Neat Video & Neat Image community

I do a lot of time lapse work, with individual raw stills at 5472 x 3648 pixels. These are first worked in Photoshop where I export to tif at 1920 x 1080. I use After Effects to work the tifs to a final clip. Neat Video is making me rethink this workflow. Would it be fair to say that the more pixels NV has to work with the better? And that if NV is only able to sample a small area of uniform pixels in an image, it is better that those pixels be greater in number? If so I`d leave the downsizing to AE rather than Photoshop. Time consuming but better as far as NV is concerned, do you think? Thanks.

More pixels but more noise too (resizing reduces the noise). So doing everything in AE may not be necessarily better but still worth trying directly. Please make sure you build a new noise profile for the larger frames.

Vlad

Hello Vad,

This question came up in my mind again today. I think what I`m asking is - in a complex, "busy" image with few uniform areas, NV presumably has a better chance of finding a uniform area of adequate pixels using an image with more pixels. But will this translate to a more accurate sample and therefore better noise reduction?
Thanks

More pixels does not necessarily means a better profile. In fact, both better and worse outcomes are possible.

Vlad

thank you for your quick reply Vlad.

That settles it for me then. Smaller it is.