![neat video vs denoiser ii neat video vs denoiser ii](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u9-2eEwC6JE/hqdefault.jpg)
With the increasing video shooting capability of mobile phone, it has become a part of people’s life to record their life with smart phones. The Moon Revisited - Perigee Six Image Stack.
#Neat video vs denoiser ii full#
Of course, I also include a full set of jpegs in all sizes (except 640x480, which Neat Image cannot process) and all ISOs, including 3200. They are designed to be used with ACR5 in 16-bit, Adobe RGB mode with no prior sharpening or NR. For those who shoot the Canon G10, my complete set of device specific profiles will appear shortly, I just created them and uploaded to Neat image a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, it costs a little extra.Īnd for those who want to use Neat Image with device specific profiles, try this page.
#Neat video vs denoiser ii 64 Bit#
And note also that Neat Image 6 has a 64 bit plugin version. Some images just work better in Topaz Denoise, but I can see the need being fewer now that Neat Image 6.0 has been released. Factor in the speed of Neat Image (at least 36 times faster) and it's more than a nose. And the Neat Image version wins this by a nose in my opinion. Here are the downsized crops, showing that the grain remains very visible in the original (as it does on the print), but that the other two look great. Considering that these crops at 4x7 are the equivalent of posters, I was pretty pleased overall. To be fair, when I upsized the crops and printed them together on a sull 8.5x11 sheet of gloss paper, I found that the images looked great, and the lack of grain really improved the overall look. It is fairly smooth texture, but is surprisingly large when compared with Neat Image's mosquitoes.
![neat video vs denoiser ii neat video vs denoiser ii](https://nofilmschool.com/sites/default/files/styles/avatar/public/users/picture-6452-1411320768.png)
The second criticism is that Topaz likes to leave behind some fairly large textures where there is a lot of noise. Even a little hysteresis in the user interface would allow one to press a few buttons without the interminable recalculation time of the preview.
![neat video vs denoiser ii neat video vs denoiser ii](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/aa/78/05aa78b0b850ed02d42b2ab3c4548287.jpg)
With more effort on tuning, I think I could have had less blur, but the tool is slow enough that it does not encourage much experimentation. First, it is a little aggressive by nature and blurs things a bit more than I like. I have two minor criticisms of Topaz Denoise. But they are really tiny and do not show up when downsized (shown at the end.) I doubt they would show up on any normal print. They look like mosquitoes, to quote Thom Hogan. If I had any criticism of Neat Image, it would be that I could not remove the little artifacts it leaves behind. The shocker is that the Neat Image is almost identical: Neat Image took less than 10 seconds to complete its job while Topaz took the usual 6 minutes or so. When you see the crops, you will be able to line them up with the scene near the middle of this image: This is downsized only, no noise reduction at all. I processed the other copy with Topaz Denoise 2.1 under the same conditions.įirst, here is the frame from which I took the crops. I took rather small crops from the middle of the frame and then processed one copy with Neat Image 6 in 16-bit mode in Adobe RGB color space. I used the D300 and 18-200VR, which resolves a lot of detail for a consumer mega-zoom.
#Neat video vs denoiser ii iso#
So I was forced to shoot at 2500 ISO to get decent shutter speeds. The Globe is all wooden beams and thatch, and the lighting is subdued. This was a night performance and I had floor tickets (best value for 5 pounds in the Universe in my opinion.) This image was shot this spring at the Globe Theater in London, sometime during a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I chose an image that I had done with Topaz Denoise in the past and that had blown me away with its ability to handle difficult shadow detail. My initial tests with Neat Image were startlingly good, so I knew that I had to look at them pretty closely. That means that it is time to test these two against each other to see who will be my "go-to" tool. An impressive piece of work.īut Neat Image, my favourite general purpose noise reduction tool, has released version 6, a major upgrade. I've been using Topaz Denoise for some of the trickier noise reduction tasks lately, as it does a wonderful job of smoothing surfaces while leaving very small details intact.