Selective Noise Removal

suggest a way to improve Neat Image
Post Reply
reub2000
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:29 am

Selective Noise Removal

Post by reub2000 »

It would be nice to only apply noise removal to areas of a photo with little contrast like out of focus areas. Sort of like a selective gaussian blur. This way noise removal would only be applied to areas where noise becomes really apparent.
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

Thank you for the suggestion.

Actually, selective noise removal is currently possible if you use the Neat Image plug-in in Photoshop or compatible image editor. You can mask areas that should not be touched by Neat Image and reduce noise in the rest of the image. This usually works pretty well.

Please also see this tip: Partial filtration.

Thank you,
Vlad
e_dawg
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:25 pm

Post by e_dawg »

Vlad, I don't think that is a very satisfying response.

Users do not want to use Photoshop or other such photo editors and do layering/masking in order to accomplish selective NR. It is an extremely expensive program and not very user friendly. Other photo editors that accept plug-ins are rather disappointing. To suggest that users must use Neat Image in conjunction with another program to overcome the limitations in its own program is humorous.

We want to see this functionality in the standalone application. Neat Image's standalone application is crippled in this way. It would be better for the NI team to admit this and work on adding this feature.

This is a significant omission compared to competing products, especially when the price is not any lower.
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

e_dawg wrote:To suggest that users must use Neat Image in conjunction with another program to overcome the limitations in its own program is humorous.
You can also see in another way: every program has certain function and you use it to perform exactly that function. Neat Image's function is to reduce noise. Working with layers, selections, etc., is a function of a general image editor, like Photoshop. Or Photoshop Elements, which is basically a Photoshop but much less expensive and more user-friendly.
e_dawg wrote:We want to see this functionality in the standalone application. Neat Image's standalone application is crippled in this way. It would be better for the NI team to admit this and work on adding this feature.
So, we have to stop working on improvements of the filter itself and instead implement some features that will let user do a part of the filter's work (specifically, preserving useful details in some areas of the image) manually? Stop improving the filter (that could preserve those details automatically even now or in improved version) and let user do that work manually, is this the direction you would like Neat Image to go?

Thanks,
Vlad
e_dawg
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:25 pm

Post by e_dawg »

Vlad, let me start by saying that I'm sorry if I came across a little brash and demanding in my previous post.
So, we have to stop working on improvements of the filter itself and instead implement some features that will let user do a part of the filter's work (specifically, preserving useful details in some areas of the image) manually? Stop improving the filter (that could preserve those details automatically even now or in improved version) and let user do that work manually, is this the direction you would like Neat Image to go?
Honestly, and with all due respect, yes I would. As good as Neat Image's filter is, it is not good enough (at least in v5.8) to preserve as much detail as a user can get by manually reducing the NR through the selective undo feature of Noise Ninja's standalone application.

I have spent about 6 hours tweaking every setting in Neat Image -- from fine-tuning the amount of NR for each level of brightness for red, green, and blue colour channels in my custom profile to adjusting the thresholds and amount of NR for high/med/low frequencies, for the luminance, red, and blue channels. Even still, I cannot get results that are as good as Noise Ninja with selective undo.

Even if the filter in version 6 is so improved that it will be able to match Noise Ninja without providing the user with the ability to selectively undo, I can only imagine that a selective undo feature would enhance the results even more.

What I should say (more politely) is this: have you considered that adding the selective undo feature is something that would make your standalone application the clear winner in this market? I know I would pay more for a deluxe version of the standalone application that had this feature, and with the number of amateurs or advanced amateurs becoming interested in digital photography and photo editing, i think there is a large, untapped market of people who want superior noise reduction but do not want to invest in something like Photoshop to do so.

The reason I am passionate about this is that I think your global NR filter algorithms are possibly the best on the market. But despite the slight superiority of your algorithms, I find the Noise Ninja standalone application better overall because of the very useful and convenient selective undo feature. If you combine the superiority of your filter with the ability to let the user selectively undo, Neat Image will be unbeatable!

I am thinking that a Pro++ version with that feature would be able to sell for $10-15 more per copy.
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

Thank you for the clarifications. I understand the point about doing both things instead of choosing once one. Yes, that would always be the best possible solution.

Our approach has always been to devote more efforts to improving the filter itself to make it lose less details in general. The main reason for that is the fact an end-user cannot do that - improve the filter itself - only we, developers, can. At the same time, doing selective application of the filter is always available to any willing end-user: any general image editor will do the trick (and usually, people already have such an editor before coming to Neat Image). Normally, any such editor is much more powerful in terms of mask, selection, layer, etc., features than anything we could implement in reasonable amount of time inside Neat Image itself (which would be a dublication of features; go this way once and you end up in another universal image editor instead of a mere filter. Therefore in my opinion, using a combination of selective/masking capabilities of a general image editor and noise reduction capabilities of Neat Image filter enables achieving much better results than any crude ad-hoc masking inside the filter.

On other hand, I understand that some people may prefer a more basic solution, perhaps without the same level of flexibility offered by a general image editor, just sort of rough selective undo. Also, there are people who do not use image editors in general and the expensive Photoshop in particular. But then it is somehow difficult to expect these people to buy something like the Pro++ edition for the price of Photoshop Elements, right?

On the other hand, why not? Adding more features like this is certainly possible and perhaps they even be actually used. I guess we could make a poll about this to see which way would be better for people who practically use Neat Image to filter their images, selective application based on image editor capabilities or based on an ad-hoc masking in the filter. I will think about organizing such a poll in the forum.

In any case, thank you for expessing your opinion and supporting it with arguments.

Vlad

Update: The poll is available now, please vote here. Thank you for your participation.
e_dawg
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:25 pm

Post by e_dawg »

NITeam wrote:Our approach has always been to devote more efforts to improving the filter itself to make it lose less details in general. The main reason for that is the fact an end-user cannot do that - improve the filter itself - only we, developers, can.
That is true... can't argue with that. What I am curious about is this: how much more can the filter be improved and how long would it take? In my opinion, it has taken about 2 major versions for the improvement to be noticeable, or about 3 years. Can this pace be maintained, or are we reaching the point of diminishing returns? Is this something you are able to discuss, or would it be too sensitive or confidential to reveal such details?
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

It is difficult to measure quality in general, let alone improvement pace. In any case, I don't think it makes sense to discuss this here.

Lets see what people think about the partial filtration methods (using the voting) and then it will become clear if a dedicated masking functinality is needed in NI itself.

Vlad
arkhangelsk
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:22 am

Post by arkhangelsk »

Well, I went and voted "Image Editor", but it was a whole lot more complicated.

The truth is that as a casual user I'll probably be lazy and use the NeatImage tools at least half the time if they were actually usable. But the essence of the question is whether we wanted those editing tools. And my answer is yes but I can't think of any tradeoff (featured, promised improvement, even a single dollar in increased prices) that I'll be willing to sacrifice to get it, so I voted for the answer that effectively said no.

If the relatively simple Undo brushes in NN is already good enough (I've fooled with them once or twice), just use the Partial Filtration workaround using GIMP (which is free).

Frankly, if you ask me, the speed difference b/w NI and NN is of much greater importance as to whether NI can become undisputed #1. Currently, if an image takes 3 seconds to profile in NN, it'll take something like 10 in NI, and NN is faster in the filtration as well. And I don't mean using the Turbo mode.

I understand that the basic theorems and algorithms used in the NR processes are different in the two programs, but let's face it, unless the difference quality is huge, a whole lot of users opt for sheer speed.

We could use more selectivity, but personally I'll prefer it to be in the Noise Criteria fine-tuning (say bars for each frequency - I swear I saw this being proposed before here) or Noise Reduction Fine Tuning (LF, MF, HF Luma separate from LF/MF/HF Chroma).
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

Thank you for all your comments. This is useful and I am already adding some points to our to do list, to take them into account as we are working on the next versions of Neat Image. Thank you very much!

Vlad
e_dawg
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:25 pm

Post by e_dawg »

arkhangelsk,

Good points. Would definitely like to see the ability to vary the selectivity and strength of NR by frequency for each colour and luminance channel separately too. Just last week, I was processing a photo that had a lot of low frequency noise in the blue channel but not much LF noise in the luminance channel and had to compromise. It's not an uncommon situation to have.

The speed doesn't bother me, but possibly because I have an A64x2 5000+ and 4 GB of RAM.

I have conceded and started using Photoshop for my unerexposed, noisy pics with poor WB so I can not only use masking with NI, but also do channel "reconstruction" by using the Apply Image / Calculations features to use the stronger red and green channels to rebuild the underexposed blue channel, for example. I think it gives me slightly better results than using NN and Capture NX, but it takes longer. I'm not sure whether I'll keep doing it this way, but it's an option for that last 1 or 2 % in image quality.

Would still love a quick "undo brush" or masking feature in NI, but maybe that's what NN is for.
Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Masking in Neat Image

Post by Dan »

With all due respect to the OP, I find the Photoshop interface and ease of use just about the best of any of the many programs that I have used (which includes a lot). Certainly Photoshop is expensive, but PS Elements which is quite affordable is very capable.

I would suggest that having a brush feature, like in various NIK ColorEFX and similar modules would be an extremely handy feature for the Neat Image Plugin. I'm guessing this should be far easier to do in the plugin version han to do it in the stand alone. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

For those who are not familiar with NIK plugins, once you have performed the modification with a given plugin, your processed layer is put above the original, or you have the option of using a brush to "paint" the processed areas into a new layer above the original.

It's an excellent way to do "masking" for beginners who do not know how to do masks.

Thanks,

Dan
Post Reply