Am Montag, 13. April 2015, 02:02:22 schrieb Urs Schütz:
> I did benchmark a camera noise profile [1]. My input files [2] go from
> ISO 100 to ISO 25600, at powers of 2 (100,200,400,...,12800,25600).
>
> To prepare the benchmarking I did the following within darktable
> 1.7.0+1256~g960e920:
> Create a hdr out of five images at camera base ISO 200.
> Create two minimal styles: WithNR (profiled denoise ON) [3] and NoNR [4]
> (profiled denoise OFF).
> Discard the history stack of all test images.
> Select all images and double-click NoNR profile.
> Export all images as PFM(float), using the NoNR profile, replace history.
> Discard the history stack of all test images.
> Select all images and double-click WithNR profile.
> Export all images as PFM(float), using the WithNR profile, replace history.
>
> Here comes the problem:
> The benchmark results [5] show a strong increase of signal to noise
> ratio for part of the images, but the three images at ISO 1600, 3200 &
> 6400 show only minimal or no increase of the signal to noise ratio.
>
> On visual inspection, there was no big change in noise appearance for
> this three images. Others worked better or excellent (as usual with the
> very good profiled denoise module).
>
> In darkroom mode I checked the profiled denoise image by image, and
> found that the profiled denoise module is using wrong profiles for some
> of the images.
> ISO 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 has wrong automatic selection of denoise
> profile ("using interpolated from ISO 100 and ISO 12800").
> For ISO 100, 200, 12800, 25600, the selected denoise profile is as
> expected ("found match for ISO ...").
>
> After selecting the matching denoise profiles manually from the
> drop-down list, I get much better signal to noise ratio [5], and
> visually much cleaner files.
>
> The used profile presets.json [1] contains entries for all nine ISO
> settings.
>
> Why does the profiled denoise module partially select interpolated
> profiles, even when there are matching profiles? Does this just happen
> with my denoiseprofile [1], or is it happening with other
> denoiseprofiles also?Thanks for reporting, this should be fixed in git master now. The problem was that the noise profiles in your json file are not ordered by ISO. > Urs Tobias > [1] > https://www.dropbox.com/s/e7we55r8ru5p14h/dt-noiseprofile-20150412.tar.gz?dl > =0 [2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8wqjm8bzsltawi/RawTestImages.tgz?dl=0 [3] > https://www.dropbox.com/s/tg6izewjrcqsuex/NoNR.dtstyle?dl=0 > [4] https://www.dropbox.com/s/1v6txb7b1sk82v7/withNR.dtstyle?dl=0 > [5] https://www.dropbox.com/s/9y37i3ev507b1mo/Benchmark%20Results.ods?dl=0 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT > Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard > Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises > http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ > source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF > _______________________________________________ > Darktable-users mailing list > Darktable-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list Darktable-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
