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
whatthehey - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Is it just me, or is the whole point of that DPreview article just a way to try and get people to purchase the training course off of the linked website?I also have to wonder at the number of "new" users commenting on the photography articles. I recognize some of the names, but the vast majority appear to be people that have only registered to complain about this one article. Anyone want to bet that several of these "anonymous" users happen to write for other websites? "Bitch bitch bitch, moan moan moan, you guys aren't like DPreview, which is just awesome! [link]"
-----
FYI, this is more a comment on the original poster and is not meant as an attack on kmmatney or yyrkoon, who are at least regulars here as I see posts from them all the time. It appears half of the commenters are relative unkowns. As for me, I tend to lurk more than post, but if you look around at previous articles, I've been here for about a year now and appreciate the variety of articles. It would be interesting to see a comparative review of several of the top noise removal programs, including customized results rather than just blanket "remove noise everywhere" auto settings.
yyrkoon - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
It would be nice if people like you would stop telling others what they should / should not do. If you do not like their 'photography' article(which I would probably consider this more of a retouching article), then do not read them.aguilpa1 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
the big sensor helps the D3 considerably at high ISO but there is a great deal of luminance noise in the picture that is characteristic of Nikon cameras that focus mainly on chroma noise reduction. This makes the picture grainy but not blotchy colored (chroma noise)which is more acceptable but its not a smooth toned image. Most professional digital SLR's can achieve similar results although with luminance noise reduction applied to RAW in post processing and not in camera as Nikon does.gmarcus - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
To make a clear example of the noise processing, you should show a cutout of the main picture at full resolution. At the image size shown, it is not possible to see the noise effect. Also, as mharris points out, the JPEG compression kills all in the comparison.I also think you can check other Noise Reduction tools, like Noise Ninja.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
1:1 crops from a larger image, with and without Noiseware processing, are shown on pages 7, 8, and 9. Clicking on any smaller image brings up the full image, with and without processing.The full ISO range was included for comparison, although we would never recommend using software noise reduction on lower ISO images. As stated in the article all noise reduction is a balancing act between image detail and softening/smearing. If you don't like the Noiseware auto processing you caa fortunately dial in other presets with different NR parameters or create your own based on parameters that are most important to you as a photographer.
I found Noiseware to be an extremely useful and flexible tool, but there are many other noise reduction programs and plug-ins available.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
We did try Noise Ninja on the SD14 images. The results were very poor. This article was not conceived as a comparison of all the available software noise reduction programs or plug-ins. The idea was to show that post-processing can sometimes salvage high-noise images.Noiseware also worked best on the images that needed the most help. Used sparingly software noise reduction like Noiseware can be a useful tool. This is particularly true with images from cameras like the SD14, K20D, and A350. At the other end of the spectrum is a camera like the Nikon D3, with exceptionally low noise at high ISO.
sejer - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I just tried running Noise Ninja on your original with the Sigma SD14 profile from picturecodes homepage, and i must say that it gives a much better result than what you show here.I don't understand why you say that it gives poor results. With default settings it gives much more detail, and if i want the "plastic look" that you show in your examples it's just a matter of cranking up filter strength and smoothness...
yyrkoon - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I would have to agree with others here in that the reduced noise images look terrible in a lot of cases - especially the shots with water in them. However, some people here may fancy themselves professional photographers, but its obvious they know very little about image retouching. Point #1, if you care about an image you NEVER use a filters auto settings UNLESS they just so happen to work the best(very rare). Point #2 - a professional image retoucher will hardly ever use a single layer when 'correcting' an image. You keep the original layer, apply separate filters to copies of the original, and blend as appropriate.I would however have to disagree that noise ninja would do a worse job here. Noise ninja is known as one of the best noise filters out there, and from personal experience I'd have to agree. It however is *not* the end all be all of image retouching, and does require some finessing. Either way, running noise filters on a JPEG image is NOT the way to go . . .
yyrkoon - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Oh, and I just noticed that a lot of that 'smearing' people were talking about was actually done in camera. Take another look if you do not believe me.strikeback03 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I bought Neat Image primarily because when I was shopping they were the only one to offer a useful trial. I'm happy with the results.