Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom/C1 4 beta at High ISO  (Read 10545 times)
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« on: October 09, 2007, 07:59:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Still not 100% happy about the RAW high ISO NR processing.

1.2 is better than 1.1, but still seeing artifacts when sharpening, and still not getting that fine grain effect I used to.

Don't get me wrong, LR is good, lots to like here. More work needed IMHO.

C1 4 beta is simply doing a better job at high ISO, more details, no NR when luminance NR slider is set to 0, and unlike the LR luminance NR slider, C1 4 seems more effective at removing noise, in a more subtle, less watercolour way.

Side issue also, but C1 also seems to have the edge on HL recovery too! Are adobe losing their edge here a bit?
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2007, 08:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Can we see an example?  Don't get me wrong, I believe you fully, the NR/sharpening/whatever it is in ACR and Lightroom is decidedly suppar but I'd be interested to see just how much detail is kept in C1 in comparison.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2007, 08:37:57 PM by macgyver » Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2007, 08:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

ISO 3200 KM5D


C1 4: 0 Luminance NR, default colour NR,



LR..same




100% crops on both.
Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2007, 10:32:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Still not 100% happy about the RAW high ISO NR processing.

1.2 is better than 1.1, but still seeing artifacts when sharpening, and still not getting that fine grain effect I used to.

Don't get me wrong, LR is good, lots to like here. More work needed IMHO.

C1 4 beta is simply doing a better job at high ISO, more details, no NR when luminance NR slider is set to 0, and unlike the LR luminance NR slider, C1 4 seems more effective at removing noise, in a more subtle, less watercolour way.

Side issue also, but C1 also seems to have the edge on HL recovery too! Are adobe losing their edge here a bit?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry,
     Glad, but sad, to see that this is being proven out.  I just posted something similar in terms of noise reduction on Canon 20D ISO 1600 when compared to Raw Shooter Pro.  I'll have to give the C1 Pro Beta a try and see the difference for myself.  I may try to post something as well.  The "watercolor" effect (best description I've seen) is very prevalent with combined NR and Sharpening.  I've taken to zero'ing out both settings on high ISO and handling in PS3 with Noise Ninja and USM.  They had this SO clean in RSP.. I don't understand why the technology didn't translate with the acquisition of the company.

Jay S.
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2007, 11:11:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The "watercolor" effect (best description I've seen) is very prevalent with combined NR and Sharpening.  I've taken to zero'ing out both settings on high ISO and handling in PS3 with Noise Ninja and USM.  They had this SO clean in RSP.. I don't understand why the technology didn't translate with the acquisition of the company.

Jay S.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Everything I've heard from Adobe or their apologists basically says 'you are doing it wrong'. But even following their advice I can't seem to get it right.
Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2007, 12:36:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Everything I've heard from Adobe or their apologists basically says 'you are doing it wrong'. But even following their advice I can't seem to get it right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mac,
    I've watched some of the videos very carefully where the image is examined at 2:1, and the balance that one must go through between not applying too much sharpening or detail otherwise the NR can get "incorrect".  I don't know if there is an exact "right" way to do it, but I agree, even after watching the experts, this is one area of an otherwise very very good product that needs work.  I'm not even sure it is the sharpening section anymore.  I like the visual balance that can be achieved by seeing the amount of detail, etc.  It is the application of Noise Reduction that messes things up it seems.  Again, in RSP, using the pre-processing abilities, I could get relatively silky smooth RAW images to begin work with even with ISO 1600.  That is why I wish I could draw some correlation to those parameters and the ones in LR..  At least have something to try.  I really wish someone with a Canon 20, 30, or 40D and ISO 1600 images would post some of their successes and how they got there.  Still not replies to my post earlier tonight.

Jay S.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2007, 04:04:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded some other RAW files from here:

http://raw.fotosite.pl/

Still see the same thing, aka some NR processing going on even with NR set to 0. I know adobe mentioned this, after the outburst on LR 1.1, still think they need to turn it down.

Canon 30D ISO 1600

C1 4 beta



LR 1.2



It's more noticable on the corners of the unit, smearing effect. I cant seem to avoid it, even playing with details, and the sharpening. It's also an issue when pulling up shadows, you get a kinda splodge effect, more than a finer grain like one.  So it's not just limited to high ISO shots.


Also worryingly, at low ISO I found that Arcsofts el cheapo LR lite clone, Photostudio Darkroom, is giving "better" fine details! Not what I would expect from a $99 RAW converter V ACR/LR.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 04:30:39 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2007, 07:48:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Barry, out of curiosity how these images compare when printed?
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2007, 09:57:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Barry, out of curiosity how these images compare when printed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi Eric..

Well for the ist series of shots I was printing at 8" x 6" for an album, using LR. At that size the artifacts were not a problem. (ISO 1600/3200)

I made some enlargements for a client (different shots, lower ISO) but with some shadow areas pulled up somewhat, and it started to become an issue at 12" x 10", not to the point the prints were ruined, but it had less of a "finer grain effect" than conversions I did using other software.

I have not tried a print with C1 4, but have done some with the previous version, again finer grain, rather then the thicker grain/artifacts, simply put to my eyes, it prints better than LR (high ISO)

So smaller prints high ISO, not an issue, but if you were printing about 10" I would say it would be, and of course larger you go, the more noticable the artifcats would be. My aim for high ISO is a "flm grain" effect, esp for mono shots, not really getting that with LR. Its better than LR 1.1, that was way OTT NR wise, but it needs IMHO to be turned "OFF" 100%
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 10:01:03 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2007, 01:06:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Barry, out of curiosity how these images compare when printed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
    I don't think the issue is going to show in the smaller size prints (you can hide a lot in a 4x6), but as Eric says you certainly begin to see it in larger prints AND in crops of originals where you are getting that much closer to the fine details.  I'm not seeing the issue anywhere near as much at 400 and below, but there should not be this significant an issue with higher ISOs.  

Jay S.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2007, 05:21:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Right, I didn't mean to imply it was a non-issue -- I was mostly curious to learn at which sizes (and above) could one start to see the differences in the print. Looks like that has been answered ...
Logged

JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2007, 11:29:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I downloaded some other RAW files from here:

http://raw.fotosite.pl/

Still see the same thing, aka some NR processing going on even with NR set to 0. I know adobe mentioned this, after the outburst on LR 1.1, still think they need to turn it down.

Canon 30D ISO 1600

<snip>

It's more noticable on the corners of the unit, smearing effect. I cant seem to avoid it, even playing with details, and the sharpening. It's also an issue when pulling up shadows, you get a kinda splodge effect, more than a finer grain like one.  So it's not just limited to high ISO shots.
Also worryingly, at low ISO I found that Arcsofts el cheapo LR lite clone, Photostudio Darkroom, is giving "better" fine details! Not what I would expect from a $99 RAW converter V ACR/LR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry,
    Are you on a Mac or PC?  I have both, and perhaps it is the display (CRT on PC vs. LCD on Mac Book Pro), but first time I've noticed that this seems worse on the Mac than on the XP based PC.  The difference is noticeable at higher zoom in such as 2:1, and just did not have them side by side before.

Jay
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 11:31:05 PM by JayS » Logged
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2007, 02:28:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Looking at the the crops that people have posted, it's my personal belief that Capture One's rendering is not much better than Lightroom, if at all. Frankly, they both look ugly. Capture One's rendering seems to preserve essentially the same amount of detail at the edges, whereas they produce different types of artifacting on uniform areas (such as the  man's suit). It could be due to compression artifacts, but there is this nasty criss-crossing line pattern on the C1 4 crop, which seems most apparent in the upper right hand corner of the married couple crop (the corner of the window in the background). In my opinion, C1 4 is producing some fine-grained artifacts that's being mistaken for extra detail. Would either type of artifacting be visible in a print? In theory, the C1 4 rendition may be better, since the artifacts are smaller and may be less visible, but I don't really know.

Honestly, if you're interested in precise noise reduction, don't bother with any of the current RAW converters out there. I think it will be a long time before we see the sophistication and noise profiling technologies of programs such as Noise Ninja or Neatimage (that is, incorporated into the actual program, rather than a third party plugin, such as Noise Ninja for Bibble... which requires a licensed version of Noise Ninja to provide the best functionality).

The best chance of seeing good noise reduction employed by the current leaders of RAW converters will come in the form of a third party plugin... or someone completely new that knows how much photographers value quality noise reduction if they shoot at high ISO. Unless you're analyzing the noise patterns of your own specific camera and generating accurate profiles with a target, the generic noise reduction of ANY raw converter is a fudge at best.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 02:32:41 AM by oldcsar » Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2007, 02:53:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The best chance of seeing good noise reduction employed by the current leaders of RAW converters will come in the form of a third party plugin... or someone completely new that knows how much photographers value quality noise reduction if they shoot at high ISO. Unless you're analyzing the noise patterns of your own specific camera and generating accurate profiles with a target, the generic noise reduction of ANY raw converter is a fudge at best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am not talking about reduciing the noise, but the option to "decide", what to do with that. I take issue with adobe's stance of pre appying NR by default to RAW.


C1 isnt perfect, but its making a more "printable " film like image. I do not remove luminance noise for print. I think you are misssing the point here, people want a choice of what to do. The noise is not the issue, NR is.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 02:58:55 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2007, 02:55:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Barry,
    Are you on a Mac or PC?  I have both, and perhaps it is the display (CRT on PC vs. LCD on Mac Book Pro), but first time I've noticed that this seems worse on the Mac than on the XP based PC.  The difference is noticeable at higher zoom in such as 2:1, and just did not have them side by side before.

Jay
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi jay I am on a pc. Are you saying that the mac has more NR than windows??
Logged
DavidJ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2007, 03:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering how much the difference in the apparent noise in the wedding pictures is due to differences in the default exposure settings in the two RAW converters. On my screen the LR looks lighter by perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 a stop and to have more shadow detail could this be enough to explain some of the differences in perceived noise?

David
Logged

David Allen
DavidJ
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2007, 03:49:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering how much the difference in the apparent noise in the wedding pictures is due to differences in the default exposure settings in the two RAW converters. On my screen the LR looks lighter by perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 a stop and to have more shadow detail could this be enough to explain some of the differences in perceived noise?

David
Logged

David Allen
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2007, 04:27:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am not talking about reduciing the noise, but the option to "decide", what to do with that. I take issue with adobe's stance of pre appying NR by default to RAW.
C1 isnt perfect, but its making a more "printable " film like image. I do not remove luminance noise for print. I think you are misssing the point here, people want a choice of what to do. The noise is not the issue, NR is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if you think I am missing the point, let me try and make myself more clear so you'll know, and I'll know for sure, that I really am missing the point.

You are comparing two crops with no luminance smoothing, and standard color noise reduction. Although you maintain that C1 4 is yielding better results with respect to LR's "build in" noise reduction, I don't feel that the results are substantial enough to claim that it's significantly better than LR. However, I am not at all convinced that Lightroom is actually smoothing out very much detail (I believe they implement some sort of noise reduction during or shortly after demosaicing... correct me if I'm wrong), and that there appears to be no visual loss of detail at the edges. The uniform artifacting, or noise in the C1 4 sample gives the appearance of extra detail, but if you look at your own crops at the fine details, they are pretty close. Sometimes noise  (or similar artifacts) can give the illusion of extra detail or sharpness when there is none.

What I'm saying is that there is nothing special about C1 4's handling of noise reduction/ detail preservation at its base level compared to LR's... speaking purely from what I've seen here. Most RAW converters out there need to handle detail and noise more efficiently as a whole, and I do not see any evidence here that C1 4 is significantly better. If you like it because it looks more like film, that's fine, but the samples don't convince me that it's producing a significantly more pleasing result than LR.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 04:41:09 AM by oldcsar » Logged

JayS
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2007, 09:41:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi jay I am on a pc. Are you saying that the mac has more NR than windows??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Barry,
    So, where working the sliders (According to the videos) of both NR and Sharpening to an acceptable image at 1:1 and 2:1 on the PC/CRT XP based system, I applied the exact same numbers to the same image on a Mac Book Pro and found I need to reduce the "Detail" slider in half.  The Mac Book Pro is hooked up to a Dell 24" LCD Panel (2407WFP-HC excellent by the way).  Again, I don't know if it is just an issue of LCD vs. CRT.  I have an LCD based notebook with XP I'll have to try and see...  The XP/CRT is running at 1600x1200, and the MBP at 1900x1200..

     Also, at least to me, it seems that the Detail slider causes the most grief.  If you do use the NR in LR 1.2 try to reduce the detail slider..   I understand what you are saying though about LR applying some NR even if everything is set to 0.  Obviously this changed from 1.1 to 1.2, so it is clear that they are aware it is an area that needs or needed work...  

Jay S.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 09:42:50 AM by JayS » Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2007, 07:40:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jay..

Details slider is a strange one, never really got to grips with it. I have tried many combinations, but nothing seems to really help aka NR wise. If anyone has any tips, feel free to fire away.

Not pre sharpening in LR appears to not be an option, this is a 100% crop

No sharpening in LR, high pass sharpen and USM too at 70 odd radius 2




This is pre sharpened standard landscape sharpen preset, plus high pass in psp.



And for a laugh I added the arcsoft one, no sharpen in program, USM only. I can get a little better with pre sharpening in the program, though it holds up no worries to ACR/LR




Pretty much says to me must use sharpen in LR!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 07:42:44 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad