1/20/2024 0 Comments Noiseware vs neat imageInability to adjust specific detail in Topaz it retains detail quite I find though,īelieve it or not, that I too like Topaz better. Level of noise suppression can be adjusted with Topaz. Level of detail can be adjusted with Noiseware and Noise Ninja. As to detail it was a little harder to make comparisons because I have a Apple MacPro with 4g ramĪnd I suppose even these times would vary depending on hardware being On the portrait Topaz took 58 sec instead of 55 sec.Īll other results were the same. I found only slight differences between the 2 images in terms of I took 2 images (1 a complex harbor scene, 1 a portrait). As some have said Topaz's rendering time is longest byįar. When I am pleased I reselect high quality and then proceed to wait I always deselect that auto bright box and then select normal quality because i can play with the settings, as the processing time is faster in normal. This has the negative effect of introducing some spots in the image and you have to compensate for this by using the other 2 sliders (smoothness and sharpness) I don't remember their exact notation. Using only the noise supresing slider is not enough. Try to use the other sliders in Topaz Denoise too. Hopefully future versions of Topaz will fix this issue (then the price really will go up probably). Topaz is relatively simple but gives powerful results (if you're careful), it just takes much longer to render that results. only to arrive at a noise suppression level that could be either good or bad for the image you are doing. The others have so many factor adjustments that you could spend much more time trying to make adjustments by color channels, frequencies, contrast, camera profile, etc., etc. If you are careful with the amount of noise suppression (after 55 seconds!!) you'll get pretty decent detailed results too. It gives excellent results for what it is suppose to do. Despite it's inability to adjust specific detail in Topaz it retains detail quite well. I find though, believe it or not, that I too like Topaz better. Only level of noise suppression can be adjusted with Topaz. As to detail it was a little harder to make comparisons because level of detail can be adjusted with Noiseware and Noise Ninja. I have a Apple MacPro with 4g ram and I suppose even these times would vary depending on hardware being used. On the portrait Topaz took 58 sec instead of 55 sec. I found only slight differences between the 2 images in terms of rendering times. As some have said Topaz's rendering time is longest by far. It's up to you to learn to manage the trade-offs when this occurs.I have all 3. When there's a lot of detail, and a lot of noise, even the best package has to make some guesses as to which is which. The various included "pre-sets" produce doggone good turnkey results for their respective image types, and you can tweak and tune to your hearts content with an array of controls, and built-in bracketing.īut keep in mind that, no matter how good these tools are, they can only do so much. With Noiseware, within the first hour I was producing results as good as (or better) than I could with years of NI experience, and with considerably less effort. I've recently been experimenting with Noiseware, and based on what I've seen over the past week, I'd enthusiastically echo the recommendation for it over NI and Noise Ninja. In short, NI is a tool which requires practice, and can produce very good results with care, but the defaults are generally waaay too aggressive, and a less than optimal profile will always lead to less than optimal results. Whenever possible, I custom profile each individual image before de-noising, and I'm willing to experiment with the controls and to mask in PS and selectively de-noise with optimized selections. I've also used Neat Image for years, and also get very good results, but.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |