Noise Reduction By Image Averaging

[John Navas]

<http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise-reduction.htm>
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

[Ali]

No new website. He covers good topics, but can't relay his knowledge very
well.

Don't get me wrong, he is very knowledgeable, but is not a trainer at heart.

"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:s4tcp35ef46fqrr9l...@4ax.com...

[John Navas]

Your own better example would be where? ;)

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:06:34 -0000, "Ali" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in
<zLCdnbgu7qSZ6gva...@pipex.net>:

[Rich]

For a real grounding in this, check out some of the astronomy image
processing groups. They've been using the technique for around 20
years, sometimes using thousands of images. The amount of detail they
get from their images (no joke) rivals some Hubble shots of the
planets. The programs used to do it do more than just stack images.
One of the best known is "Registax" a free program.
http://www.astronomie.be/registax/

[John Navas]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:11:51 -0800 (PST), Rich <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote in
<47712cf2-915e-4c10...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

>On Jan 22, 5:58 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise-reduction.htm>

>For a real grounding in this, check out some of the astronomy image

>processing groups. They've been using the technique for around 20
>years, sometimes using thousands of images. The amount of detail they
>get from their images (no joke) rivals some Hubble shots of the
>planets. The programs used to do it do more than just stack images.
>One of the best known is "Registax" a free program.
>http://www.astronomie.be/registax/

Idea is similar, but the objective is different.

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <s4tcp35ef46fqrr9l...@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> <http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/noise-reduction.htm>

I've tried that for noise back in the Oly CxxxZ days. It kinda works.

You can also blend many still life photos to simulate multiple sources
of light when you really only have one light.

Both work when the situation is too rare to justify upgraded equipment.

--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.

[Toby]

Of course this is completely doable, the downside being that nothing can
move in the frame between exposures.

Toby

"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:s4tcp35ef46fqrr9l...@4ax.com...