Article on Noise and Freeware links

[Tony_photoplus]

I have been studying the reasons of noise in images and how to reduce them. It seems my cheapy camera has no chance to get rid of noise as it is low spec, where as those more affluent of you that have better DSLR's will have a better chance of not getting it. But, it seems those better cameras must be calibrated to reduce the factor of noise. This is getting very heavy as I was trying to assess some freeware to reduce noise for an editorial. Its deeper than I thought, but I read these very interesting articles and thought I would share it.

Using Image Calibration Techniques to Reduce Noise in Digital Images - photo.net

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise.htm

The freeware I found was
Helicon Noise FilterHelicon Soft: Products
AbsoluteDeNoiser AbsoluteDeNoiser
Noiseware Imagenomic - Imagination at Shutter Speed

It is easy to get noise from my cheapy so finding a test picture is not the problem, its getting the sums right. And that is not going to be easy, by looking at my results.


Tony

[synthetic]

noise is interesting topic. I hate noise and try to avoid as much as possible.

My first SLR was a Pentax entry level film model. Didn't know anything about photography other than a little about composition. Asked someone about what ISO rated film I should be using for general purpose use and was told to go to 800. So that is what I used. I had a few images that were pretty good but... they all seemed to be grainy with noise. I just consider it to be the cheap lens I had gotten. Nope... was the ISO of my film. Didn't understand that though until I got into digital where I have instant feedback.

Now days, I opt for the lowest ISO possible. Previously I had left my D40 set at ISO 200 (lowest ISO setting) all the time to prevent noise as much as possible. Then I ran into problems with sharpness because of extended shutter releases etc.

So, now I am learning to balance out the ISO and other settings to get my images but I am always thinking about the noise and trying minimize as much as possible. I will read the articles you posted.... sounds interesting. Thanks for sharing. Right now I just know that too much or too little exposure will bring noise (when balanced) and my ISO rating really effects noise.

Still seems odd that for some purposes... people actually add noise to their images... at least this is what I have heard but don't understand.

[Tony_photoplus]

Originally Posted by synthetic

Still seems odd that for some purposes... people actually add noise to their images... at least this is what I have heard but don't understand.

I add noise into my work, especially when I have use paint fill into an image, it just seems to false. So a slight adding of noise or mainly PS filter 'Film Grain' blends it in. If I was creating an image in PS then no noise possibly would be used.

Tony

[synthetic]

Originally Posted by Tony_photoplus

I add noise into my work, especially when I have use paint fill into an image, it just seems to false. So a slight adding of noise or mainly PS filter 'Film Grain' blends it in. If I was creating an image in PS then no noise possibly would be used.

Tony

I see what you are saying... adding noise to painted areas to match noise of the rest of photo right? That makes sense. I have done similar with the sharpen tool before... just to get a little graininess back after a modification

[Tamlin]

Adding noise:
There are many occasions when you might want to add noise, either as a step in a more in-depth procedure (for example: to subtly break up a gradient background to prevent banding when saving as an optimized JPG), or to increase authenticity when creating faux versions of image types with recognisable grain - e.g. lith prints or infrared:
Lith Prints - Photoshop Tutorials « The Art of Domen Lombergar »
Adobe Photoshop Tutorial: Photoshop Infrared Photo - Learn Adobe Photoshop

Removing noise:
My weapon of choice for noise removal is Noise Ninja:
Noise Ninja: The gold standard for image noise reduction

I understand that Neat Image is also very good, although I haven't tried it myself:
Neat Image - best noise reduction for digital cameras and scanners

Both of these applications include a library of camera-specific noise profiles to give you the best chance of combating the noise produced by your own particular make of camera. Neither are free (although they both offer free demo versions), but if your image quality is important to you - and you've already shelled-out for Photoshop anyway - I can't see that $70 or so is such a big investment.
I also use Noiseware Professional by Imagenomic (linked in Tony's original post) for those rare occasions when Noise Ninja doesn't quite cut it.

[synthetic]

hmm... interesting

I currently use Lightroom for processing all my photos and it has a feature to deal with noise. It allows me to reduce noise in the "luminance" and "color". This seems to do a decent job for myself right now. I might look into the Noise Ninja and try a demo. I have heard the name before.

[sethcapitulo]

downloaded and tried AbsoluteDeNoiser...i think photoshop's filter>blur followed by a mild filter>unsharp mask can do better...

[synthetic]

this thread might be good to sticky in this topic... good info useful for anyone into digital photography

[Tamlin]

Originally Posted by synthetic

this thread might be good to sticky in this topic... good info useful for anyone into digital photography

OK, seems like a good idea - it's stuck.

[Tony_photoplus]

Originally Posted by tamlin

OK, seems like a good idea - it's stuck.

As it's stuck you might as well have my link to the editorial I finished yesterday.

Digital Image Noise | Gizmo's Tech Support Alert

You might disagree with. Let my know and why. God that's torn it, someone might Dissagree with me!

Its a good site as it offers some very good advice and links. If you have a good knowledge, Gizmo's looking for some more editors.

Tony

[supertackyman]

Originally Posted by sethcapitulo

downloaded and tried AbsoluteDeNoiser...i think photoshop's filter>blur followed by a mild filter>unsharp mask can do better...

I use the dust and scratches filter, fillowed by unsharp mask.
its not the best but it helps sometimes, if theres not too much noise.
(then again im sorta a noob)
then again one could zoom way in and use the clone stamp on all the artiacts
(yeah right.)

[Tamlin]

Tony -
Seems like a good article. Only 2 points I'd make:

1. It would have been nice to see some examples of each of the applications in use, although I don't know if including images on that site is an option. After all, one picture is worth a thousand words.

2. "ISO" is not an abbreviation. It is a word, derived from the Greek isos , meaning "equal"

   That's a nice idea, but I'm afraid it's wrong. You'll probably remember (as I do) that many years ago, film speed was classified using ASA and/or DIN numbers. ASA was an abbreviation for American Standards Association, and was eventually replaced by the International Standards Organization - hence ISO - which used the same numbering system. (DIN stood for Deutsche Industrie Norm, and used a different scale of numbers - not commonly seen nowadays)

[Tony_photoplus]

[*]That's a nice idea, but I'm afraid it's wrong. You'll probably remember (as I do) that many years ago, film speed was classified using ASA and/or DIN numbers. ASA was an abbreviation for American Standards Association, and was eventually replaced by the International Standards Organization - hence ISO - which used the same numbering system. (DIN stood for Deutsche Industrie Norm, and used a different scale of numbers - not commonly seen nowadays)[/list][/quote]

Is right or is it wrong, there seems to be some debate on the Greek theory on other sites I have looked at. And, yes I did forget to put the ISO International Standard Org and it will be rectified. Thanks for the telling me appreciate it. I hate getting things wrong, which is most of the time.
I am only a lumpen proletariat

As for the images, yes you can, but the images they have posted on other editorials look pretty but quite frankly show you nothing as the resolution is awful.

Tony

[Tamlin]

Originally Posted by Tony_photoplus

Is right or is it wrong, there seems to be some debate on the Greek theory on other sites I have looked at.

Well, the only question I would ask is: if ISO in film speed classification is derived from a Greek word, why is it always capitalized? After all, the word "photography" comes from two Greek words - φώς (phos) "light" and γραφίς (graphis) "stylus" - but we don't insist on writing it PHOTOGRAPHY, do we? In fact the English language is more or less entirely composed of words derived from other languages - why should ISO be singled out for capitalization? The idea that ISO is anything other than an abbreviation is quite clearly an example of "reverse etymology".

Some links for reference:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...csnumber=37777
http://www.minoxlab.com/Don_Krehbiel/mpl/dkasa.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

[synthetic]

I have an interesting addition to add to noise discussion. Had my D200 now for several days and finally getting used to it and the all the settings. I have been examining my images up close as I work them and I have noticed less noise in the D200 images vs. what I was getting with the D40. I used same lenses on both (usually my Nikon 55-200 VR or 18-55 non-VR). I realized last night while working some photos I was having to use the noise reduction a lot less than with the D40 which was great.

I also noticed that I didn't need to bother with the Chromatic Aberration as much either. There was less need for adjusting this around the brightest of the highlights unlike the D40 as well. Just a tad better... not a lot but enough to notice.

I am pleasantly surprised with both improvements on the D200 considering I am still using the same lenses as with the D40. So while quality is often a result of the lens more than the body... the body can influence the quality of image as well... my guess is due to the electronics in the image processing since the sensors are of the same type, DX.