Re: Noise Ninja 2.4.1 Plug-in For Photoshop Full Keygen
Vladimir Stringfield
Photo Ninja includes two plug-ins for integrating with Adobe Photoshop:
- A "format plug-in" allows Photo Ninja to open RAW images for Photoshop and send the processed images directly to Photoshop without intermediate files. In effect, Photo Ninja can function as an alternative to the Adobe Camera Raw module in Photoshop. This is useful if you want to do your raw conversion in Photo Ninja but frequently follow up with retouching or effects in Photoshop.
- A "filter plug-in" can invoke Photo Ninja to edit an image that is currently open in Photoshop. For instance, you can apply Photo Ninja's noise reduction filter to a JPEG that you opened in Photoshop. The filter plug-in can also be used in a Photoshop action or "smart filter".
I have just begun experimenting with HDR and have discovered that noise in the image can be a problem, even at low ISO's. Photoshop's controls are very limited, so DPP is presently my best option, but I'm wondering if I can do better with a dedicated plug-in for PS?
Has anyone compared DPP's NR to using a third-party NR app/plugin in their workflow -- like Noise Ninja, Dfine, Noiseware, Neat Image, etc.? Thanks.
Originally posted at 10:04AM, 3 March 2010 PDT(permalink)
Richard* edited this topic ages ago.
DPP's noise reduction works fine if you're not pushing the processing to extremes such as is the case with HDR. For these situations I use Noise Ninja after the HDR/tone mapping is completed.
ages ago(permalink)
Noise should not be a problem if you have enough photos with different exposures.
If you just try tonemapping with different versions of just one raw file then you have the problem with revealing the noise that was alway there in the dark parts of the image and just unnoticable because those parts are dark in a non HDR photo.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Andreas Helke edited this topic ages ago.
All of them are pretty good choices but they are also all variations of some sort of gaussian blur which loses a lot of details. The next generation of noise reduction which does a far better job can be found in pre-demosaic noise reduction. This is found in professional tools like DxO Optics, Lightroom 3 Beta, Capture One, Bibble, Aperture.
The reasons why these are better is because it becomes part of the whole demosaic process rather than doing it after the fact. Once noise is normalized and identified, each pixel is adjusted to compensate the noise exhibited. The only caveat to this technique is that it can actually introduce a grain to your shots. This grain isn't totally undesirable, but it does get rid of the tell-tale colour noise which is more of an issue than luminance noise. Most of the other noise reduction algorithms creates the blotchy colour patterns which ruins images more than enhance.
Using a RAW file with the pre-demosaic noise reduction algorithms, it reduces this colour noise, maintains clarity and sharpness (and in fact some does sharpening at this level instead of unsharp mask after the demosaic level). The remaining grain can be removed by traditional noise reduction algorithms.
ages ago(permalink)
Kinematic Digit wrote it does get rid of the tell-tale colour noise which is more of an issue than luminance noise.DPP allows you to independently adjust chrominance and luminance noise. Using chrominance NR does not cause loss of sharpness and detail as luminance NR does.
ages ago(permalink)
I think DPP does a nice job with noise reduction. I seldom use the luminance noise reduction because of the loss of detail. I only use it when I have a high ISO image or one that was way underexposed and has too much noise when brightened, and then I only go to 3 max but normally only 1 or 2. You lose detail with luminance noise reduction as has been pointed out, but those shots normally look even worse without the luminance noise reduction. I find there is a real balance between noise reduction and sharpening too sometimes. Higher ISO images may look pretty good with a little noise reduction, but you increase the sharpening settings and you start to magnify the noise levels that you are trying to eliminate. I usually find a good balance and then do some edge sharpening outside DPP in those cases. Bottom line, I think if you use the noise reduction in DPP and balance it well with sharpening, you should generally get nice results. If you don't, you probably have an image that is in pretty bad shape anyway IMO and it may not be worth trying to save. You have to watch software like Neat Image. I've tried that before and, although the noise reduction and sharpening looked really nice within the program, but when the software processed and saved the tif it generated horrible posterization that wasn't there in the preview. I tried numerous settings and could not stop the software from doing that. It was most evident in blue skies. So I stuck with DPP and I'm quite happy. My ultimate goal with any image is to get what I want straight from the raw processor so I am a bit biased in that direction.
ages ago(permalink)
"DPP allows you to independently adjust chrominance and luminance noise. Using chrominance NR does not cause loss of sharpness and detail as luminance NR does. "
DPP is pretty good, but it still does noise reduction after the demosaic file. As B. Hiatt mentioned about getting things straight from the raw processor, this is where third party applications do a better job of it by doing work before demosaic.
Canon's own RAW processor of course pretty good, but there are some methodologies by others that are better than the methods employed by Canon. Pre-demosaic is pretty amazing. I still see the blotchies with DPP. This is definitely apparent if you try to reduce noise on something like a 6400 ISO image. This is where DxO Optics 6.0 does a way better job without losing a lot of detail.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic ages ago.
I downloaded the free trial of DxO. I have to say, very impressive. I got so much more clean detail out of the image with DxO it was almost shocking to me. I love DPP, but wow, I am seriously impressed with DxO after only one image. Lots and lots of adjustments available. The only issue is the preview takes a couple seconds to refresh after an adjustment so it is a little more difficult to do real time adjustments, but the results are amazing. I still can't imagine beating DPP with any other free software though.
Thanks for making me curious Kinematic, I liked what I saw.
ages ago(permalink)
lillyflowers I agree with you on LR/PS. Both do NR after the demosaic of the file. LR3 has fundamentally changed to the pre-demosaic which is why it is so much better than LR2 in the NR department.
DefJux921 as B. Hiatt has already discovered that there is a DxO Optics trial. It's actually pretty inexpensive, and the fact that it makes High ISO images useable is worth the price. You should give it a try. DPP is free, but isn't the end all and be all. I pay for Lightroom, Aperture and DxO Optics... partially because I'm a masochist, but also evaluate tools to determine what I'm going to teach on. Lightroom is still a winner in my opinion, but the IQ could use an improvement. I look forward to the LR 3 in April.
ages ago(permalink)
I spent some more time with DxO on another image. On the second image I am really struggling to get a nice image from DxO but I can get it quickly in DPP. I'm guessing DxO does great with some images but not with others. DxO clearly does a better job with rendering detail in the first image I worked with and the difference is definitely related to the way DPP handles noise. There is a separation between two red panels on the crane in my shot that DPP completely smears away even with all noise reduction at zero, yet it is sharp and clear in DxO. DxO also allows you to make adjustments to individual color ranges which helps prevent some over saturated reds. DPP has problems with smearing out detail in brightly colored areas with it's noise reduction for sure, I can see that now. But DPP is blowing DxO away with respect to rendering smooth skin tones and overall smoothness in general. Areas that do show sharp detail in DPP tend to do so very smoothly where DxO is noisy. So the detail in DxO comes with a price in that it generates noise that is objectionable in some shots. I remember seeing the same thing in RawShooter. There are some really nice lighting and color adjustments in DxO, but DPP is much easier and faster to use. I would say noise suppression needs some work in DPP to prevent loss of detail. I guess my initial impressions with the first image in DxO didn't tell the whole story, but I'm also not so impressed with the noise reduction in DPP after this experiment either. The problem is, I can't reduce the noise suppression enough in DPP to prevent some loss of detail in some cases. So using other software for noise suppression after converting in DPP doesn't solve the issue.
ages ago(permalink)
B. Hiatt I generally find that I only use DxO on images that I need to recover. I find that DPP or Lightroom works just find for most everyday shots. Your discoveries aren't too far from the truth. Also I work in ProPhoto RGB and DxO Optics requires you to download the ICCs independently to make it work. I didn't realize this early on but no have corrected my workflow for that.
Also DxO Optics works better if you use the initial default settings with the correct lens information module downloaded. I fine that it can over sharpen an image so I generally avoid touching that setting. Theres lots of presets to try and many of them give very pleasing results.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Kinematic Digit edited this topic ages ago.