|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
05-12-2018, 04:30 PM
|
| |
'Denoise (profiled)' depends very much on the quality of the data in the 'noiseprofiles' file for your particular camera.
When I started using darktable, I wasn't happy with the results I was getting from 'denoise (profiled)', but the theory behind it seemed quite sound, so I generated my own noise profile data...darktable provides advice and tools on how to do this, and I think the results were better.
I have been through this process again for the K-3 II and K-1, but of late have reverted to using the built-in noiseprofiles file.
If you want to try this, be warned it is a bit of a tedious process, using up quite a lot of cpu cycles and disk space with the files generated in the process of getting the noise profile data.
Darktable does provide a means for you to start dt (from the command line) and use your local noiseprofiles file (it is in the docs somewhere), but I took the step of building dt from the git master and including my noise profile data during that process, as I would almost always forget to start dt to use my local data :eek:
Cheers,
Terry
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
05-11-2018, 06:15 PM
|
| |
Interesting that you aren't fond of the darktable's denoise (profiled).
To my eye it is their best denoise tool and typically for me (K1 and K-3 II) works really well, and much better than I have ever been able to achieve using Rawtherapee, but RT has always been a big mystery to me and I probably haven't been using it in the best way.
Darktable's denoise (profiled) controls can have a significant effect on the result.
I typically use the minimum patch size and strength often about 0.5-0.6 for ISO<=800 and maybe higher for higher ISO.
The other variable in this is that I might be accepting results that you wouldn't!
Cheers,
Terry
|
