[yanimal]

I have been playing with Neat Image (a free noise reduction programme). It seem to work very well, but the free version will only work with JPEG format. The questions I have are:
1. When I save the image, after "de-noising", the file size is tiny compared to the original (700Kb from 2 or 3Mb. Is this because the noise takes up so much memory or is it that the image is double compressed by the programme?
2. Is it better to "de-noise" first then use Photoshop or vice versa?

[helenol]

Hello yanimal and a belated welcome to Birdforum.net

Glad you asked that question as I also have Neat Image (still not used it yet though!) I'll be interested in the replies.

Regards

[PWG]

Originally Posted by yanimal

I have been playing with Neat Image (a free noise reduction programme). It seem to work very well, but the free version will only work with JPEG format. The questions I have are:
1. When I save the image, after "de-noising", the file size is tiny compared to the original (700Kb from 2 or 3Mb. Is this because the noise takes up so much memory or is it that the image is double compressed by the programme?
2. Is it better to "de-noise" first then use Photoshop or vice versa?

I'm not an expert, but, de-noising seems to work by reducing the number of colours in an area to create a greater area of similar colour. i.e. large area of white with black dots de-noised would give you a larger area of white. large areas of colour will compress more depending on the compression algorithm. Result smaller file sizes.

What you have to be careful about is that the program doesn't know the difference between noise and fine detail so it is very much a trade off each time you use it.

As far as de-noise and PS in which order this will probably depend on the image, but remember each time you save the JPEG file you lose detail. So using a separate program as opposed to a plug-in in PS you end up saving twice.

[robski]

When you download Neat Image make sure you also download the noise profiles for your camera and install as per instructions. After opening your input image move to the second tab Device noise profile. If your image has a large expanse of sky or a very blurred background use the Auto profile option. It will place a square in this area to analyse. If your image has lots of fine detail every where then goto the device noise button on the right which will allow you to select a suitable noise profile (which you downloaded for your camera) setting based on ASA and resolution, then procede to the other tabs.

Reducing noise is a commom method of increasing compression on images. You will find that the more detail the image has the compression will be less. Data compression is a subject I have a lot of general knowledge on.

Neat Image strips out shooting information and ICC profiles.

In which order to use photoshop and neat image makes no difference. Beware that Photoshop may put in an ICC profile which will increase the file size. If you want to pay I believe Neat Image do a Photoshop plugin.

Robert

[yanimal]

Originally Posted by robski

When you download Neat Image make sure you also download the noise profiles for your camera and install as per instructions. After opening your input image move to the second tab Device noise profile. If your image has a large expanse of sky or a very blurred background use the Auto profile option. It will place a square in this area to analyse. If your image has lots of fine detail every where then goto the device noise button on the right which will allow you to select a suitable noise profile (which you downloaded for you camera) setting based on ASA and resolution, then procede to the other tabs.


Robert

Great info Robski, thanks. I did not load my camera profile (CP4500) as I believed that my (very old, non ED) scope would alter the information the camera saw so much as to make it inappropriate. Perhaps I am wrong, so I will try it.

[Mickymouse]

Have you tried Picture cooler also free off the web, I find it much easier to use.

Mick

[RAH]

Is there a way in this free version to set the level of jpg compression when it does the saving of the results? Perhaps the default is to use more compression than your original used (e.g. you may have your camera set to low jpg compression - "high quality" - while Neat Image may use higher compression). The idea of having to do this extra save to jpg, and thereby incurring jpg loss (and jpg artifacts) would be enough to make me avoid this product. If you could at least pick a compression level, you could set it REALLY low so as not to lose much quality. Of course, we are talking about the free version here, so I guess I shouldn't expect too much...

[yanimal]

Thanks to all responders so far. Firstly, in answer to Rah, Neat Image does not seem give me any options for compression level (maybe that is available in the purchased versions?).

I have since tried Picture Cooler, as Mickeymouse suggested, and found that it is also a good programme. I can save in a number of formats (JPG, BMP or TIFF if the input photo was in TIFF format) which avoids the issue of JPG loss before further processing, it is a piece of cake to use (I seem to prefer the Refocus level at maximum) and it still makes my saved files tiny! I am tempted to say that it is not a Mickey Mouse product (!!sorry!!). Also the developer hopes to make it available as a PS plugin which would be even better - Give it a try.

[IanF]

On the whole I prefer Picture Cooler over NeatImage, however there are still a few niggles which will hopefully be sorted out as it gets developed further.

[RAH]

You might also consider trying Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/index.htm), which I have and like a lot (it comes in stand-alone and plugin varieties). It gets good reviews in publications (Popular Photography, I think, plus maybe PC Mag?) too!

[Keoeeit]

Your first question was answered well, so I won't bother giving details about that. But in regards to your 2nd question, it's always better to de-noise an image first before working with it in your editor of choice. Processes like contrast enhancement, saturation enhancement, sharpening, etc. will all be enhancing the noise as well as the detail that you'd like to preserve. Making noise removal much more difficult later. You have to be careful though, and should use a noise-remover tool that will allow you to preserve or replace noise in areas where that noise is actually some detail that you'd like to enhance later.

If you are not happy with the results of Neat Image, I would suggest a program called Noise Ninja. It does a *much* better job, as well as having tons more options and features, including a noise-brush to add or remove it from areas at will. It's not free however.

Surprisingly, I find that the "Digital Camera Noise Remover" that's now built into PaintShopPro v9.01 to work even better and more simply than Noise Ninja, but again it's not free. That filter alone is worth the price of the software. It too allows you to protect areas of noise in your image by selecting ranges of color and hue. Not quite as adaptable a method as Noise Ninja uses, but it seems to work well more times than not.

(And, against my better judgement to recommend PaintShopPro, I would be careful about buying it now. It was recently bought out by Corel, and nobody is sure if they will be supporting it in the years to come. It is, however, excellent software at this stage and worth having even if they never upgrade nor support it. I prefer it so much more over PhotoShop. Photoshop lost the editing software war back with their v5.0. I have no idea why people keep suggesting PS, other than that's what they learned on and have never tried the better editors that are out there now for years. I was recently given a boxed copy of PS CS, loaded it up and found they hadn't changed a thing worth mentioning. I gave it away to someone that wanted to try it. They in turn gave it away, or threw it away.)

[RAH]

Originally Posted by Keoeeit

(And, against my better judgement to recommend PaintShopPro, I would be careful about buying it now. It was recently bought out by Corel, and nobody is sure if they will be supporting it in the years to come.

I don't think there's too much doubt that they will support and enhance it. I suppose they might merge it into Photo-Paint, but somehow I doubt it. What I'm worried about is the PRICE of PaintShop Pro. If they consider it to be sort of a semi-pro product (as opposed to a consumer product), they're liable to jack the price up to say $150, so it no longer competes with Elements. This would be a big mistake, I think, but I'm watching with much trepidation.