Ive been playing around with different noise software to find a program to make ISO3200 100% useable. NN does a pretty good job. Having done some research Ive stumbled across Dfine. Ill be doing more testing over the next week but im very impressed thus far. Here are some samples.

Original.


Noise Ninja


Dfine

To my eye, the Dfine looks the best. I mean it looks really clean.

I'll be really interested to see what you come up with. For me and my processing technique I have no fear to shoot anything at 3200, but it really comes down to the initial exposure.

Were those shots RAW or jpg?

^ original raw file. Im finding Dfine to work extreamely well. The shot was really just a quick snap. I may do a couple reception shots at 3200 this weekend to test out the software in a more realistic enviornment for my uses., but just wanted to share that the difference is noticable.

I know noise ninja has a ton of adjustments, how did you have both programs set up?

Also can you post a 100% crop from original, and the NN and Dfine versions? I want to see how they do with detail.

matt, the other question is how are the profiles being generated? are they camera profiles, or profiles from the image itself?

Both programs were run on the auto profile setting. NN has the camera profiles loaded, where Dfine doesnt use camera specific profiles. Ill do some more test shots with crops tonight.

Basically I ran through them each as I would my normal PP workflow. Dfine has alot more options such as multi pass reduction, paintbrush options and subject specific settings.

Proving to yourself that underexposing is OK even at 3200? Even with the wrong WB?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Proving to yourself that underexposing is OK even at 3200? Even with the wrong WB?

I was waiting for the wb comment, didnt change anything on the camera except move ISO to H. I had more tests planned just tired and didnt really care. tonight will be more of an effort.... I think...


Was the camera on -1ev? I cant view the shots here, but I thought they looked dark.

Test Image 2 Original


NN


Dfine


Crop Original


NN crop


Dfine crop



Original file was RAW, no PP aside from normal web action and USM.

Dfine looks much cleaner.

Damn, it sure does.

But correct exposure, and to a certain extent WB, make HUGE differences in perceptible noise. If you go through the ISO 3200 thread I have several examples that have no obvious noise at web resolutions.

Matt, care to try again with a more controlled experiment? Dfine looks very promising. Which really sucks because I just paid for NN a few months ago

i don't see a clear cut winner here. what i DO see is evidence that the two programs have different default levels of noise reduction. the nn version has less; the dfine more. there IS a tiny loss of sharpness in the dfine image compared to the nn image. in this case it's not objectionable, but in others it might be the other way around--dfine is "too soft" and nn is "just right."

and for the record, i have both, so i'm not biased. i generally use nn as it is faster and does what i need it to do. i've never flipped over to dfine and said, "wow this cleaned up noise nn never could!"

that said dfine has a few more "features" in its set. probably why it's slower to open/run/close too...

Is Dfine a plugin, stand alone, or both?

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Damn, it sure does.

But correct exposure, and to a certain extent WB, make HUGE differences in perceptible noise. If you go through the ISO 3200 thread I have several examples that have no obvious noise at web resolutions.

Matt, care to try again with a more controlled experiment? Dfine looks very promising. Which really sucks because I just paid for NN a few months ago

Im going to put them to the real test and intentionally do some 3200 shots at this weekends boudoir and wedding I have scheduled.

Originally Posted by subimatt

...boudoir...

You don't say...

Originally Posted by tardypizza

You don't say...

I did say.

Shoot something with more fine texture. That's what I consider hard with NR. Retaining fine detail and texture while reducing the noise. Dfine is noticably less sharp in your example though. check the stripe on the blue thing in the background.

Fur works really well for this...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Fur works really well for this...

Ill see if I can get her to stay still.

Duct tape works well for that.

my wife is furless.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Duct tape works well for that.

Zing!