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
aeternitas - Saturday, August 2, 2008 - link
http://www.fredmiranda.com/IS/">http://www.fredmiranda.com/IS/aeternitas - Saturday, August 2, 2008 - link
1. When doing comparison shots, have a mouse over load the second image and a mouseoff show the first. Or simply have one image and a list of links that dynamical and instantly change that image so comparisons can be made in detail. This is what any self respecting site that has to so with image comparisons would do. This screams "early 90s"2. Though one is usually important, its not here for the even worse reason that the originals were all far better than the filtered images! Why bother uploading this rubbish? Did you even bother to compair or is your eye that attracted to the early digital noise reduction effect of smearing?
2a. Look at the red detain in the water of the beach in the unaltered image. Then look at them in the "improved" version
2b. Look at the boat image, look at the sail lines in the unaltered then the altered.
HORRBLE and clear examples. Im not sure about this program. Im not sure what it can really do, but for someone to upload this crap as examples shows that I shouldent really rely on them for a review of the product. If i were trying to sell this product id have a word or two with you about taking this whole thing down because at 70$ this isnt aimed at grandma. This is aimed at the kind of people reading this! I wouldn't buy this if you gave me 70$ to screw up my images judging by this review.
If any of you want a real program to actual improve digital imagery, here is one made by a actual professional photographer with many years experience and a sharp eye for detail;
http://www.fredmiranda.com/software/">http://www.fredmiranda.com/software/
elmerFudge - Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - link
I was a bit wary at first in investing even a bit of money in software noise filters. Most smell of snake oil. But the current crop of noise filters, especially Noise Ninja do a very good job in the right hands. The examples shown lack detail where it counts: grass, waves, leaves, hair trees, sand and texture in general. Worst still the images look like a bad job with photoshop. Show us what a pro can do with that software. reducing noise is a trade-off. I don't mind film-like grain that hides noise. Inspecting one of the images(800-coming-lrg), the histogram is compressed and the highlights are blown. For this you could have considered a tri-pod and longer exposure.haplo602 - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
I stopped reading after seeing the Sigma images. The processed ones were smeared and flat compared to the original ones. I did not even look at the full size images.Just look at the sea in front of the lonely boat in one of the pictures. Also the trees/bushes on the right side hill above the houses. I mean how can you be satisfied with such a loss of detail?
These heavy noise processing programs are only viable if your subject had large flat colored surfaces with little fine detail. Otherwise you end up with blocks of pixels sharing the color of grass but lacking any kind of detail that it actualy IS grass (same with stucco walls etc.).
royalcrown - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
I realize the pace of exciting hardware has slowed since the 90's...but all these camera, Ipod, Iphone..yada yada, E3 reviews are BOOOOORING !! Did I mention boring yet........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ?
I only come here once a week at most because all this gadget crap is a snoozefest. No offense because I suppose it's slim pickings, just my 2 cents !!
ianken - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
NR has its place, but even in these web-res samples you can see an utter devastation of detail in the water shots.NR simply replaces random noise with deterministic noise. Where possible you want it to be a subtle as possible. Most professional restoration or NR efforts are very hands on and manual and for good reason: differentiating between detail and noise is very non trivial, and even more-so with still images.
IMHO in these samples it's about as subtle as a brick to the head.
Perhaps these samples are not indicative of what the software can really do?
n4bby - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
you have got to be kidding me. those Noiseware-processed Sigma images are TERRIBLE. it totally obliterates fine contrast and kills the resolution of the images. at these web image sizes, i clearly prefer the originals. i work closely with image editors at a professional stock photography site and believe me, those processed photos would NEVER be admitted into our library. the original "noisy" ones might be acceptable though (if the subject matter were more compelling, but that's a different matter).we all appreciate the effort, and we know the ad dollars help the site which in turn helps us, but please - leave the digital photography reviews to the pros, and stick to topics your staff is qualified to comment on.
Traciatim - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I didn't see a rebuttal here, but for those that compared the file sizes differ drastically which is why the quality difference that is not the case. JPEG has an incredibly hard time compressing noise, which is why when the noise is removed the file size drops by huge amounts.Take for example the two images below. I wandered outside and took an ISO 100 TIFF with my old Olympus C5050Z. I used Photoshop to chop out a 1000x1000 section of cloud. I saved the new image as a JPEG with very good details settings. I then did a Gaussian Blur of 1.5 pixels and saved the same image (simulating a noise reduction, I usually use Neat Image but recently went through a reinstall) and saved the image with the same JPEG settings. Now each image that is 1000x1000 is either 296505 bytes, or 119464 bytes, less than half the size.
Keep in mind you can use this trick to blur things in images to make your content smaller. If you have a web cam you can put things just a shade out of focus to increase your frame rates, and also if you can find a video noise filter program for your web cam to seriously improve your frame rates with lower bandwidth.
Image 1 (Bo Blur):
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/Traciatim...">http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/Traciatim...
Image 2 (Blur):
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/Traciatim...">http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/Traciatim...
haplo602 - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
well the JPEG compression will also create more loss of detail on the noise-reduced images, because it can compress them more aggressively. so that's a double edged sword.Deadtrees - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Many people have been complaining about your using 'Nvidia SLI' box for the high-ISO/noise-level test, yet you don't seem to care.I mean, what kind of reviwer uses 'glossy paper box' for noise tests?
Please use something that has details.
From time to time, you bashed internet reviews that are more like benchmarks and promised to bring field reviews. You not only failed to bring such reviews but also failed to do a simple benchmark one.
Please...Anandtech deserves better....