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
n4bby - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
agreed. i criticized some earlier reviews, but was holding out for the quality of writing and analysis to improve. that is clearly not happening. even the article synopsis in my anandtech RSS feed was completely wrong:"Not all JPEG processing is created equal, but Noiseware can often fix what camera JPEG processing leaves undone...."
i was truly puzzled by this. noise reduction has NOTHING to do with JPEG compression - that's like saying, "not all gasoline is created equal... let's see how this motor oil performs."
but i guess if it brings in the ad dollars, it's mission accomplished for the site... even though ultimately it's doing the readers a disservice.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
You are technically correct, but it appears you are straining to make your point. Certainly you, and everyone else, understands that noise reduction is one of the processes that usually happens during in-camera "JPEG" processing or during software conversion from RAW to a finished image format which is normally JPEG, but could be TIFF or even another format.In the interest of being more precise in the description I have changed it to:
"Not all image processing is created equal, but Noiseware can often reduce noise that in-camera or software processing leaves behind."
n4bby - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
thank you for fixing that."Not all image processing is created equal, but Noiseware can often reduce noise that in-camera or software processing leaves behind."
so does gaussian blur! ;)
soydios - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Eh, I'd say that your quoted caption is an accurate description of the article. There's on-chip noise reduction that is performed before the RAW file is created, then there's software noise reduction that is performed as part of the image processing engine in-camera. The output of that image processing engine is usually JPEG or TIFF, and the RAW preview image.So, if a camera's processing engine isn't running noise reduction before writing to JPEG, then this software would finish the noise reduction stage of post-processing.
As for the software itself, I don't know about the images at full magnification, but the small previews shown indicate fairly heavy smearing. Lightroom does less smearing, and seems to be extremely capable in my experience at chroma noise reduction, and good enough at luminance.
As for writing quality, I can't do better, so I won't criticize.
n4bby - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
it is NOT an accurate description. image processing has NOTHING to do with the final output format of the file. you said it yourself - the output could be TIFF, so what does it have to do with "JPEG processing"? call it a nit if you will, but anandtech is a technical publication, so such fundamental inaccuracies should be considered anathema.and saying you can't criticize because you can't do any better yourself seems symptomatic of the sort of mediocrity malaise that results in sub-standard institutions like the US Postal Service. ;) if we expected everything in the world to be no better than what we ourselves can accomplish, the world would be a very sad place...
guitargeek27 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
It's kinda unfair to compare the noise of a Nikon D3 to a Canon XSI, as the Canon has a smaller sensor (as well as a few thousand dollars less)If you wanted to be fair, how about comparing the D3 to a Canon 5D (full frame and less expensive than the d3) or the EOS 1D Mark II or III?
Spoelie - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Personally I think there's too much smearing going on, to the point that I like the original picture better. The first picture for example has quite a loss of detail on the windows of the buildings and on the slope of the mountain. In the second picture all the ripples are gone and the boat seems to float above instead of in the water. All non-macro low-iso shots show an incredible amount of smearing (stones on the stairway, vegetation on every background mountain, ripples in water). I don't know how anyone would consider those filtered low-ISO shots an improvement.cparka23 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I've long been impressed w/ Canon's low noise compared to other makes. Up 'til now, I've always heard/assumed that it was the sensor. So is it possible to determine to what exactly the noise reduction is attributable in many cameras? Is it due to an algorithm or is it really the sensor? I guess we'll never know, since the images are already 'processed' in RAW, will we?cparka23 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
hmm.. after rereading, that first question didn't come across as I had entirely hoped. regardless, the article helped me understand this a bit.Thanks, Wes.
strikeback03 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Canon states that the only noise reduction done to their RAW images is dark noise subtraction. They have plenty of whitepapers on their technology floating around.