G10 and Ninja Noise (or similar)

[kuchars22]

Just got a used (4mth old) G10 for a stupid price, well why not?! Should arrive next week.

I know the noise is going to be an issue for some, but would a third-party noise reduction software (I have Ninja Noise) resolve most of the noise to make it on par with the G11, or would the standard NR from DPP or Lightroom do?

Thanks

[Tallking]

I use Imagenomic Pro. You have to be careful with it, because it is very easy to "overcorrect" resulting in something that looks like what would happen if you put a bunch of botox in your film's developer solution. Used properly, however, it is very effective. I don't know about Ninja, but again, I'm sold on Imagenomic. Enjoy your G10, it's a fine camera.

[Chairman7w]

What he just said. It's like cheatin!

I use Imagenomic Pro. You have to be careful with it, because it is very easy to "overcorrect" resulting in something that looks like what would happen if you put a bunch of botox in your film's developer solution. Used properly, however, it is very effective. I don't know about Ninja, but again, I'm sold on Imagenomic. Enjoy your G10, it's a fine camera.

[kuchars22]

What he just said. It's like cheatin!

But isn't what the G10/G11 does internally anyway at and above a certain ISO? NR is applied, and the G11 is supposed to overdo it a little bit hence the softening of the images at higher ISOs. So using a third-party NR software is just tweaking it further, just as if you were to adjust brightness/contrast/saturation/sharpness etc in post-processing.

[Tallking]

Kinda, sorta. The camera (and this is nothing unique) applies a little dose of NR in situations where the the processor has been programmed to do so. Imagenomic offers a huge variety of adjustable variables one can use to tweak individual images, depending upon the type and extent of noise with which they are infected/afflicted. It is vastly more capable and controllable than in-camera NR is.

[Yapo]

In regards to noise reduction software...is there any that can do noise reduction on a batch of images?

As i've recently started using ISO 800 on my G10 in black & white (as opposed to ISO 200 in colour with flash) for low light with and without flash to get a brighter/natural lit background.

So is it possible to clean up the graininess without opening/editing each photo one at a time n saving? or quickly flick through n edit?

[jacobsen1]

first off, anything that can help the G10 can also help any other camera, so it's not really a true help. Because the G10 is your only option, it's a great way to get better clean higher ISO images, but if you were picking a camera to purchase, don't factor it in... I use noise ninja on my D700 images giving me clean 6400 images with details....

Also, noise ninja works MUCH better with a profile. I'm not sure if they have a G10 profile available, if not, take the time to make one, it'll help a lot.

In regards to noise reduction software...is there any that can do noise reduction on a batch of images?

Yes, you can batch NN with LR/PS. Not sure if LR alone can do it, but I have the PS NN plugin and I just made an action that runs NN. Once you have an action with it in it you can batch files using that action with either PS or LR. My typical workflow is I use LR to import and organize and pick the shots I'm going to use. I then "develop" them in LR making my WB and exposure adjustments and cropping. I then "export" from LR using a droplet in PS that NNs the images then adds my border (LR can do the border but not the NN). If I don't need to NN the images then I can uncheck that box in the action in PS before I start. My action has NO open/close/save steps in it, PS takes care of that for me.

[Tallking]

first off, anything that can help the G10 can also help any other camera, so it's not really a true help. Because the G10 is your only option, it's a great way to get better clean higher ISO images, but if you were picking a camera to purchase, don't factor it in... I use noise ninja on my D700 images giving me clean 6400 images with details....
. . .

Yes and no. Sure it's true that probably any good NR program can help any exposure from any camera that's afflicted by noise. The software is, of course, a benefit for any such exposure.

For cameras that generate more noise in low light/high ISO shots, NR is a proportionally greater help than it is for cameras that have less need for NR.

As for camera selections, be careful of broad generalizations -- we don't all want or need the same things. For the shooter who wants or needs the very high resolution of a camera like the G10, the availability of good NR is an ideal way to mitigate the camera's downside, high ISO performance. If you don't need the resolution, or just want a less noisy camera, then of course, NR is less of a factor (but still may help, since it's not as if the G11 is utterly noise-free).

[NOsquid]

I'm pretty sure NN has a trial version, you'll have to experiment for yourself. Different people tolerate differing amounts of noise, I'm not much of a peeper myself in most cases.

[10megapixel]

NeatImage (http://www.neatimage.com/download.html) has a freeware version that works well.

[denncald]

Noiseware Community Edition is a free program too, it just doesn't have the features of the Pro version I use (plug-in on PS Elements 8). Noiseware is the Imagenomic mentioned above.

http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx (Community edition is near the bottom of this list)

Dennis

[jacobsen1]

Yes and no. Sure it's true that probably any good NR program can help any exposure from any camera that's afflicted by noise. The software is, of course, a benefit for any such exposure.

For cameras that generate more noise in low light/high ISO shots, NR is a proportionally greater help than it is for cameras that have less need for NR.



you can argue that either way actually. A G10 will look like crap above 400 any way you slice it. A D700 will look fine w/o NN at 1600~3200 (as will a 5Dii). NN makes the FF files look phenomenal a stop or two deeper into their range. NN saves shots with the G10 just making them usable really.

This isn't a crack against the G10 either, it's the physics with P&Ss. The sensors are just so small it's tough to get good low light shots with them even with good exposures and knowledge of how to manipulate the files.

I use NN. I have a s90. I have a GF1. I have a D700. I've owned a G9, G10, LX3, 5Dii and a bunch of other cameras as well. NN works far better on my D700 files than it does on any of the others. (it also worked well on my 5D and 5Dii).


As for camera selections, be careful of broad generalizations -- we don't all want or need the same things. For the shooter who wants or needs the very high resolution of a camera like the G10, the availability of good NR is an ideal way to mitigate the camera's downside, high ISO performance.

:lol:

who NEEDs 15mp from a P&S really?
IBalinktotheLLMF-vs-G10comparison

I'd argue most people don't need 15mp from their DSLRs. At least not most of the time. If it were up to me my s90 would have 6~8mp tops. The GF1 could do a hell of a lot better with 8~10 than it does with 12mp.

[Tallking]

you can argue that either way actually.I think that's sort of what I was saying. . .
A G10 will look like crap above 400 any way you slice it. A D700 will look fine w/o NN at 1600~3200 (as will a 5Dii).Of course it will. Why are you comparing the G10 and a D700? :lol: . . . NN saves shots with the G10 just making them usable really. I guess Imagenomic works better than NN. Of course, no NR software can inject signal into a picture that doesn't already exist, and equally obviously, none of us who have any understanding expect ANY small-sensor camera to perform like a full-frame. You can use whatever subjective terms you like for how NR works on small-sensor exposures (usable, or whatever). For my tastes, I'm satisfied.
. . .

:lol:

who NEEDs 15mp from a P&S really?
IBalinktotheLLMF-vs-G10comparison

I'd argue most people don't need 15mp from their DSLRs. At least not most of the time. If it were up to me my s90 would have 6~8mp tops. The GF1 could do a hell of a lot better with 8~10 than it does with 12mp.
Please read carefully. There was a very specific reason I included the term "want" next to the word "need". Time will tell where the equilibrium of technology settles out. I do think that Canon probably went too far with the G10's sensor, but on the other hand I lean in favor of more MP because I like the ability to crop aggressively. And on the other hand, for most of the LL shooting I do, my bounced, diffused 430EX "protects" me from the evils of high-ISO shooting. You may argue for what you need or what you believe "most people" need as you like. I'm fine where I'm at. . .

[Bradfordguy]

I'm interested in this thread as I'm wondering about picking up a G10 vs. the G11. A few G10s are popping up used so I'm tempted to snap one up. Reading the praise of the 11 at higher ISO is what holds me back but I also have Noise Ninja which I'm thinking put the two close on the playing field? I also am not wild about the articulating screen as I consider it something that could fail at some point. I like the simplicity and feel of the 10.

[jacobsen1]

Why are you comparing the G10 and a D700? .

you know I'm not comparing them in terms of outright IQ, it's how the respond to NN. Small sensor files look like crap already, running NN on them just takes away details and noise at the same rate.

I'm interested in this thread as I'm wondering about picking up a G10 vs. the G11.

if you're worried about noise, I'd go with the G11 or S90 over the G10. If you can run NN on the G10 files to save them, you can run them on the G11 and also save them and get another stop out of the camera... The price difference between a s90 and used G10 is how big these day? I'd save the extra ~$100 for the better sensor.

[Tallking]

you know I'm not comparing them in terms of outright IQ, it's how the respond to NN. Small sensor files look like crap already, running NN on them just takes away details and noise at the same rate.

I have to disagree with your last assertion there. IMO, successful and effective use of NR software involves adjusting its processing of the photo such that it is actually removing substantially more noise than signal. If it removed noise at the same rate as it removed valid data (signal), then the signal-to-noise ration would remain constant, and you'd still be looking at an equally crappy, even less detailed photo. Only be improving the SNR, can any NR software do anything to make a picture actually look better.

[Shellback]

Noise Ninja does have profiles for the G10 on their site. I use it as a starting point and adjust accordingly. I also shoot almost exclusively in RAW.

[GSeries1]

Here's a 100% crop of a much larger picture from a G9 at iso-800 in low light (hockey ring)

[GSeries1]

Here is noise reduction the way I prefer which is using imagonic chroma reduction only.

[GSeries1]

And here's with chroma and luminance smoothing which I personally don't see the point in because detail gets lost at any setting.

[GSeries1]

The original.

[tmwag]

Are those shot in raw?

[GSeries1]

Are those shot in raw?

yup...

[Tallking]

Hold on now, I really don't think that this example/comparison is a fair one. When you zoom into, or crop out, such that you're image is only 628x444 pixels, you're going to have a severe loss of detail, irrespective of the source of the loss (image size, noise, other things, or a combo of all of the above).

As I noted before, I use NR software on cropped images, but when it gets that severe, I don't expect miracles. When you get down to cropping to the mid-three-figure pxl range, your image is going to suck even if it originated from a pinnacle Canon EOS 1 model. Perhaps not as badly as it will if it originated in an A-series or G-series camera, but it will still suck.

Incidentally, I messed around with this cropped image in Noiseware, and got what I felt was marginally better results. That said, again, there isn't much you can do when you're cropping to this super-extreme level.

Of course, there's less need up front for NR in larger-sensor DSLR images, but NR software can make a huge improvement in the right situation. Don't expect it to turn a 640x480 pxl image into a crisp work of art.

[GSeries1]

Hold on now, I really don't think that this example/comparison is a fair one. When you zoom into, or crop out, such that you're image is only 628x444 pixels, you're going to have a severe loss of detail, irrespective of the source of the loss (image size, noise, other things, or a combo of all of the above).

As I noted before, I use NR software on cropped images, but when it gets that severe, I don't expect miracles. When you get down to cropping to the mid-three-figure pxl range, your image is going to suck even if it originated from a pinnacle Canon EOS 1 model. Perhaps not as badly as it will if it originated in an A-series or G-series camera, but it will still suck.

Incidentally, I messed around with this cropped image in Noiseware, and got what I felt was marginally better results. That said, again, there isn't much you can do when you're cropping to this super-extreme level.

Of course, there's less need up front for NR in larger-sensor DSLR images, but NR software can make a huge improvement in the right situation. Don't expect it to turn a 640x480 pxl image into a crisp work of art.

I wasn't cropping the finished picture at that level I was just showing at 100% how all luminance noise reduction does is smear pixels together... and that you will always lose detail no matter how mild or wild. I personally prefer to just leave the noise and preserve the details but others like it vice-versa. To each his own,,, it's photography, if we all shot the same way it would be a boring hobby.

[Tallking]

I wasn't cropping the finished picture at that level I was just showing at 100% how all luminance noise reduction does is smear pixels together... and that you will always lose detail no matter how mild or wild. I personally prefer to just leave the noise and preserve the details but others like it vice-versa. To each his own,,, it's photography, if we all shot the same way it would be a boring hobby.

Well, that's very true. I guess I come down somewhere in between. I find, as most would I assume, that trying to rescue a very small or tightly cropped image with NR software is a futile effort. On the other hand, I also find that larger, either uncropped, or less tightly cropped, images can be substantially improved with NR. I have zero experience with NN, having only used Noiseware or the included feature in CS2. Used conservatively, and sometimes with custom settings aimed specifically at the picture being worked, I've had some very nice results with NW. By that I mean pictures that retain good detail and which lack the "botox overdose" look, while being substantially purged of excessive noise.

As you suggest, there's room under the tent for everyone's preferences. Having spent many years shooting film, often higher-speed and/or pushed films, I'm not adverse to grain the way some digital-only folks seem to be. I feel that if I can strike a nice balance between noise and detail, which often appears like a moderately grainy film shot, NR is worth the effort.

[tmwag]

Here's a 100% crop of a much larger picture from a G9 at iso-800 in low light (hockey ring)

Was the crop off the original raw, converted jpg, or converted tiff?

[GSeries1]

Was the crop off the original raw, converted jpg, or converted tiff?

tiff... I could play around with it and make it look better or worse... my point was just that I like to just remove the chroma noise, those red and green specs annoy me... but I find that the blurring feature just sacrifices too much detail for me at any setting... I have Noise Ninja and imagonic noiseware professional, both editions work in 16 bit and imagonics chroma reduction is a godsend.

Example at 100%:

[tmwag]

Oh, I see. I was wondering if a crop off the original raw or a large tiff would make any difference vs a jpg regarding noise and detail

[GSeries1]

Oh, I see. I was wondering if a crop off the original raw or a large tiff would make any difference vs a jpg regarding noise and detail

not really in my opinion but it allows you to do all of your editing while keeping the image in 16 bit.

[DaryleH]

I see no one usues PSP X2 Ultimate