That's interesting. In reading the complaints about banding it was said
that the noise removers (like NI) were fine for removing random noise
but were totally ineffective for pattern noise. It seems that NI must
have some special magic. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> When you shot RAW and push the exposure to near 1 stop you will see it. Here
>> is an example:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_7622.CR2 (8MB)
>>
>
> I can understand your frustration.
>
> I appreciate all the effort you have gone to to give me more reasons to
> put off any rash purchase to replace my 5D. ;-)
>
> Still, it doesn't seem insurmountable. NeatImage does quite a nice job
> of eliminating the banding noise.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/CHLing/PatternNoiseNI.htm>
>
> I think that without the roll-over to compare, no one would notice the
> very subtle pattern left in the darkest areas at step one. A second
> application really cleans it up, if necessary.
>
> With this image, there isn't a noticeable effect, at least to me, on
> detail in the lighter areas. Where there is an effect, the NI layer may
> simply be masked to only affect the dark areas.
>
> I think the noise gives a sense of detail in the darkest smoke, but I
> think it's false. Upon close inspection, it seems to me that the first
> step loses no actual subject detail at all, and the second step maybe a
> tiny bit.
>
> A. Neat(Image) Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|