profile quality 96% match 95% is this good?

tekken3 · Post by **tekken3** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:35 pm

I am new to this software and I have downloaded profiles for my sony f828 camera.

profile quality 96% match 95% is this good? How can I get 100%

Also trying the demo out right now, and jpgs are saved as lossy, if I buy the full version how much better will the photos be?

please let me know thanks

Post by **NITeam** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:19 pm

Yes, this is pretty good. However I recommend to trust your eyes in the first place: the most important is that you like the filtration results.

Regarding Demo vs not Demo, please evaluate the quality of noise reduction using the viewers inside Neat Image. In this way, you can see how the output image looks like without any changes introduced by a lossy compression format (JPEG). In non-Demo editions, you save the output images in TIFF format which is lossless so you will get the same quality as in the output image tab in Neat Image. On the other hand, JPEG compression in the Demo usually doesn't change the output image much.

Hope this helps.
Vlad

tekken3 · Post by **tekken3** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:47 pm

Ok I purchased the Home + edition. Now I will have to see how the tiff saves are.

I think the software is great either way and is worth $50

Its ideal to get the profile quality and match to 100% correct? no matter what I do I can't get it about

profile quality 96% match 95%

any suggestions?

thanks

Post by **NITeam** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:48 am

You don't need to achieve 100% to get good quality of noise reduction. I recommend to not spend too much time on this, and instead check whether the output looks good.

Vlad

Fuji4Now · Post by **Fuji4Now** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:53 pm

What exactly effects the "quality" rating of a profile created using your calibration target? I printed out the color 1600x1200 version and photographed it at various camera settings, but I consistently get "only" a constant 85% quality rating while my match rating is 100%. What, if anything, can be done during the process of photographing the calibration target to improve the "quality" rating of the profile created using it? Is the effort worth it or is the 85% quality rating OK?

One more thing. Why do the sizes of my .DNP files range from 82 to 121KB while all of the .DNP files from one of the .zip files for my camera available on your site are all only 7KB in size? I'm using v5.2 demo.

Post by **NITeam** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:05 pm

If you switch to Advanced mode in Neat Image you will see the profile equalizer and will see that the more values are green (measured) in the equalizer, the higher the quality. The profile quality also depends on uniformity of image areas used for analysis. You can check the uniformity using Profile Viewer. There may also be clipping in the image area, this reduced noise profile quality. Generally, you have to try to shoot the full calibration target to make sure that all patches are present and they cover the complete range of brightness from black to white. Usually auto exposure in digital cameras works well to ensure the whole range is covered. Another thing to check, when you build profiles using the calibration target, use the Auto Profile with Calibration Target function in Neat Image, not Auto Profile with Regular Image.

The profile file sizes are different because profiles include the noise samples and in each particular case the sample may be of different size, content, etc. Profiles published in the profile library do not include noise samples to reduce download sizes.

Hope this helps.
Vlad