Hello. I really like this program, but it's slow working speed is killing me. Even on my not-so-bad (Athlon 64 4200/1GB RAM) computer, processing full D1 size frame (720X576) in NV with 3 frame diameter temporal filter gives speed UNDER 1 FPS. This is damn slow, so here come two ideas:
1. Include NeatMark ™ in program, so users can test speed on various config, and guess out on which hardware device type speed is most important.
Also, having a benchmark inside, gives some chance to get interest of parrot-measuring benchmarking community, which consists mostly of money-rich dumbos, which will gain increase in sales (joke )
2. As I can estimate by looking at process, when using temporal smoothing, neat video just process N frames as usually, and than applies temporal smoothing to results. To increase a processing speed, the following thing can be done. Say, temporal smoothing is set to 3 frames. Apply processing to 1st and 3rd frame, just dropping out 2nd frame. Then, re-calculate 2nd frame using either intraframe, as in MPEG2, or use motion vectors, as in MPEG4. Since that both algorithms are well known and heavily optimized up to time, and definetly, need less cpu time than just applying filtering to a frame, by my, very rough estimations, this can give speedup by 30-40%.
Of course, this is all my idea, and may be wrong
Two ideas, benchmark and speed optimization hint
Ok, thanks.
Here's one idea, it covers both neat video and neat image.
There's option "Very low freq", that is usefull for removal of color spots, often casted by camera CCD's under low light conditions.Selecting this option acts nicely on chroma, but sometimes has very negative effect on luma, so I think, there's an another checkmark for it should be added "Ignore luma channel". This is quite reguired option, because in some cases, without it, users are forced to put two passes on video, first, with "Very low freq", but no processing on luma, to remove color spots, and 2nd, with default settings, to clear overall image.
Here's one idea, it covers both neat video and neat image.
There's option "Very low freq", that is usefull for removal of color spots, often casted by camera CCD's under low light conditions.Selecting this option acts nicely on chroma, but sometimes has very negative effect on luma, so I think, there's an another checkmark for it should be added "Ignore luma channel". This is quite reguired option, because in some cases, without it, users are forced to put two passes on video, first, with "Very low freq", but no processing on luma, to remove color spots, and 2nd, with default settings, to clear overall image.
Are you sure that this is a common problem? - I haven't seen similar comments from other users yet. Moreover, I think that the "negative effect on luma" is caused by using an inaccurate noise profile. Therefore the correct solution would be to build a more accurate profile. Adding a new checkbox is an interesting idea but I really think that this is not the most correct solution for for the problem.
Vlad
Vlad
In some cases, when it's impossible to build a correct profile, due to no suitable area on video/image, it's common to use some existing profiles. Due to nature of CCD/CMOS sensors (and wery few manufacturers among them. Big leader is sony, then comes matsushita (panasonic) and others producing much less qualities (Puzzled not see your "cool" camera in this list? )), color noise cast is nearly same on most cameras, so existing profile will do a nice work on chroma, but will do bad on luma. As we know, various manufacturers use various methods of getting luma from existing color channels of CCD, so for luma, you'll need another color profile. This is quite complicated, but sometimes, really needed.