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
yyrkoon - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I have been curious for some time now why you guys work with JPEGs. Hell, I would not even consider myself either a professional photographer or image re-toucher, but I can do rather well with image manipulation given enough time. Either realistic correction, restoration, or artistic.Ideally most everyone I know that re-touches images works with RAW, or TIFF. Now, I am not trying to tell you what to do, but I suspect if you guys used one of the above formats, and THEN posted your results afterwards in JPEG . . .
Also I have to agree with the poster above me, heavy handed filtering is not good, and layers exist in Photoshop for a reason ; )
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
ALL SD14 images were shot in RAW and processed in Sigma Photo Pro and saved as highest quality JPEGs. We did not shoot any SD14 images using in-camera JPEG.As pointed out in the article Noiseware does not work on RAW files - the standalone works on JPEG, TIFF, BMP, and PNG files. Even Photoshop plug-ins do not work on RAW since Camera RAW is a plug-in itself.
We have had endless discussion in-house on how to present files in photo articles, as no one, including the most repected sites, does a very good job of presenting photo files. If you read through at some well-respected sites you sometimes wonder if you can possibly be looking at the same file you are viewing. They can be calling it "sharp" or noisy" and it looks completely different on your monitor.
We are very open to suggestions on how you would like photo files presented. We try to publish the original image as well as crops, normally with EXIF data as well. This often lands us in hot water which may be why some of the large, well-respected sites don't do this with their test images. We would still prefer to disclose as much imfo as possible even if it invites stoning.
VirtualMirage - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
If you use the RAW converter Bibble (Pro or Lite, an excellent and VERY fast RAW converter from Bibble Labs), it comes with a lite (but free) version of Noise Ninja.If you have a registered copy of Noise Ninja, it will unlock the full featured Noise Ninja built into Bibble. The lite and registered versions provide noise reduction on the RAW file (in a nondestructive manner like most RAW converters) prior to it being converted to a JPEG or TIFF, this allows the noise reduction to be processed on the highest quality version of the image without worrying that jpeg compression artifacts or file conversion degradation will effect the process.
And an another plus, is the registered version of Noise Ninja in Bibble does unsharp mask and performs the sharpening alongside the noise reduction properly (instead of before or after with a seperate tool) so as to retain as much detail as possible.
The only possible negative I have to say about using a dedicated noise reduction program, or one like Noise Ninja, is that they can give you almost too many controls to fine tune with. But with that ability you can also get amazing results once you understand how they work. Luckily there is an auto profile and typical default settings beginners can work with.
Paul
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
Paul -Thank you for your suggestion. I had forgotten that Bibble processes most RAW images and includes a lite version of Ninja Pro. Bibble certainly sounds like a useful tool for Pentax K20D and Sony A350/A700 users. Unfortunately Bibble does not support Sigma RAW so it would not be as useful for the small group of SD14 Foveon users.
I certainly intend to give Bibble another look in the near future.
yyrkoon - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Well I have to say that aguilpa1 had a point that you should have tried to remove croma noise when imported into CS3 or whatever application you used. HOWEVER, since this is a software noise removal review, that would not be true to what I think you guys are trying to show us. i.e. 'we' want to see how this filter/program does on its own. That said, it would be hard to say how this should have been done from every single readers view point.The best way I can think of doing this (right now) would be first to:
1) Import RAW images into CS3 making sure all import settings remain the same.
2) Check Image-> mode bits/channel is set to 8bits/channel. Save an original at this point for showing the original image.
3) Go to Image -> Mode, and set bits/channel to 16bits/channel.
4) make multiple layer copies of the original, applying a few different levels of noise removal on each layer. Some kind of consistency will be needed if comparing filters of course.
5) Mark all layers but the original un-touched layers as hidden, find a good noisy area, and select it.
6) Set each individual layer as visible(one at a time,and hiding the others), and copy paste into a new image within photoshop. Making sure that the new->file bit/channel is of course 16bit/channel. This should also be done with one or more of the re-touches to be shown as a full sized image, after deselecting your selection of course.
7) Go to Image-> mode once more for each image and change bit/channel to 8bit/channel before saving to JPEG.
So now you could have the original to show, a full re-touched image, and several crops of a noisy area with different filter strength applied. Using 16bit/channel is something I have become used to while editing images to help ensure that colors do not get squashed too much while editing images, even if saving out to JPEG(which I usually do). In some cases it may be an un-needed step, but I never know if I will ever make prints of my work or not, AND this is something that really does not take much work.
Anyways, some food for thought, and maybe you already do something similar to this already ?
This is kind of a double edged sword, but if I went purely by the automatic settings of this filter/application, I would have to say that this filter is junk. In reality though this just means that the automatic settings for this application are way too harsh, but the filter/application *could* be very good when applied correctly. Now if something like i kind of laid out above was done, there would be more information for someone like me to make a better decision.
Maybe someone else has a better idea ?
aguilpa1 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I agree with the folks that say the use of noiseware with the Sigma pictures is horrible. It represents either the default or very heavy handed use of the filter. I use noiseware as a plugin with Photoshop CS3 but not always and carefully. If you don't use it carefully it will ruin your picture and turn it into a watercolor like what you have in those Sigma pictures. If you guys had taken your original SD14 pics in RAW and done some chroma noise reduction to remove the more offensive color blotchiness first than run your noiseware afterwards in PS without being so aggressive on your settings, preferably on a duplicate layer so you could (erase) the noise filtering on your more detailed subjects you would have gotten better results.Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
As stated in the article all Noiseware processing used the AUTO mode, and should be considered the worst case or baseline of Noiseware use. As we pointed out there are many more controls available for custom tweaking and adjusting to parameters important to the user.The idea of this article was to expose people to the idea of noise reduction post processing. It may surprise some of the "experts" commenting on this article that most of our readers who use digital cameras do not even know programs like Noiseware exist or exactly what they do. This article was targeted at that audience.
studio1 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
The quality of digital photography analysis on this site is not up to par with the rest of the site. Serious readers choose sites like DPReview for their photo information. I wouldn't go to DPReview for info on the latest chipsets because they have the good sense to stay away from topics they aren't experts in. I wish Anandtech would do the same.kmmatney - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Didn't you already have a whining post on the first page? Not all of find DPRReview all that useful. I went to that site before I bought my Canon and to be honest, it was no help at all. I ended up borrowing a friends camera, liked it, and then bought the same one. Here is the section on noise reduction at DPR Reviews web site:http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_I...">http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_I...
strikeback03 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
The glossary section of DPR is not great and out-of-date for the most part. Reading the reviews or the forums will give you much better information.