Our Take
While we began with exploring the impact of Noiseware on Sigma Foveon images, we found this program was also very effective with Pentax K20D and Sony A350 high ISO images. The greatest improvements seem to be in those images that have the lowest amount of in-camera noise processing.
The image improvement is pronounced in Sigma SD14 images that are reported to have little or no noise reduction applied in the Sigma Photo Pro software. Noiseware was also quite effective in processing Pentax K20D images from their Samsung 14.6MP sensor. Pentax applies smaller amounts of noise reduction in their image processing so the addition of Noiseware can have a substantial impact on the quality of high ISO images.
The Sony A350 is already employing a substantial amount of noise reduction in its in-camera processing of high ISO images. Noiseware can also improve these images, but the results are more subtle than those seen with less processed JPEGs. Improvements are certainly visible but they are not the night day results sometimes seen with Sigma SD14 and Pentax K20D images.
Canon and Nikon JPEG images processed with Noiseware behave much like the Sony A350 images. You will see improvements, but they are not as dramatic as some other images. This would certainly imply that both Canon and Nikon are employing large amounts of in-camera noise reduction, just as Sony does, which is contrary to what many assume. While Nikon and Canon seem to employ a similar amount of noise-reduction, this is not to say they all process noise in the same manner. A book could be written on the "noise reduction philosophies" of the three companies because they appear to be making different choices with their noise-reduction processing. However, many incorrectly criticize Sony, for instance, on their "heavy" image processing in the A350. Canon and Nikon also heavily process images in-camera; they just make slightly different choices in their processing algorithms.
The "selective" processing we saw with Noiseware certainly supports their claim that Noiseware is not "median-based" like most other noise reduction software. The program seems most effective where noise is the highest and it has the admirable trait of not over-processing images that need subtle noise fixes. In processing images for this review, Noiseware did live up to their claim of reducing noise without overly reducing sharpness in the image. All of this was with the free Community Edition. You can expect the licensed AI editions of the standalone and plug-in editions of Noiseware to be even better at selective processing, and to actually improve in effectiveness with extended use.
Noiseware only works with files that have been processed in-camera or with another software program like Photoshop. The standalone requires JPEG, PNG, BMP, or TIFF files for processing. The plug-in version can process any file format the native program supports, but Camera RAW is also a Photoshop plug-in. That means you can't use Noiseware with a RAW image as it is designed for post-processing.
With Noiseware used for post-processing images, the Sigma SD14 becomes a completely different camera. You will no longer be afraid to shoot at ISO 800 and even ISO 1600 is usable in a pinch, though it is not the same low-noise as ISO 1600 on competing cameras. Noiseware is also extremely effective in post-processing of Pentax K20D high ISO images.
The impact of Noiseware on cameras that already employ heavy noise reduction in-camera is not as dramatic. Sony A350 images are improved, but the effect is more subtle. The same is true of Canon and Nikon images which have been processed in-camera as JPEG images. These images are improved but changes are more subtle.
This selective behavior of Noiseware makes it an extremely useful noise reduction program. It works best where it is needed most in high ISO noise images such as those found with the Sigma SD14 and Pentax K20D. Noiseware does much less to images that have already experienced substantial noise reduction such as Sony A350, Nikon, and Canon images. It also seems to have little impact on the sharpness of these previously processed images, which is certainly a good thing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
61 Comments
View All Comments
GoSharks - Thursday, July 31, 2008 - link
I agree that the box is a horrible test subject. dpreview's (for one example) shots of a grey patch, and then multiple crops of a high detail image are excellent for showing the level of noise AND detail that exist at each ISO setting. The box only gives you the level of noise, which is only half the story.marokero - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Was the photog shooting through the windows inside a grounded helicopter?I've been shooting with a D3 since February, and I've been getting images that were just "not doable" below ISO 6400 without a flash - and a flash would've ruined the moment. Yes, David Black could've used a slower shutter speed and lower ISO to get the same exposure, but would he have been able to freeze the hockey action at 1/125s and ISO 800? I seriously doubt it.
I surely would like more manufacturers to implement some of Foveon's X3 layered tecnology in their future sensors, but not at the cost of reduced light sensitivity. Noiseware, Noise Ninja, Neat Image... they all do a fine job of cleaning up noise, but they do not do miracles.
peroni - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Sorry Wesley but this article should be withdrawned, the quality is not on par with the rest of this site articles.p.s.
In nearly all the pictures you have posted the originals look better.
Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
The selling point of Sigma cameras are their sharp/full-of-detail images yet the reviwer thinks it's better to smear all of those in favor of low noise. That's just stupid.If he buys a Ferrari, he'd cripple the engine for the sake of low noise, then talk about how great it is to have low noise on Ferrari.
pepsimax2k - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
is that dido on the main page pic?woohoo *wins award for least geeky anandtech post in, ohh, 5 minutes?*
Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
1. That D3 ISO 6400 sample image has shutter speed of 1/1000. Even Nikon D70 or Canon A350 that are known for high noise would only show minimal noise when it's shot in the bright area.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying D3 low-noise/high-ISO sucks. D3, without a doubt, shows the least noise out of all the cameras in market. However, showing ISO 6400 image with shutter speed of 1/1000 and saying 'look at this low noise in ISO 6400' is simply wrong. Hell, I can even show you low-noise ISO 1600 images with D70 so you can talk about how D70 shows very little noise.
2. "However, many incorrectly criticize Sony, for instance, on their "heavy" image processing in the A350. Canon and Nikon also heavily process images in-camera; they just make slightly different choices in their processing algorithms."
That's because, as you know, Sony kills noise in favor of detail and they do it way too much. What good is 14.2MP when it's crippled; in other word, you don't get to see the advantage of 14.2MP when the ISO goes up as the noise processing algorithm kills most of the details. Again, Canon and Nikon doesn't smear images as Sony does.
3. Either your expectation is too low or my expectation is too high, but Imageware creates really smeared images just like Sonys'. Well, if you are a fan of watercolor-like or plastic-like pictures that shows the least detail, I guess Imageware is all good. But....really....pictures processed with Imageware really look terrible.
Given that, I hope you don't waste your money getting quality lenses. You'd be fine with lenses made with window glasses.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I suppose we will all have to chide Nikon for their obvious stupidity. The Hockey image was supplied by Nikon as an example ISO 6400 image in their D3 launch kit.Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
No, the problem is you saying 'Look at this image! it's ISO 6400 and shows so little noise!'Some1ne - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
It completely ruins all the detail in all the photos that include bodies of water. Seriously, in the Noiseware processed one you can't see any of the ripples/waves/other details in the water anymore. Terrible!Ratinator - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Has anyone heard anything about when Kodak is going to release their new filter that was discussed about a year ago mentioned here http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhig...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhig...