raw support ?

[gaetan]

Hello,

I'm considering to buy Neatimage as I'm disappointed by the performance of the DxO noise engine.
I mainly use the Nikon raw format (NEF files) with a D200. I would like to apply the Neatimage filter after processing my pictures in DxO Optics pro (noise engine disabled of course).

Before buying, I would like to get a few answers, to choose the best version of Neatimage :

1) My main problem is the noise in the shadows. Does the processing of 16 bit tif pictures improve the quality of the noise reduction, compared to the processing of 8 bit jpegs?
2) I use automatic and local DxO lighting engine, which enlights some parts of the image, while leaving other parts almost unchanged... will this affect badly the performances of Neatimage?
3) I've seen that there are profiles for jpegs and for raw... but i think that Neatimag doesn't process raw files. It can only process jpegs or tiffs coming from the processing of raw files... Am I right or wrong?
4) My images will come from DxO. Will Neatimage allow me to use profiles made for raw processing programs other than DxO, such as Adobe Camera Raw? If yes, what are the risks for my images?
5) I'm keeping 10mpxl pictures on my HDD, but I downsize to 6 mpxl before sending my picture to a printing lab. If a profile is made for the raw files of a camera, I guess it's more suitable to apply it on a 10mpxl (native resolution) picture ?

Thank you in advance for helping me!

Gaëtan Charpentier

[probegt93]

Wouldn't it be great if Neat Image could be used as a plug-in for DxO. I also feel the same way DxO's Noise reduction is lacking compared to Neat Image.

I too would like to here if anybody has a quality workflow for these two programs.

[NITeam]

Dear Mr.Charpentier,

Thank you for the message. I will try to answer your questions below:

1) My main problem is the noise in the shadows. Does the processing of 16 bit tif pictures improve the quality of the noise reduction, compared to the processing of 8 bit jpegs?

Using 16-bit images preserves more information captured by the camera. By offering support for 16-bit images, Neat Image helps to better preserve the useful part of that information. Using 16-bit workflow is generally preferred to 8-bit one, even without Neat Image.
Also, if we compare TIFFs vs JPEGs then it is always better to avoid JPEGs in this part of postprocessing workflow because the lossy compression used in JPEG destroys some useful information in the images, introduces additional artifacts and noise, modifies the original noise from the camera. All this makes noise reduction more difficult and reduces the quality of the resulting images.

2) I use automatic and local DxO lighting engine, which enlights some parts of the image, while leaving other parts almost unchanged... will this affect badly the performances of Neatimage?

Not necessarily. If you use correctly built profiles (profiles built using images that went through the same postprocessing as your working images) then filtration quality will be high. The simplest way to achieve that is to use the Auto Profile function to build a new profile using the input image itself.

3) I've seen that there are profiles for jpegs and for raw... but i think that Neatimag doesn't process raw files. It can only process jpegs or tiffs coming from the processing of raw files... Am I right or wrong?

Neat Image processes RGB images that can come from JPEG, TIFF and BMP files as well as directly from plug-in host like Photoshop. For example, you can open a RAW image in Photoshop and directly apply Neat Image noise reduction to it. So, profiles for RAW images are profiles built by opening such RAW images in Photoshop and analyzing them in Neat Image using its noise analyzers. Another way to build profiles for RAW images is to convert RAW images into TIFFs and then build profiles from these TIFFs. The noise in such TIFFs will be quite different as compared with TIFFs directly saved by the same camera so we need separate profiles for true TIFFs saves by the camera and for RAW images.

4) My images will come from DxO. Will Neatimage allow me to use profiles made for raw processing programs other than DxO, such as Adobe Camera Raw? If yes, what are the risks for my images?

It will not forbid to use profiles for RAW images converted using other software tools. However, it anyway makes little sense to do that because noise properties of images converted by different converters usually are quite different, which means a single profile cannot correctly describe them all. If you cross-use profiles like this then filtration quality may be less than perfect.

5) I'm keeping 10mpxl pictures on my HDD, but I downsize to 6 mpxl before sending my picture to a printing lab. If a profile is made for the raw files of a camera, I guess it's more suitable to apply it on a 10mpxl (native resolution) picture ?

Yes, when you resize an image you resize the noise in it as well, which significantly changes the noise properties. Therefore, it is important to build and use noise profiles with the same-resolution images. If you want to process 6mpxl images then build profiles using the same 6mpxl images. Actually all this is no big issue since you can almost always use Auto Profile function, which guarantees that the resulting profile is right for this input image.

Hope this helps.
Vlad

[gaetan]

Ok thank you for your answers, it helps.

I think the most convenient version to me will be the pro version to keep the 16 bit processing.

Because the effects of DxO lighting engine is quite different between different pictures, and is a local effect, i guess the more efficient is to use auto profile for each picture. Unfortunately not all pictures present uniform undetailed areas to let Neat Image assess the noise structure. What would be the solution in this case, given that I can't make profiles as the effect of DxO on the shadow can be hard (enlightment and noise more apparent than in other parts of the picture with the same luminosity, parts which were not affected by the enlighment effect of Dxo lighting) ? Do you know some people who have told about the problem and who have managed to solve it?

Thank you (you can call me Gaëtan !

Gaëtan

[NITeam]

In cases where Auto Profile cannot be used, you can still use ready-made profiles built using other images. However, you have to additionally fine-tune such a loaded profile to the current input image using Auto Fine-Tune function. Then all the local differences caused by lighting manipulations should be compensated.

Kind regards,
Vlad

[gaetan]

Wouldn't it be great if Neat Image could be used as a plug-in for DxO. I also feel the same way DxO's Noise reduction is lacking compared to Neat Image.

Yes it would!

In cases where Auto Profile cannot be used, you can still use ready-made profiles built using other images. However, you have to additionally fine-tune such a loaded profile to the current input image using Auto Fine-Tune function. Then all the local differences caused by lighting manipulations should be compensated.

Kind regards,
Vlad

Thank you for the answer!

[gaetan]

Wouldn't it be great if Neat Image could be used as a plug-in for DxO. I also feel the same way DxO's Noise reduction is lacking compared to Neat Image.

Yes it would!

I've read on their website that DxO Optics Pro v4 will be provided as a standalone application and as an adobe photoshop plugin! I thnik this will help us with the integration of DxO and NeatImage, as both softwares will be loaded from photoshop... To be continued!

[probegt93]

Wouldn't it be great if Neat Image could be used as a plug-in for DxO. I also feel the same way DxO's Noise reduction is lacking compared to Neat Image.

Yes it would!

I've read on their website that DxO Optics Pro v4 will be provided as a standalone application and as an adobe photoshop plugin! I thnik this will help us with the integration of DxO and NeatImage, as both softwares will be loaded from photoshop... To be continued!

This would be the same as using DxO to convert to TIF.

I would like to see the Neat Image software incorporated into the RAW conversion process. I would think it would work best before any of the color, brightness, lens geometry correction processes take place.