Originally posted by Koenig I will post some final comparison pics between these two programs, PDCU's noise reduction, as well as Paint Shop Pro's NR.
Here they are as promised!
So what I wanted to compare ultimately, is whether or not I liked the JPEG results enough with HIGH NR set as in Adam's recommendation on the thread linked previously, or to find a convenient and quick way to deal with noise in post processing using RAW.
So I admit that pixel peeping is actually somewhat addicting and I had to tell myself more than once that unless I'm going to print a poster out of my image, I shouldn't be going over these comparisons so intently! In any case, I compared the following images:
1. K7 produced JPEG with NR set to HIGH in camera.
2. K7 produced RAW with NR set to HIGH in camera and PDCU using those settings to apply it's version of "HIGH" NR to the subsequently produced JPEG(see my first post for the different PDCU settings relative to in camera NR settings)
****
The next three examples were created using a K7 produced RAW image with in camera NR set to OFF. They were saved as JPEG's using PDCU with ALL NR turned off. See my previous post for more details. This left me with what should be a RAW converted JPEG with no NR applied to work with. ****
3. Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 "Digital Camera Noise Reduction" tool. Set to a value of 50/50.
4. Topaz Denoise using a bit of a higher setting than previously close to 1.80 Suppression and 0.80 Amount.
5. Noiseware Community Edition with DEFAULT NR v2.6. (freeware that appears pretty effective even if it strips your exif info on the free version!)
So here are the above pics in the order as mentioned:
1
______________________________________________________
2
______________________________________________________
3
______________________________________________________
4
______________________________________________________
5
______________________________________________________
So there we have it!
My observations so far?
Photo 1, the in camera JPEG has also smoothed away a lot more fine detail IMO than all the other NR methods...
Photo 2, PDCU is the noisiest still but also appears to keep the most fine detail.
Photo 3, Corel PSP NR after some reducing of the settings, produced a decent example but I still think it lags behind Topaz and Noiseware.
Photo 4, Topaz Denoise, I think is the best of the bunch, but only slightly better than Noiseware.
Photo 5, Noiseware, did an excellent job and I actually found the blue area to the left of the stuffed animal pen (it's the wife's pen!! seriously it is! lol) to be a bit better handled than the Topaz Denoise.
As with anything, I know I could spend a lifetime playing with settings to get the best of the best settings. This is definitely not the be all end all of NR testing by a long stretch, but in my case, I think it has me leaning towards the workflow method I mentioned in my previous post.
-shoot RAW (looking at the picture above, I really think the RAW post processed images retain more detail than the in camera JPEG which makes it worthwhile to me)
-NR set to OFF in camera, leaving the ISO 800 activation setting at default (not sure but I don't think this will have any impact either way it's set with NR OFF?)
-Sort the RAW images after shooting in PDCU, fixing any quick exposure, white balance, and other settings as I go.
-Batch export to JPEG, ensuring that I turn off all NR in PDCU before converting.
-Take any JPEG's with a high level of noise and process them with Noiseware (it's a standalone program)
-Finally, since I use Picasa to host my pictures, load Picasa, maybe have a second check of exposure or hit the I Feel Lucky button on a few just for fun
, and then select the keepers and upload to my online albulms / storage.
Thoughts???
After this, I've realized I need to go out and take more photos and start enjoying all the K7 has to offer!