Testing Adobe Noise Reduction

[MacM545]

This image isn't strictly meant to be great and technically sound, but is a single image (no stacking) using a Micro 4/3 sensor (Non BSI), enhanced using Photoshops' AI noise reduction and a little of Adobe Camera RAW original noise reduction. Made using Rokinon 50mm F/1.2, @ F/2.8 and 5 seconds. There seems to be little to no reduction in fine detail, while the noise has been reduced greatly. The moon was rather close, and about 70 percent full, along with moderate light pollution from the town. At 100% you can see Orion Nebula has moved during the taking of the photo due to Earth's rotation; but, in terms of color and structure it seems that if the camera was tracking the nebula, it might even be rather nice for a 50mm lens (100mm Full Frame equivalent). This is more of a first-glance assessment; presumably, taking many images in a row then averaging them may be better, but this is here to give an illustration of how good or not Photoshop noise reduction is, based on the opinion of the viewer.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31391486@N04/

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

This image isn't strictly meant to be great and technically sound, but is a single image (no stacking) using a Micro 4/3 sensor (Non BSI), enhanced using Photoshops' AI noise reduction and a little of Adobe Camera RAW original noise reduction.

Oh, just a dash of this and that? I see. What should we compare this to?

At 100% you can see Orion Nebula has moved during the taking of the photo due to Earth's rotation; but, in terms of color and structure it seems that if the camera was tracking the nebula, it might even be rather nice for a 50mm lens (100mm Full Frame equivalent).

Totally misunderstanding of focal length and sensor size. Any object in the night sky will be projected at the same size on any sensor when using the same physical focal length.

Crop factor is just about field of view, compared to full frame. It is NOT image scale on the sensor.

This is more of a first-glance assessment; presumably, taking many images in a row then averaging them may be better, but this is here to give an illustration of how good or not Photoshop noise reduction is, based on the opinion of the viewer.

How many stars would I give this as something to judge the effect of noise reduction? Zero stars. Maybe a bit harsh, but we don't even know what we should look for, since there is nothing to compare with and your Photoshop settings are a mystery to us.

Time to be constructive: To make a valid test, show before and after photos, and add complete info about exposure and post processing, so that others can repeat excactly what you are doing.

 

[MacM545]

Totally misunderstanding of focal length and sensor size. Any object in the night sky will be projected at the same size on any sensor when using the same physical focal length.

Crop factor is just about field of view, compared to full frame. It is NOT image scale on the sensor.

I guess you could say that, if abiding by technical perfectionism. I simply went by the law of equivalence. It depends on how you think about it, makes it true or not. The image on a micro 4/3 looks more magnified using 50mm than on a full frame, even if the image is projected at same size; it's not a word for word accurate perhaps, but due to the smaller sensor, that's the view.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31391486@N04/

 

[RealWorldPhoto]

Totally misunderstanding of focal length and sensor size. Any object in the night sky will be projected at the same size on any sensor when using the same physical focal length.

Crop factor is just about field of view, compared to full frame. It is NOT image scale on the sensor.

I guess you could say that, if abiding by technical perfectionism. I simply went by the law of equivalence. It depends on how you think about it, makes it true or not. The image on a micro 4/3 looks more magnified using 50mm than on a full frame, even if the image is projected at same size; it's not a word for word accurate perhaps, but due to the smaller sensor, that's the view.

Just like I wrote, field of view. You can also tie "equivalence" to other factors, like sensor surface and light-gathering power, aperture and depth of field (not relevant for astrophoto).

The main point here is lack of information given to judge what you ask for, not crop factor. The latter is just a parenthesis and affects only field of view for astrophoto with a given focal length.