Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1.1 Noise Reduction  (Read 10590 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2007, 04:17:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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 . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So far, Thomas has only felt the need to provide backwards compatibility in the case of camera color rendering where an initial color calibration was later adjusted or changed. In that case, he came up with the method of allowing users to select the previous camera profile in the Calibrate tab...which of course has produced a lot of hand wringing since people assume it represents the Camera Raw version installed (no good deed goes unpunished).

In the case of the sharpening (the only thing I can directly attest to) the mandate was to at default (setting of 25 in the previous version) meet or exceed the quality of sharpening at default. We didn't worry (in fact we couldn't have anyway) about matchng how bad the old sharpening worked at different settings. But since this is parametrics and are subject to change we felt that was less of an issue.

We're faced no with an unusual situation...new software will be drastically changing the way older captures are processed...in most every case I'm aware of, the new processing is vastly better than the old. It would be useful to get to the bottom of the luminance smoothing/demosiacing issue.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 10:08:52 PM by Schewe » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2007, 08:43:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry, but I refuse to take the "it's better because I say so" line.  Reading this fourm as well as the threads on the adobe fourms its clear that people would love to have a solution to put their photos back to the way they were.  But, apparently that isn't an option.  Someone compared it to being forced to change fixers.  And Jeff, if you really want comparisions, look at the above listed adobe thread, there are many examples there.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2007, 10:08:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And Jeff, if you really want comparisions, look at the above listed adobe thread, there are many examples there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And none of them raw files to run an independent confirmation. Sorry, I want to see what the raw files look like before I could possiblymake my own determination.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2007, 10:55:26 AM »
ReplyReply

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

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

I would agree that very few people at present know how to use the tools. The online help supplied by Adobe describes the controls, but doesn't really inform us how to make the best use of them. As to the sharpening tools, Bruce Fraser wrote a whole book on the subject of sharpening, and the information in the online help pales by comparison.

Your post on Photoshopnews was helpful, and I am getting usable results using the information in that post. Hopefully, your ACR book will be a big help when it becomes available in September.

Bill
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2007, 09:03:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And none of them raw files to run an independent confirmation. Sorry, I want to see what the raw files look like before I could possiblymake my own determination.
Ditto. And I have asked quite directly for the raw files, only met with stonewall silence on that point.

That there appears to be different processing of a file depending on the ISO data in the EXIF headers is kindof interesting, though, and I'd really like to investigate the claim that an ISO 1600 image is processed with less loss of detail when the header is changed to ISO 100. I could do that on my own images, but it's hard for me to say whether differences would come from my own lack of skills or not.

Perhaps I should post raw files for free processing.
Logged

Jan
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2007, 05:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FWIW, I compared LR 1.1 to the last version of RSP that was available and still on my machine.  With RSP, you could have Processing Parameters based on ISO that set up things before you even got started.  For ISO 800 on a Canon 20D (and these were published on the net somewhere),

Detail Extraction vs. noise suppression was set to -16
Noise Suppression Bias was set to 22
Color Noise Suppression Bias was set to 16

In LR 1.1 setting Luminance to somewhere between 60-70 would bring about a similar "overall smoothness" before processing is started.  For sharpening, I am still bridging out to PS3 for USM.  Sharpening is still just not there in LR 1.1, clearly better than it was in 1.0, but still needs work.  I wish they would allow initial parameters to be set in LR upon import, but based on things such as ISO...  Would help immensely..

Jay S.
Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2007, 09:26:28 PM »
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).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Which Freebie? :-)

Jay S
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad