Noise Ninja vs Neat Image plug-ins for CS2?

J
Posted By
johnastovall
Nov 6, 2005
Views
553
Replies
15
Status
Closed
I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image.

What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.
**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"

David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

BH
Bill Hilton
Nov 6, 2005
John Stovall writes …
I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image

Download the free trials from both, test them on typical images from your 20D and see which one does best for you …

What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.

I needed a noise reduction program a couple of years back when my wife photographed Alzheimer’s patients @ ISO 1600 in available light (the flash freaked them out) and downloaded three programs to test (I think Grain Surgery was one of them too). All seemed pretty similar in results (all did a good job) but the interfaces were quite different so I recommend picking one that seems intuitive to you, especially in default modes. I ended up with Neat Image, which was simple enough to understand and worked fine at near-default settings for our images … only have to use it a few times a year (just fired it up two weeks ago when someone wanted an 11×14" print from a digital file shot at ISO 800, for example) but it’s a big help when we need it. There are (or were) several versions at different price points, depending on whether or not you want 8 or 16 bit, stand-alone or Photoshop plug-in.

Bill
RB
Rudy Benner
Nov 6, 2005
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image.
What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.
**********************************************************
"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"

David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

I found Noise Ninja difficult to use, Neat Image is currently installed until something better comes along.
GP
Gordon Pembury
Nov 6, 2005
This may help
http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm

Gordon

"Rudy Benner" wrote in message
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image.
What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.
**********************************************************
"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"

David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

I found Noise Ninja difficult to use, Neat Image is currently installed until something better comes along.
GP
Gordon Pembury
Nov 6, 2005
This may help
http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm

Gordon

"Rudy Benner" wrote in message
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image.
What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.
**********************************************************
"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"

David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

I found Noise Ninja difficult to use, Neat Image is currently installed until something better comes along.
RB
Rudy Benner
Nov 7, 2005
Excellent. Perhaps I will have a second look at Noise Ninja.

"Gordon Pembury" wrote in message
This may help
http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm

Gordon

"Rudy Benner" wrote in message
"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image.
What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.
**********************************************************
"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white"

David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

I found Noise Ninja difficult to use, Neat Image is currently installed until something better comes along.

BW
Bob Williams
Nov 7, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:

John Stovall writes …

I’m not happy with CS2’s noise reduction for high ISO digital images

from my Canon 20D. I’m looking at either Noise Ninja or Neat Image

Download the free trials from both, test them on typical images from your 20D and see which one does best for you …

What have been your experiences with them? Would be interested in hearing if anyone has tried both.

I needed a noise reduction program a couple of years back when my wife photographed Alzheimer’s patients @ ISO 1600 in available light (the flash freaked them out) and downloaded three programs to test (I think Grain Surgery was one of them too). All seemed pretty similar in results (all did a good job) but the interfaces were quite different so I recommend picking one that seems intuitive to you, especially in default modes. I ended up with Neat Image, which was simple enough to understand and worked fine at near-default settings for our images … only have to use it a few times a year (just fired it up two weeks ago when someone wanted an 11×14" print from a digital file shot at ISO 800, for example) but it’s a big help when we need it. There are (or were) several versions at different price points, depending on whether or not you want 8 or 16 bit, stand-alone or Photoshop plug-in.
Bill

Bill,
About how long does it take you to process, say an 8×10/4MP image, with Neat Image? (Ball Park estimate).
Bob Williams
BH
Bill Hilton
Nov 7, 2005
Bob Williams writes …

Bill,
About how long does it take you to process, say an 8×10/4MP image, with Neat Image? (Ball Park estimate).

Seems to go pretty fast … I just dumped one in to time it, 8 Mpixels (2,330 x 3,504), 23.4 MBytes, from loading to analyzing to auto-tweaking to saved output was just under 1 minute. This is the stand-alone version, not the plug-in, which might possibly be slower if Photoshop is taking all the RAM before you run the plug-in.

Bill
J
johnastovall
Nov 7, 2005
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:40:26 -0000, "Gordon Pembury" wrote:

This may help
http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm

Gordon

Thanks, this is great information…
*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
BW
Bob Williams
Nov 8, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:

Bob Williams writes …

Bill,
About how long does it take you to process, say an 8×10/4MP image, with Neat Image? (Ball Park estimate).

Seems to go pretty fast … I just dumped one in to time it, 8 Mpixels (2,330 x 3,504), 23.4 MBytes, from loading to analyzing to auto-tweaking to saved output was just under 1 minute. This is the stand-alone version, not the plug-in, which might possibly be slower if Photoshop is taking all the RAM before you run the plug-in.
Bill

WOW! That is really fast.
I visited their site and read some of the posts on their forum. They seem to have put a lot of thought into the program and appear to offer prompt support.
I think I’ll give it a whirl.
Thanks for the experiment.
Bob Williams
P.S. I discovered a very interesting fact while reading the forum posts. Users remarked that after removing noise and saving the image, the file size was considerably smaller than the noisy original. They were worried that Neat Image saved at high compression and thus deteriorated the image. The response was that Neat Image saved at 91% quality (pretty good). The smaller file size was due to the fact that noise free images compress much better than noisy images. I hadn’t thought about that but it makes a lot of sense.
Bob
BH
Bill Hilton
Nov 8, 2005
Bob Williams writes

Users (of Neat Image) remarked that after removing noise and saving the image, the file size was considerably smaller than the noisy original

This is likely true for jpegs … the test I ran was on a tiff file saved as tiff so it was the same size at both ends …

The smaller file size was due to the fact that noise free images compress much better than noisy images. I hadn’t thought about that but it makes a lot of sense

For grins I’ll take a noisy tiff file and run it thru at default settings, then convert both original and filtered files to jpeg to see how true this is … will let you know 🙂

BTW, if you are planning on running this on just jpegs then I think that’s the free version (not certain). So maybe you can get the solution you need for free …

Bill
BW
Bob Williams
Nov 8, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
Bob Williams writes

Users (of Neat Image) remarked that after removing noise and saving the image, the file size was considerably smaller than the noisy original

This is likely true for jpegs … the test I ran was on a tiff file saved as tiff so it was the same size at both ends …

The smaller file size was due to the fact that noise free images compress much better than noisy images. I hadn’t thought about that but it makes a lot of sense

For grins I’ll take a noisy tiff file and run it thru at default settings, then convert both original and filtered files to jpeg to see how true this is … will let you know 🙂

BTW, if you are planning on running this on just jpegs then I think that’s the free version (not certain). So maybe you can get the solution you need for free …

I usually work in highest Quality jpegs because my camera outputs in that format.
I’ll check their site again and see what the free version offers. I’ll await the results of your next experiment re: compression.
BH
Bill Hilton
Nov 8, 2005
Bob Williams writes
The smaller file size was due to the fact that noise free images compress much better than noisy images. I hadn’t thought about that but it makes a lot of sense

Bill Hilton wrote …
For grins I’ll take a noisy tiff file and run it thru at default settings, then convert both original and filtered files to jpeg to see how true this is

OK, I took an early (pre-processed) tiff of this hummingbird image ( http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg ) and ran it thru Neat Image Pro V5.2 then saved as jpeg the original tiff at 12 and 6 quality settings (high and medium) and saved as jpeg the filtered tiff at the same settings to see how much better it would compress after noise filtration at default settings …

24,195 KB original tiffs

3,696 KB jpeg (12) of unfiltered tiff
2,276 KB jpeg (12) of noise filtered tiff

310 KB jpeg (6) unfiltered tiff
217 KB jpeg (6) noise filtered tiff

YMMV based on the amount of detail and noise (the smooth background in this image compresses well, especially when filtered, for example).

Bill
AM
Andrew Morton
Nov 8, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
<snip contemplation of compressibility of lower-noise images>
24,195 KB original tiffs

3,696 KB jpeg (12) of unfiltered tiff
2,276 KB jpeg (12) of noise filtered tiff

310 KB jpeg (6) unfiltered tiff
217 KB jpeg (6) noise filtered tiff

How about LZW compression of the tiffs?

Andrew
BH
Bill Hilton
Nov 8, 2005
24,195 KB original tiffs

3,696 KB jpeg (12) of unfiltered tiff
2,276 KB jpeg (12) of noise filtered tiff
310 KB jpeg (6) unfiltered tiff
217 KB jpeg (6) noise filtered tiff

Andrew Morton wrote …
How about LZW compression of the tiffs?

8,941 KB unfiltered tiff
6,005 KB noise filtered tiff
BW
Bob Williams
Nov 9, 2005
Bill Hilton wrote:
Bob Williams writes
The smaller file size was due to the fact that noise free images compress much better than noisy images. I hadn’t thought about that but it makes a lot of sense

Bill Hilton wrote …
For grins I’ll take a noisy tiff file and run it thru at default settings, then convert both original and filtered files to jpeg to see how true this is

OK, I took an early (pre-processed) tiff of this hummingbird image ( http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg ) and ran it thru Neat Image Pro V5.2 then saved as jpeg the original tiff at 12 and 6 quality settings (high and medium) and saved as jpeg the filtered tiff at the same settings to see how much better it would compress after noise filtration at default settings …

24,195 KB original tiffs

3,696 KB jpeg (12) of unfiltered tiff
2,276 KB jpeg (12) of noise filtered tiff

310 KB jpeg (6) unfiltered tiff
217 KB jpeg (6) noise filtered tiff

YMMV based on the amount of detail and noise (the smooth background in this image compresses well, especially when filtered, for example).
Bill
Nice work, Bill.
Good to have confirmation on the effect of noise reduction on jpeg compression.
Bob

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections