO digicam does this. so the one thing I wanted from this, no one has. given that, I really don't have a compelling reason to keep this. it was going to be my remote control project but that's now dead and killed ;(

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

 

[Archangel_GT]

How about doing a 'baseline' series using the defaults, as you have
already, and then a few examples of adjustments? As similar as you
can get with each program- reduce luminance, increase chrominance
reduction, say. Some well-marked attempts at just showing people
how each program can be adjusted to give different effects.
I know that I was quite amazed with Noise Ninja when I reduced the
lum and upped the chroma, changed the contrast. It wasn't until I
started doing this that I thought that I could make the program
work for me.
So some rough samples of how each program can be pushed in
different direction might be very helpful to others. It might also
help people who have no experience decide to go ahead and dig in
and start moving some sliders around and make the best use of the
programs.
Well, all of this is easy for me to say-I just type for a couple of
minutes and off to eat dinner while you're the one who would be
spending the actual time on the article!
Dan Daniel

Daniel,

All these three software can be adjusted to custom settings to give better results than at default settings.

But I cannot possibly suggest other settings simply because those I will suggest may not be appropriate for other users or may not like the results with the settings I suggested.

And even if I do such a thing, be sure that there will be people complaining that they exist better settings and that my suggestions don't reveal the true potential of these software.

So it is a dead end and it will be always like that since people have different tastes and preferences.

The main idea here is to see how each software approaches denoising and what you can basically get by just using it as it is with the default settings. After that we are all free to choose one or more or all of them and start playing around with different settings.

Those who don't have the time, or the will to get more involved with denoising they can compare a few images and choose one of this software to use in the simplest way they want to denoise their images.

And even if I get into more pushed settings, be sure there will still be novice people that will not understand them completely and still be "experts" to accuse me for faulty settings because they don't match theirs and of course some of them will not even appreciate any effort and time consumption from my side.

I'm not suggesting any of these three software. The deciion is left to the reader (mostly novice) and in my full article will still be like that.

Expert users don't need my artile or a photo comparison to denoise their photos, even though it wouldn't hurt them to be more open minded generally.

Regards

Archangel_GT
@ http://www.coolpix7900.com

 

[HawkeyeLonewolf]

Since someone asked...
--
-----
Kevin L. Kitchens
'Know me through my lens...'
See my work at: http://peiklk.smugmug.com/

 

[jimyh]

I tried neatimage on your original. Theres little or no featureless area for buidling a noise profile. But even without a proper profile i manage to get decent result with no banding effect like what you are getting.

Also notice that neatimage does its job much better along the edges of lines and details reducing jagginess found in the original picture.



--