Noise reduction?

[Maggie12]

I was soo hoping that this version would bring us an update to the noise reduction module but it seems like it is exactly the same as in previous versions. I haven't seen any improvements to it for a long time. How do others deal with noise in C1? I find it very lacking in comparison to other RAW converters. I get way better results with free RAW converters such as ACR than with C1. Am I the only one who finds it not up to par? Maybe you guys have some favorite settings that give you great results and can share?

[HCS]

I was soo hoping that this version would bring us an update to the noise reduction module but it seems like it is exactly the same as in previous versions. I haven't seen any improvements to it for a long time. How do others deal with noise in C1? I find it very lacking in comparison to other RAW converters. I get way better results with free RAW converters such as ACR than with C1. Am I the only one who finds it not up to par? Maybe you guys have some favorite settings that give you great results and can share?

A couple of questions:
1. which camera?
2. noise reduction in which situations, which ISO?
3. how is ACR free?
4. how do you feel it handles the noise in the images better?
5. have you read the documentation and seen the videos about how to use the various functions in CO9, like noise reduction?

If we know this, we (the other users) may be able to help better.

I can share my experience here, for what it's worth:
i have a nikon d810. I regularly shoot at ISO 4000. Noise is there, but is minimized (not completely removed) by the default setting in CO9. I am also on a MAC. I also have files from nikon D3s, which show less noise at ISO 4000 than the D810 to begin with. But, i also have a lot of files from the nikon D2h, which show more noise at ISO 800 than the D810 at ISO 3200. That is satisfactorily dealt with by CO. It is not completely removed, i would want that, because most likely the actual details would get lost as well (the plastic look).

On top of that, you could also have a look at DXO, which has a superior noise reduction module, but it is power hungry and you'd have to continue the rest of your work in CO based on a TIFF, not a raw file anymore.

YMMV

[MikeFromMesa]

you could also have a look at DXO, which has a superior noise reduction module

I certainly agree that the Optics Pro NR functionality is better than that in CaptureOne and, since I have both, I have used the OP software to take care of both noise reduction and lens softness (since OP has camera/lens calibrated functionality just to correct that) so I agree that is one option.

Another would be to use a separate NR app like Topaz's DeNoise or MacPhun's Noiseless, both of which do a decent NR job. I know that the Topaz plugin can be used from C1 as I sometimes use it with the (free) Topaz Fusion Express 2 plugin all. It has been my experience that either plugin also removes some of the color life so you might have to add it back when the image is returned to C1, but that is not a real problem.

[Keith Reeder]

I certainly agree that the Optics Pro NR functionality is better than that in Capture One and, since I have both

The PRIME NR can be (once you understand it and accept the the time hit), but in my experience Cap One's NR is appreciably better than both Optics Pro's and ACR/Lr's, these days - I use all of them, and I've been an Optics Pro beta tester.

But - frankly - none of them are in the same league as Photo Ninja ("PN"), in real high ISO situations.

Not even close.

PN's NR is every bit the equal of Optic Pro's PRIME, but takes the same time to apply as its standard NR (in fact, PN is faster than Optics Pro in every regard - but then, so is a glacier. I can - literally - open PN, navigate to an image, adjust and convert it, in the time it takes for Optics Pro to open).

You need to finesse the default settings to get the best out of PN, but - once done - the results are impossibly good, and render the likes of the (otherwise excellent) Topaz DeNoise, redundant.

But PN aside, I give Capture One the nod over Optics Pro and Lr/ACR.

Maggie needs to fill in some gaps here.

[MikeFromMesa]

The PRIME NR can be (once you understand it and accept the the time hit), but in my experience Cap One's NR is appreciably better than both Optics Pro's and ACR/Lr's, these days - I use all of them, and I've been an Optics Pro beta tester.

But - frankly - none of them are in the same league as Photo Ninja ("PN"), in real high ISO situations.

Not even close.

PN's NR is every bit the equal of Optic Pro's PRIME, but takes the same time to apply as its standard NR (in fact, PN is faster than Optics Pro in every regard - but then, so is a glacier. I can - literally - open PN, navigate to an image, adjust and convert it, in the time it takes for Optics Pro to open).

You need to finesse the default settings to get the best out of PN, but - once done - the results are impossibly good, and render the likes of the (otherwise excellent) Topaz DeNoise, redundant.

But PN aside, I give Capture One the nod over Optics Pro and Lr/ACR.

Maggie needs to fill in some gaps here.

I guess it depends upon the photo being edited.

I used to be a licensed user of Noise Ninja (back when I had a Windows machine) and snapped up the initial version of Photo Ninja when it became available. I used it for some time and was particularly happy with the wonderful lighting adjustments available with it, but never felt that the NR functionality was any better than in NN. Since my licensed allowed me to switch from the Windows version to the Mac version I did so and used PN on my MacBook Pro, but never felt it was capable of the extent of editing changes available with C1 and so I stopped using it when I bought a licensed version of C1 and never bothered to install it on my Mac Mini.

I had, from time to time, tried it again before I switched to my Mini, but never felt that it was as good as Dxo OP when it came to high ISO photos.I have been particularly impressed with the Prime NR in OP (and yes, I am willing to take the time hit) but rarely take photos with that high an ISO that I need Prime NR.

One surprise I had was when I took a tour through some caves and took photos with my Canon. The ISO values were at 51,200 and using Prime actually made the photo worse than without any NR, but generally I have been pleased with the OP noise reduction functionality and think it better than what I had seen with PN and C1. Perhaps my opinion is influenced by the fact that I generally do not take photos with an ISO value over about 15,000 and those barely need any NR with my Canon so I am rarely using it now.

Just my opinion.

[Dinarius]

An interesting discussion which I've just found via a search....

As someone who shoots with flash about 90% of the time noise isn't an issue. But, I have a question for those dealing with noise a lot........

Given the choice, and a tripod(!) do you....

1. Shoot low ISO and long shutter speed, or......?

2. High ISO and shorter shutter speed....?

In short, which is less noisy?

Thanks.

D.

[John Doe]

Low ISO of course, preferably the sensor's native ISO. In the digital photography world, high ISO means signal amplification and therefore also noise amplification.

[Griso]

In response to Denarius' question...

#2 - high ISO, short shutter. For some things a slow shutter or flash obviously won't work. Birds and other critters. I think after a while, you accept there's going to be some noise.

[John Doe]

In response to Denarius' question...

#2 - high ISO, short shutter. For some things a slow shutter or flash obviously won't work. Birds and other critters. I think after a while, you accept there's going to be some noise.

He only asked what would be the less noisy, so I took for granted that speed and moving subjects were not an issue. Sorry if I was wrong to assume that.

[Griso]

In response to Denarius' question...

#2 - high ISO, short shutter. For some things a slow shutter or flash obviously won't work. Birds and other critters. I think after a while, you accept there's going to be some noise.

He only asked what would be the less noisy, so I took for granted that speed and moving subjects were not an issue. Sorry if I was wrong to assume that.

Yes, sorry. I assumed that it was clear that the low ISO option would give less noise and so I assumed it was clearly a rhetorical question.

My answer was not meant to be clever, just a point of discussion that noise is sometimes a necessary evil and sometimes it can be easy to get hung up on it and maybe an alternative solution is to just live with it.

[John Doe]

You're absolutely right, of course. Photography is always a balancing act between aperture, shutter speed and ISOs, and as you say sometimes you have to accept a bit of noise to get the picture you want.

Guess we'll have to wait for Dinarius to clarify what he was really asking about.

[Wesley]

An interesting discussion which I've just found via a search....

As someone who shoots with flash about 90% of the time noise isn't an issue. But, I have a question for those dealing with noise a lot........

Given the choice, and a tripod(!) do you....

1. Shoot low ISO and long shutter speed, or......?

2. High ISO and shorter shutter speed....?

In short, which is less noisy?

Thanks.

D.

Hard to say without knowing what you're photographing.

Generally I would go high ISO/ shorter SS but the opposite if I'm photographing the night sky.
The sensor will heat up faster which will add in additional noise and hot pixels when doing long exposures.

[Dinarius]

Thanks for the replies.

I would be photographing low light interiors.

So, I take it that native sensor ISO is the way to go.

Thanks.

D.

[John Doe]

Yes, for low light interiors with no moving subject whatsoever, I would use the native ISO setting and a tripod.

Yet even at base ISO, no sensor is entirely noise-free, so you can try a method I've read about which is to take several pictures and "stack" them in post-production to eliminate the noise (if I understood it right).

[SFA]

Thanks for the replies.

I would be photographing low light interiors.

So, I take it that native sensor ISO is the way to go.

Thanks.

D.

As JD said stacking (via multi bracketing) is likely the way to go.

However, with a very specific requirement one might consider the camera and surrounding system as the most influential component of the work flow.

Not all cameras are equal or even similar in the way they respond to different lighting situations. If you have a regular need that represents a large percentage of your output and leads you to try to avoid compromise as far as possible then careful selection of capture device would perhaps make a greater difference than anything that can be consistently achieved in post processing. (Unless going for extreme processing in which case the source file may not be important at all!)

A recent camera body with a large sensor (in terms of dimensions) and a good (but not necessarily huge) pixel count might be a place to start. Is that what you have already?

I probably should know from previous discussions but I cannot remember.


Grant