Reading mode: Light Dark

Neat Image noise profile for G5

Go to last post
I did some side to side comparisons and Noise Ninja is definitely superior. And it comes with a G5 profile.

In addition to better output, the feature I really like is that it can display a list of the images in a directory, and for each one display the ISO, so you can tell at a glance which need cleaning.

-- Matt
http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf
 
I am just getting more comfortable with Neat Image settings, I do like it. NN sounds good too but from all that I have read, the results are comparable and as I said, I do like N.I. For profile instructions, go here, it is very easy. Earlier post says use a blank wall. Don't do that unless you blur the focus a lot. Better to go outside if you have a blank sky, set focus for blur and shoot one pic for each ISO, then save as profiles in N.I. they will be customized for your own camera. If you shoot a wall, and there are some textures on it, it may be interpreted as noise which isn't. If you use a G3 profile for a G5, it's not the same sensor, again not a valid profile. Nothing is as smooth as a blue sky. Regards, Don F.

In this tutorial, go to Fig.2
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/neatimage.shtml
Matrad said:
http://www.neatimage.net/profiles/Canon_Powershot_G5.zip
--
Powershot A70
Epson Stylus Photo 890
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=566863
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=762324
Click to expand...
--
http://www.DForbesRowanPhotos.OrangeCountyandSurrounding.PhotoShare.co.nz
D. F. R.
 
Forbes said:
I am just getting more comfortable with Neat Image settings, I do
like it. NN sounds good too but from all that I have read, the
results are comparable and as I said, I do like N.I. For profile
instructions, go here, it is very easy. Earlier post says use a
blank wall. Don't do that unless you blur the focus a lot. Better
to go outside if you have a blank sky, set focus for blur and shoot
one pic for each ISO, then save as profiles in N.I. they will be
customized for your own camera. If you shoot a wall, and there
are some textures on it, it may be interpreted as noise which
isn't.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Shooting the 'sky' is not the best way to get the best noise profile in my opinion. --- because those are not the typicall conditions where you use high ISO.

The engineers at Neat Image mention that noise characteristics change under different lighting conditions. For instance Sun, Cloudy, Incandescent or Fluorescent - and that it is best to create a noise profile for a specific shooting mode.

I don't see myself shooting at high (400ISO) under bright blue sky sunny day conditions anytime soon. It is under low light conditions - typically Incandescent or Fluorescent that you will find yourself taking pictures with high ISOs, and thus it would make sense to creat your noise profile under those conditions.

Second, if there are some textures on the wall, then it's not a blank wall is it? Even so, slight textures on a wall are completely drowned out by the noise of the camera. There is an extremly high signal to noise rario involved here. That is why you can build a noise profile from the picture you are attempting to clean up. According to instructions..."any other part of an image, where there are no visually perceptible details". And by that they mean the picture - not by you putting your nose against the wall!
 
Another user (onions) who just posted some noise test pictures here just proved my point by saying...

"i noticed that the same shot using a different white balance setting produced more noise"

I have just created 20 shots of the same picture at different ISOs, Neat Image settings and sharpenings and I can't wait to get them developed this week to compare them and see how they come out in print!

I will use the results of this test as a guide to how I process all future pictures for print developing. It was quite a tedious task, but it should set the stage to get the most from my A80 from this point on as far as final pics.
 
What you wrote makes very good sense, but my point was that there are users out there who might not consider that a wall had slight imperfections which could cause trouble with a profile, in theory anyway. To escape that, the sky seems to work. Sky profiles have worked very well with my shots but I am going to apply what you said and attempt to produce some low light profiles too. I did a grey card profile and the few times I have used it, the sky profiles seemed better by comparison, but the differences were tiny. I am even cleaning up a few ISO 50 shots, and this does seem to make a difference, for special shots I care about. I am no expert on this.
abc9 said:
Another user (onions) who just posted some noise test pictures here
just proved my point by saying...

"i noticed that the same shot using a different white balance
setting produced more noise"

I have just created 20 shots of the same picture at different ISOs,
Neat Image settings and sharpenings and I can't wait to get them
developed this week to compare them and see how they come out in
print!

I will use the results of this test as a guide to how I process all
future pictures for print developing. It was quite a tedious task,
but it should set the stage to get the most from my A80 from this
point on as far as final pics.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.DForbesRowanPhotos.OrangeCountyandSurrounding.PhotoShare.co.nz
D. F. R.
 
Forbes said:
What you wrote makes very good sense, but my point was that there
are users out there who might not consider that a wall had slight
imperfections which could cause trouble with a profile, in theory
anyway. To escape that, the sky seems to work. Sky profiles have
worked very well with my shots but I am going to apply what you
said and attempt to produce some low light profiles too. I did a
grey card profile and the few times I have used it, the sky
profiles seemed better by comparison, but the differences were
tiny. I am even cleaning up a few ISO 50 shots, and this does
seem to make a difference, for special shots I care about. I am no
expert on this.
Click to expand...
Nor am I of course. We learn from each other all the time here which is great. We're being very picky here anyways and I suspect either method will produce satisfatory results. Also, I never noticed noise at ISO 50 until I tried NImage! I will probably reserve this myself for 8 x 11 prints.
 
for best results, you will have to create your own profile by playing and tweaking around to get it perfect!

i tried various settings to create my profile with various different example-pictures and even with the neat-image test-target, but none were able to create the results i expected. i always had strange artifacts within the image.

but once i managed to create my personal profile which works perfect for most of my 400iso pictures. i always use the same profile now, even with 200iso it works well, by turning down the reduction amounts.

unfortunately i cannot remember how many test images i applied to create the profile, if one or more and how my workflow was, but i must also confirm that the profile-results are dependent from your white-balance and light-settings. if you use tungsten as whitebalance your profile should be analyzed with tungsten example-images.

good luck!
H4ng0ver said:
Anyone have one to send me?
please send it to [email protected]
Thanks
--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
Click to expand...
 
The premade profiles posted on neatimage.com works perfectly find for me need. I don't take many photos using higher ISO than 50 but occasionally do take some under low light and no flash allowed situation.
Neat Image rocks by the way.

Cheers
oluv said:
i tried various settings to create my profile with various
different example-pictures and even with the neat-image
test-target, but none were able to create the results i expected. i
always had strange artifacts within the image.
but once i managed to create my personal profile which works
perfect for most of my 400iso pictures. i always use the same
profile now, even with 200iso it works well, by turning down the
reduction amounts.

unfortunately i cannot remember how many test images i applied to
create the profile, if one or more and how my workflow was, but i
must also confirm that the profile-results are dependent from your
white-balance and light-settings. if you use tungsten as
whitebalance your profile should be analyzed with tungsten
example-images.

good luck!
H4ng0ver said:
Anyone have one to send me?
please send it to [email protected]
Thanks
--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://lpta.home.comcast.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top