Elements 3.0 vs. Neat Image vs. Noise Ninja

[markubig]

Anybody use all three to give feedback as to which is best to use in terms of:

Quality
Ease of Use

I already have Elements 3.0, but their noise filter isn't as effective as I thought it would be. In order to reduce noise effectively, I have to create layers, do blurs, paint . . . it just gets too time-consuming.

Thanks for your help!

[maderito]

If you shoot a lot of high ISO pics, learn to the use Neat Image or Noise Ninja.

You've probably seen all the reviews - e.g. this one (http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm) by Michael Almond which compares several noise reduction products.

Neat Image and Noise Ninja are generally rated at or near the top of everyone's list. Under the hood, they work in a similar fashion, but they use very different terminology to describe the noise reduction features, options and controls. I prefer Neat Image, especially because the PS plug-in is more developed than Noise Ninja's current plug-in version. But Noise Ninja in notably faster. The Neat Image controls make more sense to me - maybe because I've used it longer.

You have to invest some time into learning these programs. Check them out first via free trial downloads.

Also, check out Helicon filter (http://heliconfilter.com/pages/index.php?id=446), a relatively new comer with some good reviews.

[markubig]

Hey thanks Woody!

[GPR1]

I have Noise Ninja and I'm very happy with it. I does take some learning but the results have been amazing. I've been using it to deal with grain from some slides I took 15 years ago in China. I scan the slides into the computer then run appropriate ones through NN. I also hear good things about Neat Image but I haven't used it.

Greg

[iwatkins]

I've been using Neat Image for a while but I'm seriosuly looking at Helicon myself now. It is very nice and can do some other clever stuff as well.

Cheers

Ian

[markubig]

So let me ask you this question:

if i have a RAW photo with high ISO (say . . 1600 on my Drebel) that was underexposed, and after I increased the exposure in my RAW converter, the color noise is EXTREMELY evident . . .

Do these filters have the capability of making the picture look normal?

Sorry if I didn't explain the scenario clearly enough, I'm not home right now, but I'll post an example for you later to see what I'm talking about.

Thanks!

[Tom W]

I've used Noiseware with good results on a nasty, underexposed noisy image. But I lost my EXIF data on the image.
I also used Helicon with similar results, including the loss of EXIF data. BUT, the helicon seemed to add a reddish tint to skintones which I didn't like.
I haven't had the opportunity to used PSE-3's noise reduction on any really noisy images, but it is pretty good on moderate noise. Its not real aggressive, but I haven't played with all the controls yet either.

[maderito]

So let me ask you this question:
Do these filters have the capability of making the picture look normal?
Thanks!
Severely underexposed, high ISO images look normal - um... no. Presentable ... possibly.

When the noise level (random pixel values) exceeds the signal level (true image data), it is not possible to recover the signal (the image). The signal is weakest in the darker tones of an image - thus the noise is more apparent.

When you underexpose, you just make the entire noise problem worse. Bringing up the shadow detail with levels adjustments only allows you to see the noise better. It was always there. Shooting RAW doesn't really help very much- at least not with conventional RAW conversion methods.

That said - give one of the noise reduction filters a try - you'll probably be very impressed. Use them wisely (not turned up to full "power"). Otherwise, you'll wind up with plastic-like images or ugly filtering artifacts that are worse than the original noise.

[Jesper]

So let me ask you this question:

if i have a RAW photo with high ISO (say . . 1600 on my Drebel) that was underexposed, and after I increased the exposure in my RAW converter, the color noise is EXTREMELY evident . . .

Do these filters have the capability of making the picture look normal?The special noise reduction software packages like Neat Image, Noise Ninja and Noiseware can do amazing things. I don't know how PS Elements 3.0's noise reduction works, but I bet it doesn't work with the same kind of algorithms in the well-known noise reduction packages.

I'm using Neat Image. The way it works is this: first it analyzes (part of) the image to determine the frequency profile of the noise in the luminosity (L) and colour channels (a and b). The profile describes how the noise "looks" in that particular image. In the second step, the image is filtered using the profile that was calculated in the first step. You can tweak a number of parameters that specify how much of the noise must be filtered out.

You can download trial versions of either Neat Image, Noise Ninja or Noiseware and try it out for yourself.

[markubig]

So let me ask you this question:

if i have a RAW photo with high ISO (say . . 1600 on my Drebel) that was underexposed, and after I increased the exposure in my RAW converter, the color noise is EXTREMELY evident . . .

Do these filters have the capability of making the picture look normal?

Sorry if I didn't explain the scenario clearly enough, I'm not home right now, but I'll post an example for you later to see what I'm talking about.

Thanks!Hi Guys -

Here's an example of a pic that was pretty underexposed, and I fixed it in the RAW converter. ISO was 1600, hence its noisiness Can Neat Image or Noise Ninja fix this photo, or is it beyond repair?

Thanks for your help

[Jesper]

Mark,

I tried to run Neat Image on your photo but it's difficult because the photo is so small (only 400 x 600 pixels). Can you post a link to a larger version?

[aam1234]

Hope I don't hijack the thread, but are there a free decent noise removal s/w.

Thanks

[Tom W]

FWIW, here's a little comparison I did last night with an ISO 3200 shot. Not the most scientific, but it does help compare PSE-3's noise reduction with my version of Noiseware.

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/noise_reduction_test

[maderito]

Is this the entire image or a crop?

There is noise and there is also horizontal "banding" - i.e., the noise has a horizontal pattern to it, easily seen over the blue object on the right.

The noise level is very high but can be reduced substantially. The banding cannot be removed with conventional software. It is an artifact of in-camera processing and almost always shows up in severely underexposed images.

Here's the image cleaned of the color and luminance noise using Neat Image with very conservative settings (about 1/3 strength):
http://display.lifepics.com/imgdisp.asp?filespec=%60foxhx3cuxmwdogx%5D9%3C%3D8 %3B9dOjeOrmlfh%80crqsne58mxi%0E17%3D76%3D%0C82517% 3C

You now have a blurry image (out of focus or camera shake) with little image detail - which has almost nothing to do with the noise. The banding is also still apparent. With more careful work, some of the residual noise could still be reduced.

[markubig]

Mark,

I tried to run Neat Image on your photo but it's difficult because the photo is so small (only 400 x 600 pixels). Can you post a link to a larger version?Hi Jesper,

I didn't want you to waste your time with it. I just put the picture up to give you an idea of the type of picture that I was describing in my earlier post. I just thought someone might have had experience wth this type of noise, and been successful trying to rid the photo of it.

I'm going to download the software trials anyway, and I'll do the legwork on the NR myself. Thanks for your offer, though:D :D :D

[F1_Fan]

Hope I don't hijack the thread, but are there a free decent noise removal s/w.

Thanks
Neat Image comes in a free version for home use.

[markubig]

Is this the entire image or a crop?

There is noise and there is also horizontal "banding" - i.e., the noise has a horizontal pattern to it, easily seen over the blue object on the right.

The noise level is very high but can be reduced substantially. The banding cannot be removed with conventional software. It is an artifact of in-camera processing and almost always shows up in severely underexposed images.

Here's the image cleaned of the color and luminance noise using Neat Image with very conservative settings (about 1/3 strength):

You now have a blurry image (out of focus or camera shake) with little image detail - which has almost nothing to do with the noise. The banding is also still apparent. With more careful work, some of the residual noise could still be reduced.Maderito -

Thanks for providing the example. Yeah, I figured that the photo was probably out of focus (blurred). I just wanted to give an example of a high ISO, underexposed image, where exposure was increased and noise more prevalent.

Is that "banding" also referred to as Chromatic Abberation. I always heard about it, but have never seen it before.

Thanks again!

[markubig]

FWIW, here's a little comparison I did last night with an ISO 3200 shot. Not the most scientific, but it does help compare PSE-3's noise reduction with my version of Noiseware.

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/noise_reduction_test
Looks like the end-results are similar (noiseware a tad bit sharper). Which one required more time to complete?

Thanks for posting your test, Tom.

[Tom W]

Looks like the end-results are similar (noiseware a tad bit sharper). Which one required more time to complete?

Thanks for posting your test, Tom.

They were all quick-and-dirty. :)

The version of Noiseware I used is the community version - a stand-alone product. Its very effective with really bad noise, but PSE-3 seems to do OK with moderate noise. PSE is naturally quicker because I don't have to open a separate program to use it.

BTW, I believe that Noiseware also sells a version that works inside Photoshop.

[maderito]

Is that "banding" also referred to as Chromatic Abberation.
No - different problems. Banding may refer to different things, but I'm referring to the horizontal pattern of the noise in your image - or "patterned noise". Look in the blue and red channels of the image to see it even more clearly. It cannot be eliminated easily in post processing.

CA is a whole different subject related to fringing in images caused by non-ideal lens optics and CCD/CMOS electronics.

[wintoid]

Here's Noise Ninja with "Full Auto Profile" and bumping the strength just a little bit to 7. Some may say it's overdone I guess...