mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
Presently it only does 25P to 24P, with or without 3:2 pulldown added, so that is not going to help you.
By the way 24P DVD's are playable in PAL DVD players.
Noise Reduction for HVX200
- Thread starter mvb
- Start date
Presently it only does 25P to 24P, with or without 3:2 pulldown added, so that is not going to help you.
By the way 24P DVD's are playable in PAL DVD players.
How does a software's algorithms know where every human being's eye might be "drawn to and where the eye naturally registers detail?" :huh:
Do you mean it leaves highlights alone? Where noise isn't as much of a problem? They all do that.
Sorry, but "avoids smearing over areas where the eye is drawn to and where the eye naturally registers detail" makes no sense to me.
I naturally register detail in everything I look at :beer:
How's the Macintosh version coming.
Sooner than later?
best
Sooner than later?
best
mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
It only works on HD right now.
Hi MVB,
After downloading the psd file, I stand by my original response of noise reduction being a band-aid and nothing more.
In the file you made available, it's the fence (in shadow) that has the biggest noise problem.
I played with it quite a bit and had some colleagues look too (In my spare time, I do color management consulting for a high end drum scanning and printing studio in LA).
Where it is most apparent: the details in the fence (the vertical parts of the frame of the fence material- the fence looks like a sectioned type fence construction) are lost with the noise reduction. And that's what happens; the details get "smeared" in noise reduction programs.
For fun we ran it through some other noise reduction software programs and Noiseware seemed to handle it best under their canned profile called "landscape." It kept some of the vertical lines of the fence's sections more visible and also in the stop sign lettering and some of the grass near the sidewalk.
To the right of the person (looking at the person) there is some odd chromatic splotching going on in the fence when looking at it with your noise reduction layer turned on (the fence itself doesn't seem to have even density and it looks like it might have been painted and repainted at different times.) When the layer's turned off, you can see where it probably comes from: the uneven density in the fence.
Your software seems to be creating the blotching (enhancing it) whereas with Noiseware it does not appear. It smoothes it out. So, something about that algorithm that seems not to do that.
Anyway, as you know it's difficult to reduce this to words as opposed to really looking at it. We enlarged to 1200% to measure individual pixel values before and after noise reduction and value changes are interesting in relation to other software programs, such as Noiseware, Neat Image, and Noise Ninja (all, of course, designed for still images.) And, as you well know, that would be expected --but it does reveal what's going on in terms of contrast changes, etc.. with the profiles.
I certainly commend you for developing this for HVX users. But it's still a band-aid approach and should be considered as such (as are all noise reduction programs.)
And sometimes the noise actually looks better (as grain in film can sometimes look.)
Users should use any noise reduction in moderation and **only** if the trade-off favors the visually apparent reduction of distracting noise over loss of detail and the introduction of smearing/softening/chromatic aberrations/blotching, etc.. (again, using these terms for a lack of better descriptions.)
Again, thanks for making available the psd file. It's always educational to really look and study these sort of issues.. And good luck with sales. It's good to have various tools in one's kit.
Cheers,
Jacquot
After downloading the psd file, I stand by my original response of noise reduction being a band-aid and nothing more.
In the file you made available, it's the fence (in shadow) that has the biggest noise problem.
I played with it quite a bit and had some colleagues look too (In my spare time, I do color management consulting for a high end drum scanning and printing studio in LA).
Where it is most apparent: the details in the fence (the vertical parts of the frame of the fence material- the fence looks like a sectioned type fence construction) are lost with the noise reduction. And that's what happens; the details get "smeared" in noise reduction programs.
For fun we ran it through some other noise reduction software programs and Noiseware seemed to handle it best under their canned profile called "landscape." It kept some of the vertical lines of the fence's sections more visible and also in the stop sign lettering and some of the grass near the sidewalk.
To the right of the person (looking at the person) there is some odd chromatic splotching going on in the fence when looking at it with your noise reduction layer turned on (the fence itself doesn't seem to have even density and it looks like it might have been painted and repainted at different times.) When the layer's turned off, you can see where it probably comes from: the uneven density in the fence.
Your software seems to be creating the blotching (enhancing it) whereas with Noiseware it does not appear. It smoothes it out. So, something about that algorithm that seems not to do that.
Anyway, as you know it's difficult to reduce this to words as opposed to really looking at it. We enlarged to 1200% to measure individual pixel values before and after noise reduction and value changes are interesting in relation to other software programs, such as Noiseware, Neat Image, and Noise Ninja (all, of course, designed for still images.) And, as you well know, that would be expected --but it does reveal what's going on in terms of contrast changes, etc.. with the profiles.
I certainly commend you for developing this for HVX users. But it's still a band-aid approach and should be considered as such (as are all noise reduction programs.)
And sometimes the noise actually looks better (as grain in film can sometimes look.)
Users should use any noise reduction in moderation and **only** if the trade-off favors the visually apparent reduction of distracting noise over loss of detail and the introduction of smearing/softening/chromatic aberrations/blotching, etc.. (again, using these terms for a lack of better descriptions.)
Again, thanks for making available the psd file. It's always educational to really look and study these sort of issues.. And good luck with sales. It's good to have various tools in one's kit.
Cheers,
Jacquot