Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1.1 Noise Reduction  (Read 10685 times)
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« on: June 28, 2007, 09:43:46 PM »
ReplyReply

After installing 1.1 many of my photos have taken a drasticly different appearance.  In the past, for most applications I left the default NR in lightroom at 25 leaving high ISO shots with a somewhat grainy, but sharp appearance.  However, now, everything seems to change/have changed to having very (for lack of better term) digicam-like NR.  Details and colors look heavily smeared.  Even when I drop the NR to 0 it does not improve much.  Does anyone know how the new noise reduction works, compared to the old?  Or is this some other problem, sharpening or somesuch?
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 997


« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2007, 12:39:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure this has to do with noise reduction?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2007, 08:43:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After installing 1.1 many of my photos have taken a drasticly different appearance.  In the past, for most applications I left the default NR in lightroom at 25 leaving high ISO shots with a somewhat grainy, but sharp appearance.  However, now, everything seems to change/have changed to having very (for lack of better term) digicam-like NR.  Details and colors look heavily smeared.  Even when I drop the NR to 0 it does not improve much.  Does anyone know how the new noise reduction works, compared to the old?  Or is this some other problem, sharpening or somesuch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is discussed somewhat in the 1.1 tutorial update.
Logged

The destination is our goal but its the journey that educates us.
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2007, 05:22:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Are you sure this has to do with noise reduction?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, hence the last sentance of my first post.

Quote
This is discussed somewhat in the 1.1 tutorial update.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which tutorial?
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 997


« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2007, 05:51:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which tutorial?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess he means a tutorial on adobe's lightroom site. I haven't seen it myself, but heard it's about 45min long.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2007, 08:08:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, hence the last sentance of my first post.
Which tutorial?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm talking about the update to the Luminous Landscape Light Room tutorial that can be downloaded from this site. The tutorial is about 4.5 hrs and the update is about another thirty minutes and covers whats new in the 1.1 LR upgrade.
Logged

The destination is our goal but its the journey that educates us.
KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 630


« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2007, 08:10:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, hence the last sentance of my first post.
Which tutorial?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm talking about the update to the Luminous Landscape Light Room tutorial that can be downloaded from this site. The tutorial is about 4.5 hrs and the update is about another thirty minutes and covers whats new in the 1.1 LR upgrade.
Logged

The destination is our goal but its the journey that educates us.
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2007, 12:17:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm talking about the update to the Luminous Landscape Light Room tutorial that can be downloaded from this site. The tutorial is about 4.5 hrs and the update is about another thirty minutes and covers whats new in the 1.1 LR upgrade.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Has the LR 1.1 update tutorial been released?  I just checked and did not see any update.

Henry
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2007, 02:51:13 AM »
ReplyReply

This is very strange. I have just noticed this also. LR does appear to be applying some NR even turned right down.
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2007, 11:16:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I watched the LL video (thanks for the freebe guys!) and it was somewhat helpful, but I still can't seem to make the connection.  I know its me not sharpening right (I think).
« Last Edit: June 30, 2007, 11:46:23 PM by macgyver » Logged
rfreschner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2007, 05:19:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I watched the LL video (thanks for the freebe guys!) and it was somewhat helpful, but I still can't seem to make the connection.  I know its me not sharpening right (I think).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The situation you're describing is discussed in great detail over at the LR User to User forum in [a href=\"http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc44a00/117]this thread.[/url]

Rick
Logged
rfreschner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2007, 07:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

And, another post on this in the ACR forum.

Rick
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2007, 12:19:08 PM »
ReplyReply

rfreschenr, thank you so much, those are very helpful.  Its good to see I'm not the only one who sees this.  This effect, which im still trying to learn to counteract does not seem to be reversable.  I think I'm about to reinstall 1.0, does anyone know if I can reimport photos from 1.1 to a fresh install of 1.0?
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2007, 12:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

It reminds me a lot of RSP.

I'm still trying to figure this out.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2007, 01:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't this where parametric editing falls down?  It only works so long as the converter underneath does not change?  Or does LR have a solution to that?

(Only started really paying attention to it with this version.)
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2007, 01:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This post by Frank Schroeder at the Adobe LR forum shows exactly what I'm seeing with base ISO images from D70s, D200 and D2x:
Post #140

It may be argued that this is irrelevant pixel-peeping, but my architectural images are printed large and displayed for close viewing, and this level of detail is visible in such prints.
That level of fudged processing is visible in many different sizes of print.

The main problem there is that Mr. Schroeder set the Detail slider to 100.

Just for fun, I rummaged through my libary and found a shot of some underbrush, and duplicated his settings (Amount: 64, Radius: 0.5, Detail: 100). Here's a before and after view, shown at 200% (420 kB).

[attachment=2738:attachment]

Here's a before and after view with Detail set to 0 instead:

[attachment=2739:attachment]
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2007, 01:48:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Isn't this where parametric editing falls down?  It only works so long as the converter underneath does not change?  Or does LR have a solution to that?
This is where naive and simplistic parametric editing falls down.

It doesn't have to fall down, but avoiding the problem requires additional complexity that only grows as the underlying functions evolve (old functions must be kept, and versioned).

If you don't trust Lightroom to handle this, the wise choice seems to be to export edited images to TIFF in 16 bpc as soon as an image is done in Lightroom.
Logged

Jan
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2007, 03:25:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Isn't this where parametric editing falls down?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think what is "falling down" is the amount of time people are looking at images at 1:1, 2:1 or higher...I honestly think that most of the people that have been posting about this issue really and truly don't understand the implications of what they think they are seeing...

Fact; CR 4.1 and LR 1.1 are "different" than previous version of CR/LR...

Fact; Camera Raw 4.1 & Lightroom 1.1 have both improved noise reduction and sharpening...

Fact; very few people know how to use the new tools...

Fact; there's been a lot of "tests" and befores/afters from a wide variety of people, cameras, ISOs-so many in fact that pretty much everybody is now further confused...

Opinion; people need to learn what a computer display can and can't show you. Looking at 50% or 25% zooms will tell you more regarding what detail is visible and relevant in a print. Making an actual print will tell you a lot more about what can be seen in a print.

Opinion; testing anything at "defaults" is useless, turning stuff off or all the way up/down are useless. Optimal testing would be to optimize an image in CR 4.1/LR 1.1 and compare the same final prepared image done in CR 4.0/LR 1.0.

Is CR 4.1/LR 1.1 capable of producing better, smoother and more detailed raw conversions? In my testing, yes...and I was actually paid by Adobe to test this stuff. but I only had access to about 10 cameras whose ISOs varied.

Will there be camera model to camera model variations between what the demosiacing, luminance smoothing and sharpening do to various ISO images? You bet.

That's why it would be useful to cut down on the chatter and the chaos and try to concentrate on 1) are there any real, repeatable cases where it can be proven that CR 4.1/LR 1.1 does a worse job and 2) exactly what cameras at what ISOs.

So far I've seen a lot of informal "tests" with little or no documentation, history records to be able to replicate the results nor raw examples posted to duplicate the results. Until that happens, it's all anecdotal information not evidence...
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 03:25:46 PM by Schewe » Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2007, 03:41:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that Jeff!  But I think a fair question is raised:

From your explanation, you seem to imply that edits are *not* saved overtly as "slider x position set to value y" which would make sense making future upgrades (and plugins) possible.

That *still* begs the question - how would previous adjustments be represented with upgraded controls?  It seems "not even going there" would  be a definite possibilty - somehow I think not . . .

Curious - John
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 03:42:34 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2007, 03:42:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not referring to whether it is better or worse.  (I haven't figured that out for myself yet.)  The question was in regards to the same parameters producing something different than it did when those parameters were set.  (I've no idea if this happens or not.  As I said, I really only started looking at this with 1.1.)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad