A noise removal challenge

[ajohnw]

I was in Turkey last week and took a few shots in a "nightclub". As I have used an iso of 25600 on an E-M1 before I thought I might as well give it a try. Somewhat dismayed when I loaded up the raw file - much worse than last time I tried it so suspect I will be trying my usual low light test shot again as the camera is back from repair.

Not a good shot as even movement has caused a problem and lighting was all over the place. The best I can do so far is this



Whoops - forgot to clone out the errant hand etc.

The original raw is here

http://filebin.net/kvkbtz6d36

It would be interesting to see what different packages and skill levels can do with this. When I have used this iso before an over all treatment that is spatially aware worked - not this time so none subject noise had to be toned down separately.

A smaller result would improve things further so if any one does have a go please post at 1250px high and to help others give some run down on what was done to it. I colour balanced on the "clothes" and used some contrast and chomaticity adjustments to get the skin tones close but they are a touch too brown.

John
-

[HaseebM]

Here is my edits. Both were initially done in ACR and then with Paintshop. The second ( darker image ) was done with Noel Carboni's astronomy tool.

[Polar01]

Here is my go, put it through Photoshop CC.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

Might interest Ted. I had another go using Rawtherapee. Colour balance, noise reduction - having read the wiki on using it this time and a 50% size reduction to jpg. Rawtherapee again and more noise reduction. I was careful to retain the clothes texture on each noise reduction. Then contrast and chromaticity adjustment. I should have sharpened here too but switch to my local editor. Adjusted the curve a little, reduced and sharpened and then cloned out a couple of things and added a bit of a gradient.

I'd guess Alan's general brightness is more effective but I couldn't get myself to brighten the lot up so much,



Reducing noise twice like this along with a size reduction in between might help in other situations.

I really should have dimmed down those "strip lights" in RT as it would be easy to do there.

Just a note for anyone else that uses RT. By default it uses a demosaic method that can enhance noise problems that come with high ISO's. Changing that as they suggest made a lot of difference particularly to artefacts on the skin. I may have made some of those worse on the arms by sharpening without any skin tone protection.

John
-

[Shadowman]

Here's mine, I made exposure adjustments in LR then noise reduction using NIK Dfine. Did further adjustments in LR and finally in PSE.

[proseak]

DxO 10, W/B from clothing.

[proseak]

Can't get the *&^% pic to upload

[proseak]

[rpcrowe]

I didn't download your original. I simply copied the JPEG and ran it through moderate noise reduction in Perfect Photo Suite 9 at the default settings and reduced the green just a bit...



I know that it would look a bit better from the RAW file...

[tao2]

Not a great delver into PP but ah like tae stretch every now and then...

Put it in raw editor in Zoner Photo Studio tae cool the white balance a wee bit, adjust sharpness and bring down exposure (0.2).

Then into Noiseware (free edition) - filter set at Full Stronger Noise and Stronger Colour Noise. Intae Picasa tae straighten, then resized in PaintDotNet ( with a wee fraction edge sharpen as well.

Pwheew! That's about 5 steps more than ah usually do...

PS John, why ISO25600? jist 'cos it's there? .

[ajohnw]

I thought it might be worth showing what size reduction does so here is mine just reduced on the left and Richards. I just reduced it and shifted green slightly. No noise reduction at all.



What's the difference - not a lot other than there is slight signs of the markings on the veil on my reduced shot but the texture in the lower garment in the original jpg has mostly been lost due to the size reduction.

25600 Boab? I feel if cameras have it then it should be possible to use it. I've posted test shots some time ago with lower detail levels that were easy to PP. Exposures were longer. Looks like a subject like this stretches things a bit but it's not entirely unusable. Actually as I was on a tour and new I would be carrying the gear a lot I left my 12-40mm F2.8 at home and took the 12-50mm 3.5/6.3 and set F8 so that I would be at least part shut down at all focal lengths.

I had to go to the "venue" in order to get my dinner that evening so as the shots aren't of that much interest to me just gave it a go. Good PP practice too. The fact that I could use noise reduction twice and include a size reduction in between is of interest to me as well as size reductions always reduce noise. Think I am going to point out to the RT people that really their noise reduction sliders need to be a bit more aggressive. They have a detail retention slider so are very very modern. It also deals with luminance and chroma noise separately and can include a luminance mask. Often on other packages this sort of thing is done via layers and masks so that low detail areas can have heavy noise reduction applied and also so that sharpening can be applied selectively in the same way.

Wish I had taken some mug shots now but didn't occur at the time.

John
-

[xpatUSA]

Might interest Ted. I had another go using Rawtherapee.

Glad I read your post first, John! Was just about get to downloading . . .

As you have just said and proved, RawTherapee's array of noise and micro-contrast options is quite impressive.

[arith]

I tried Topaz DeNoise, tried to separate the girl and blur the back but it is much too hard for me.

Fun trying though.

[Brev00]

I tried buy gave up sobbing softly.

[ajohnw]

I posted another one some time ago. Different problems and as mentioned I needn't have used the ISO I did use but wanted to find out what the results would be. The best way of dealing with this one is in parts. Some of the comments from people might be of use

A NEF challenge.

I reckon my PP is a bit better now part down to that thread!

John
-

[Boatman]

Hard to really see the noise in a reduced JPEG, but I have to say that the noise in the raw file is not so bad for 25600. I wouldn't try it with my GH2! I think the real problem with the picture is not the noise - that is corrected quite well with just basic tools - Lr 5.6 in this case. The problem is that there is a lot of motion blur which destroys the details much worse than the noise. Still, it is an acceptable shot for an album entry or part of a photo story. And, I have to imagine that the lighting was terrible!

I do have to question why you shot the picture at f8. You could have shot at f2.8, 1/360 and dropped your ISO back to 6400. I suspect noise in the E-M1 is well controlled at 6400 and 1/360 should cut the motion blur quite a bit.

[ajohnw]

I couldn't use F2.8 Homer as I had the 12-50mm on but true at 24mm I could have opened it up a bit from F8. I had set that so that it was at least shut down a bit throughout the range, F6.3 at 50mm. It's also a lens I am cautious with regarding DOF. Some people have mentioned problems with it at times. I have had them a couple of times and no idea why.

Actually I am surprised movement caused a problem. If you look at the 2nd shot I posted carefully you will see texture in a lot of the lower garment. As to the rest I'd guess the lady decided to move just as I took the shot. I had to wait a while for the pose. The lady at the back looks like she is on a magic carpet floating in the air. Not much I could do about that. The shot was just a trial at 25600 really. One thing that surprised me on this camera is how effective the noise filter is on jpg's at this setting but I don't think it would cope with this detail level. I haven't really compared it closely with the sony sensored E-M5 but I would say they are very similar.

The shot should be up for about a month if any one else wants a go. Good practice. I feel tonally Alan has come out best. I'm still having some PP problems in that area probably part down to switching to rawtherapee for raw. I'm used to using curves and theirs are rather small for making fine adjustments and no sliders.

John
-

[Boatman]

You do have to work with the gear you have and I understand this was just a test. I was surprised by the motion as well when I saw the shutter speed of 1/180, which is fairly fast for indoors. The lady must have been moving pretty fast.

I ran some tests on my GH2 tonight to see how it compares - it is two generations older. My top ISO is half yours and its awful even after working on it in Lr. Your image is comparable to my camera at about 6400, two stops slower.

I've done some successful low light indoor shooting with the GH2 but it requires several things:
- fast lenses, f2.0 or better
- ISO 1600 is about tops
- steady shooting
- capturing at the 'top' of motion

Needless to say this isn't a recipe for easy shooting and a high percentage of good shots!