![]() It is fairly smooth texture, but is surprisingly large when compared with Neat Image's mosquitoes. The second criticism is that Topaz likes to leave behind some fairly large textures where there is a lot of noise. Even a little hysteresis in the user interface would allow one to press a few buttons without the interminable recalculation time of the preview. With more effort on tuning, I think I could have had less blur, but the tool is slow enough that it does not encourage much experimentation. First, it is a little aggressive by nature and blurs things a bit more than I like. I have two minor criticisms of Topaz Denoise. But they are really tiny and do not show up when downsized (shown at the end.) I doubt they would show up on any normal print. They look like mosquitoes, to quote Thom Hogan. If I had any criticism of Neat Image, it would be that I could not remove the little artifacts it leaves behind. ![]() The shocker is that the Neat Image is almost identical: Neat Image took less than 10 seconds to complete its job while Topaz took the usual 6 minutes or so. When you see the crops, you will be able to line them up with the scene near the middle of this image: This is downsized only, no noise reduction at all. I processed the other copy with Topaz Denoise 2.1 under the same conditions.įirst, here is the frame from which I took the crops. I took rather small crops from the middle of the frame and then processed one copy with Neat Image 6 in 16-bit mode in Adobe RGB color space. I used the D300 and 18-200VR, which resolves a lot of detail for a consumer mega-zoom. So I was forced to shoot at 2500 ISO to get decent shutter speeds. The Globe is all wooden beams and thatch, and the lighting is subdued. This was a night performance and I had floor tickets (best value for 5 pounds in the Universe in my opinion.) This image was shot this spring at the Globe Theater in London, sometime during a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I chose an image that I had done with Topaz Denoise in the past and that had blown me away with its ability to handle difficult shadow detail. My initial tests with Neat Image were startlingly good, so I knew that I had to look at them pretty closely. ![]() That means that it is time to test these two against each other to see who will be my "go-to" tool. An impressive piece of work.īut Neat Image, my favourite general purpose noise reduction tool, has released version 6, a major upgrade. This is a quick test and you can have better result in all these software by fine tune settings.I've been using Topaz Denoise for some of the trickier noise reduction tasks lately, as it does a wonderful job of smoothing surfaces while leaving very small details intact. It is small in size, free, fast and seems to preserve detail better (You will see this after resize photo to hide away some noise) but unfortunately no batch processing in free community version. Personaly, I like NeatImage for batch process but BigMike is right that NoiseWare is pretty good software. I combine all 4 photo resized to 720x480 + UnSharp images here: Here is the link to larger (3086x2054) images: However, Helicon & NoiseWare must be paid to gain batch processing while NeatImage trial will limit number of photo in a batch. NeatImage: Slow but seems to produce smoother result Helicon: It blur image so easier for once off operation Please note this is quick lazy men setting because with little detail adjustment in frequency setting, NoiseWare actually turn out pretty good. NoiseWare v1.1b (Max Noise Level Adjustment & Suppression value) NeatImage v2.11 (Setting: 300D ISO1600 profile) ![]() I use one of my worst noise photo (ISO1600 for 301 Second) as test case. Some of people are wondering how it compare to other software so I run a quick test to see how each of 3 software I have perform. This is response to one of question on BigMike thread concern NoiseWare. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |