New noise reduction software, currently free

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

OK, I'll bite - I tried it out; so far no significant issues. Doesn't
support anything other than uncompressed TIFF, and JPEG; it prefers
TIFF. I think it works as well as Neat Image for my uses. It's got a
primitive interface, but it's usable. A bit hard to learn the file
functions. It crashed on me after doing a "batch" of one file, but has
otherwise been stable. I scanned the installer with Grisoft AVG, it
reported no suspicious files; I scanned my computer with Ad-Aware and
AVG after installation and they reported no viruses, trojans, worms or
adware (FWIW, anyways).

A crop of my test is here: (default settings)
Before:
http://photobucket.com/albums/v496 [...] before.jpg
After:
http://photobucket.com/albums/v496 [...] _after.jpg

Note specifically the white wall, the yellow counter, and the child's
cheek.

Not bad.
ECM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>thedeepab...@whoever.com wrote:

>> A crop of my test is here: (default settings)
>> Before:

>>http://photobucket.com/albums/v496/ecmcdougall/?action=view¤t=C...
>>After:

>> http://photobucket.com/albums/v496 [...] iew¤t=C...
>> Note specifically the white wall, the yellow counter, and the
child's
>> cheek.

>> Not bad.
>> ECM

>Look at the loss of detail on the green mat. Not good.

>David

You're right; there's loss of detail in the mat. Two points:

1. The loss of detail may be due to over-aggressive JPEG compression on
my part.

2. Loss of detail is inherent in any noise reduction technique, though.
Here's the same general area done with Neat Image demo version at it's
defaults:

http://photobucket.com/albums/v496 [...] rop_NI.jpg

The mat is a little bit more detailed, but the noise reduction isn't as
good - there's still a lot of noise in the white wall. At maximum noise
removal ("remove all noise" ) the image has pretty much the same loss of
detail with Neat Image as with Picturecooler:

http://photobucket.com/albums/v496 [...] _MaxNI.jpg

I do think that the change in the image is DIFFERENT between the two
programs, but that's to be expected - which you prefer will be a matter
of your tastes. So, my conclusion is - I got what I paid for....;-)
ECM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

thedeepabyss@whoever.com wrote:
[]
> I do think that the change in the image is DIFFERENT between the two
> programs, but that's to be expected - which you prefer will be a
> matter of your tastes. So, my conclusion is - I got what I paid
> for....;-)
> ECM

Well, I'm not saying that just because it's free it's no good - far from
it. It's great to have another tool in our anti-noise kit, and probably
time for the comparative reviews of these tools to be updated to include
Picturecool and Paint Shop Pro 9. Unless they all use the same algorithm,
the individual tools will possibly be better suited to particular jobs,
and a matter of taste as well.

Thanks for posting the new results.

Cheers,
David