[dlacouture]

(Damn it, everybody refers to Gordon's K20 Magenta Cast Remover, but no one actually remember it was my idea!!! I'm condemned to linger in the anonymous limbo till the end of my life, while Gordon basks in eternal thanks from all K20 shooters!!! Arrrrgh!)

[Quicksand]

I do remember! You started that thread over at DPR, right?

And don't worry, I'm withholding my eternal thanks from GBG until he releases a version that doesn't throw parameter limit errors under Mono in Linux.

I really REALLY want to use that tool!

[dlacouture]

Yep, paired with LR3, it simply transforms the k20 into a killer cam! Honestly, I'm almost having second thoughts about having bought a k7...

And I was just kidding over here... I couldn't do what Gordon did (at least not in so little time! More like half a year if you ask me!)
Big kudos to Gordon, more so for not even having the K20 himself...

[EDIT : that's funny, we both joined nearly 2 years ago, and we have similar posts counts...]

[jbinpg]

Eh, my bad. Thanks for the tutorial on stacking. But at least I realized that Step 3 was critical. And I am also waiting for the Mono libraries on linux to catch up with GBG's RBC. A non-starter right now.

Jack

[JohnBee]

You can't "stack" one image on itself to reduce noise, because that's not how stacking works. The point of stacking is that it reduces random noise by averaging it out across multiple exposures. The signal (your subject) remains identical in all shots, and the random noise changes from shot to shot.

That's true and I also think in that way, stacking is a little counter intuitive when it comes to low light photography for all but a few cases. Though absolute bliss for the star gazers!

Interestingly enough... I've read a few blogs on cases where users have made use of stacking and calculated means from a single images by averaging out each samples with varied NR interpolations between them. Thus offsetting the noise artifact designations between each registration.

However... what sounds good in theory doesn't always work in practice and I have yet to commit to any serious testing with this method, though I am very curious to assess if there exists any such advantages.

Another BIG issue surrounding Adobe's new RAW engine is whether or not we are observing pixel definition improvements or... a genuine noise reduction enhancements. And so a good next step may be to export untouched 16bit samples from the engine and process them in some of the more advanced NR software(ie. Noiseware pro with frequency and color channel controls) to gauge output from. Because in other tests I've made, I've found the LR3 color NR system to completely destroy detail in specified color channels.

[robgo2]

I have toyed a bit with LR 3 B2 as well, and I agree that its NR is quite impressive. However, I think that I can get results that are as good with more detail using a combination of Capture One 5 Pro and Dfine. C1's chroma noise filter is poor, so you have to keep it at low levels. I am not terribly impressed with LR 3's overall rendering. Yes, it shows lots of detail, but the images are murky and flat compared to those from Capture One 5. It is possible that I will use LR 3 for high ISO shots, but for everything else, I will stick with C1. Different horses for different courses, as the saying goes.

Rob

[JohnBee]

I have toyed a bit with LR 3 B2 as well, and I agree that its NR is quite impressive. However, I think that I can get results that are as good with more detail using a combination of Capture One 5 Pro and Dfine. C1's chroma noise filter is poor, so you have to keep it at low levels. I am not terribly impressed with LR 3's overall rendering. Yes, it shows lots of detail, but the images are murky and flat compared to those from Capture One 5. It is possible that I will use LR 3 for high ISO shots, but for everything else, I will stick with C1. Different horses for different courses, as the saying goes.

Rob

I'm still on the fence on the Capture One vs LR3 story, though I can't argue on the default curves between them. But I know Capture one tends to warm things up default in contrast to LR3, I've also found the new Adobe camera profiles really help to enhance the curve between the two.

Having said that, I found the LR3 demosaicking engine to be very close to Capture One and as you said, I too think it's the Chroma noise controller that seems to gives it the edge.

I think I'm going to give Capture One a try with with external plugs for quick comparo. Who knows... it may actually prove to be interesting. :d

[robgo2]

I'm still on the fence on the Capture One vs LR3 story, though I can't argue on the default curves between them. But I know Capture one tends to warm things up default in contrast to LR3, I've also found the new Adobe camera profiles really help to enhance the curve between the two.

Having said that, I found the LR3 demosaicking engine to be very close to Capture One and as you said, I too think it's the Chroma noise controller that seems to gives it the edge.

I think I'm going to give Capture One a try with with external plugs for quick comparo. Who knows... it may actually prove to be interesting. :d

John,

Sorry to be so tardy in responding.

I have done numerous head-to-head comparisons of LR3 B2 vs. C1 5 Pro, and I am convinced that C1 produces more pleasing images. It is not so much a matter of revealing fine detail, where LR may actually have a slight advantage, but rather it is the rendering of tonal and color transitions. It that area, C1 rules, and the results are more natural and three dimensional images. I also love the Clarity tool in C1, which magically enhances almost every image. It is much better than Clarity in LR, which can be awful if not used carefully. You just have to watch out for clipping of shadows and highlights, which is easy to correct if it does occur.

There's lots of excitement surrounding new versions of PS, LR and Aperture, which I fully understand. But in my hands, C1 delivers the best IQ. If file management is a high priority, then LR and Aperture are the best choices. Otherwise, why not go for IQ? I find C1's interface to be very elegant with simple, straightforward adjustment tools. File organization mirrors the file organization of your computer, so it is quite easy to learn.

Rob

[Reps]

As of personal taste I have lately found that I spend more time with C1 than LR or even my previous favorite DxO :-) Although lens and sensor correction modules with DxO work miracles (at least at low ISO) with run-around 18-250, I still find C1 very pleasing and highly customizable for my needs. Somehow images ran through C1 retain the 3D look I admire Pentax for...
Best and happy processing, JR
And of course kudos to Gordon for his magenta cast remover for high ISO shots on K20D- works wonders for me.

[robgo2]

As of personal taste I have lately found that I spend more time with C1 than LR or even my previous favorite DxO :-) Although lens and sensor correction modules with DxO work miracles (at least at low ISO) with run-around 18-250, I still find C1 very pleasing and highly customizable for my needs. Somehow images ran through C1 retain the 3D look I admire Pentax for...
Best and happy processing, JR
And of course kudos to Gordon for his magenta cast remover for high ISO shots on K20D- works wonders for me.

Reps,

I used a combination of DxO and LR until I discovered Capture One, and what led me to C1 was Pentax's near-death experience with DxO last winter. Pentax was on the chopping block and was only saved by a Pentax user uprising. Needless to say, I do not trust DxO's committment to Pentax. Our cameras and lenses will always be at the back of their line in terms of support. They don't even support the K-x yet, the best selling DSLR in Pentax's history. DxO is a small developer with a labor intensive piece of software. They will utilize their limited resources where they can get the best return, which means with Nikon and Canon.

To tell the truth, I don't miss DxO's lens correction modules very much. I have a suspicion (without supporting evidence) that C1's Clarity applies deconvolution sharpening, which is the same as DxO's lens deblurring. I only miss DxO's perspective correction, which I can do in PS as the need arises. If and when DxO delivers v6 for Mac, I will give it a try, but I doubt that I will go back to it at this point. It's already about 6 months since they came out with the Windows version, and there is still nothing for the Mac. I think this is a reflection of their limited capacity to bring software to market.

Rob

[rawr]

... here is a short form rundown of what I did to produce these images:

1. GordonB's RAW Border corrector - To remove Megenta Cast in high ISO output
2. LR3 B2 - Used for basic adjustments(WB, Exposure, HL.Recovery, Black lvl, Contrast. etc etc) AND NR(Primary color, secondary lumi.)
3. Export to PS CS4 Layer - Used to composite and quick mask processed LR3 images(multiple samples of image typically produced)
4. Niksoft Dfine - Used to remove noise banding(the only effective tool to remove banding I've found. Masked in)

Wow. That's still a lot of work. Because you can't automate such a grab-bag of procedures, doing a batch of images must take you absolutely forever.

Also the other problem with all this black-magic to salvage high-ISO pictures is, of course, that at high-ISO with some cameras you don't just lose detail to noise, dynamic range plummets as well, so you lose potential image 'pop' as well as resolution.

[Tuner571]

Wow, those are very impressive shots. I have been using Lightroom version 1 since it came out and never bothered to upgrade. I am hoping that when I build my now computer I will pick up Lightroom 3. Does anyone know if you get it for cheaper when you are using a older version?