If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Noise Ninja custom noise print- worth the effort for stacked photo??
I am an amateur astronomer and use a digicam to take pictures of the solar
system. I take up to 100 photos and then stack the photos into one to reduce noise levels. However, sometimes a 100 photo composite isn't enough for the amount of noise I get. I have Noise Ninja, but don't use it much because I am never happy with the results as it seems to smooth the images too much, washing out details. However, I have never created a custom noise print for my camera, using the checkerboard pattern and a defocused shot. My big question is: would a custom noise print created this way be worth the effort and would the results be better than just the box sampling I do now from the existing image? Also, I'm guessing that I would need to take 100 such samples since 100 images make up a composite, but not sure how to go about it. I would think that each image would have to have noise reduction before stacking for this to work and that's how I was going to do it. So, yes, a lot of effort involved, but would the result be worth it? Thanks, Jason Sommers |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Jason Sommers" wrote in message nk.net... I am an amateur astronomer and use a digicam to take pictures of the solar system. I take up to 100 photos and then stack the photos into one to reduce noise levels. However, sometimes a 100 photo composite isn't enough for the amount of noise I get. If reducing the random noise by a factor of 10 isn't enough, you should indeed investigate post-processing noise reduction per image (assuming you cannot reduce noise by preventing it). Do you do darkframe/offset/bias/etc. subtraction? I have Noise Ninja, but don't use it much because I am never happy with the results as it seems to smooth the images too much, washing out details. I'm more familiar with Neat Image, but these programs are probably equally suitable. Spend some time in tweaking the settings (often means reducing the default amount of reduction). However, I have never created a custom noise print for my camera, using the checkerboard pattern and a defocused shot. You should, as there is no suitable featureless area in deepspace images you could use to create a noise profile. Do make sure that you don't make this profile until the darkframe subtraction etc. has been done first. My big question is: would a custom noise print created this way be worth the effort and would the results be better than just the box sampling I do now from the existing image? Although it's hard to judge without examples I am almost certain it will improve things a lot. A program like Neat Image can run unattended in batch mode once you've figured out the optimal settings. Also, I'm guessing that I would need to take 100 such samples since 100 images make up a composite, but not sure how to go about it. I would think that each image would have to have noise reduction before stacking for this to work and that's how I was going to do it. Yes, individual noise reduction per image (in batch mode), not on the stacked result. So, yes, a lot of effort involved, but would the result be worth it? Again, make sure you've done all you can to prevent the noise in the first place, because all post-processing carries the risk of signal loss. There would be not much benefit if the noise reduction doesn't improve the S/N ratio. Bart |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jason Sommers" wrote in message nk.net... I am an amateur astronomer and use a digicam to take pictures of the solar system. I take up to 100 photos and then stack the photos into one to reduce noise levels. However, sometimes a 100 photo composite isn't enough for the amount of noise I get. If reducing the random noise by a factor of 10 isn't enough, you should indeed investigate post-processing noise reduction per image (assuming you cannot reduce noise by preventing it). Do you do darkframe/offset/bias/etc. subtraction? I have Noise Ninja, but don't use it much because I am never happy with the results as it seems to smooth the images too much, washing out details. I'm more familiar with Neat Image, but these programs are probably equally suitable. Spend some time in tweaking the settings (often means reducing the default amount of reduction). However, I have never created a custom noise print for my camera, using the checkerboard pattern and a defocused shot. You should, as there is no suitable featureless area in deepspace images you could use to create a noise profile. Do make sure that you don't make this profile until the darkframe subtraction etc. has been done first. My big question is: would a custom noise print created this way be worth the effort and would the results be better than just the box sampling I do now from the existing image? Although it's hard to judge without examples I am almost certain it will improve things a lot. A program like Neat Image can run unattended in batch mode once you've figured out the optimal settings. Also, I'm guessing that I would need to take 100 such samples since 100 images make up a composite, but not sure how to go about it. I would think that each image would have to have noise reduction before stacking for this to work and that's how I was going to do it. Yes, individual noise reduction per image (in batch mode), not on the stacked result. So, yes, a lot of effort involved, but would the result be worth it? Again, make sure you've done all you can to prevent the noise in the first place, because all post-processing carries the risk of signal loss. There would be not much benefit if the noise reduction doesn't improve the S/N ratio. Bart |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jason Sommers wrote:
I am an amateur astronomer and use a digicam to take pictures of the solar system. I take up to 100 photos and then stack the photos into one to reduce noise levels. [...] My big question is: would a custom noise print created this way be worth the effort and would the results be better than just the box sampling I do now from the existing image? You take a hundred images and wonder if a few more is worth it? You have a weird "effort" calculus. But whatever. I can't comment on "Noise Ninja" (which, in the absence of other data, sounds more like marketing than principled noise reduction -- but perhaps silly names are an indication of a saturated market than anything else), but whatever "custom noise print" you may record with your sensor most likely won't hold up once you start stacking up mis-aligned frames. If it was me, I would just stack up several hundred images, not just a mere hundred. This is, after all, what everyone else does: http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/k...rn/Saturn.html Many other hits. Also note that stacking is the only way to reduce noise without sacraficing image detail (or, equivalently, making assumptions about the structure of the image -- assumptions which Noise Ninja and its ilk necessarily make.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jason Sommers wrote:
Not sure what you mean by this "effort calculus" but in astronomy, one is limited by the rotation of the object being imaged. My meaning should be clear: if you can find the time to take 100 images of something, an extra few for a "noise print" are in the "effort noise". [...] I've seen Saturn images from stacks of over a thousand frames. What kind of "digicam" are you talking about here? Basically everyone is mangling web or video cameras into some shape or another for this work. If you aren't doing likewise, then either you have innovated something markedly new and worthy of publication (e.g., stack projections of your images, not the images themselves, thus solving the rotation problem), or you are mis-engineering a solution. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jason Sommers wrote:
Not sure what you mean by this "effort calculus" but in astronomy, one is limited by the rotation of the object being imaged. My meaning should be clear: if you can find the time to take 100 images of something, an extra few for a "noise print" are in the "effort noise". [...] I've seen Saturn images from stacks of over a thousand frames. What kind of "digicam" are you talking about here? Basically everyone is mangling web or video cameras into some shape or another for this work. If you aren't doing likewise, then either you have innovated something markedly new and worthy of publication (e.g., stack projections of your images, not the images themselves, thus solving the rotation problem), or you are mis-engineering a solution. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photo lab printing in Canada: Results part 1 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 14th 05 01:41 AM |
Try DVD Photo Album version 3.01 to make digital photo album playable on TV with DVD player | Michael Shaw | Digital Photography | 2 | September 24th 04 10:10 AM |
roll-film back: DOF question | RSD99 | Large Format Photography Equipment | 41 | July 30th 04 03:12 AM |