Bill, thanks for letting us try your noise profiles. I did some quick
tests, and they seem to work very well, particularly for very noisy images.
On 03/10/2018 07:35 PM, William Ferguson wrote:
I usually shoot 1000-1500 images per game (football, soccer,
basketball), and 600-800 for baseball
I usually shoot 1000-1500 images per game (football, soccer, basketball),
and 600-800 for baseball and softball. I shoot raw because of the stadium
light problem. I'll shoot a burst and get 3 too green, 2 just right, 3 too
red, 1 just right...
I shoot with a Canon EOS 7D, a camera not renowned f
* Robert Krawitz [03-10-18 14:07]:
[...]
> I do shoot JPEG only. I need to. I shoot something like 2000 frames
> per game, but I want to get the noise down a tad.
conversely I shoot only raw, but on a weekend I may have 3-4 soccer games
at 4-800 shots per game and usually two are late enough t
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:48:55 +0100, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2018 05:34 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:04:45 +0100, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
>>> When I apply the 'denoise (profiled)' onto a fairly raw image the
>>> results, on my data, look quite acceptable. I
I am finding that the 'denoise (profiled)' when switched from NLM to
wavelets is doing a fairly good job in particular on my sky areas
it is a bit aggressive but can be toned down as needed.
On 03/10/2018 05:34 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:04:45 +0100, David Vincent-Jone
On 03/10/2018 05:34 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:04:45 +0100, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
>> When I apply the 'denoise (profiled)' onto a fairly raw image the
>> results, on my data, look quite acceptable. I have been trying to see
>> which modules that I am using are creating
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:04:45 +0100, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
> When I apply the 'denoise (profiled)' onto a fairly raw image the
> results, on my data, look quite acceptable. I have been trying to see
> which modules that I am using are creating more noise than others.
>
> In another test I have
When I apply the 'denoise (profiled)' onto a fairly raw image the
results, on my data, look quite acceptable. I have been trying to see
which modules that I am using are creating more noise than others.
In another test I have used the para. mask to eliminate some processing
from sky areas ... it i
Sometimes there are problems with a particular channel.
I have had this kind of problem also with the blue channel (not the sky= in
some specific conditions where there are few data on the blue channel and
the white balance / colour balance tends to lower it even more.
In this case, you can ends up
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:44:24 +0100, David Vincent-Jones wrote:
> Your examples interest me since they are shown on a blue subject. My
> experience with a fully profiled sensor is that the 'basic' Denoise
> (profiled) works quite well by itself EXCEPT for blue sky areas.
>
> My sky areas tend to for
Your examples interest me since they are shown on a blue subject. My
experience with a fully profiled sensor is that the 'basic' Denoise
(profiled) works quite well by itself EXCEPT for blue sky areas.
My sky areas tend to form into rosette clumps whenever some reasonable
degree of processing is a
Robert Krawitz schrieb am 08.03.2018 um 03:52:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:36:14 +0100, Matej Martinovic wrote:
Hey,
denoising in darktable is somewhat tricky:
Use the *denoise (profiled)*, set it to "wavelet" and set blend mode to "color". This
eliminates the awful color noise. Use a *second ins
I took the profile Denoise_chinese
from https://dtstyle.net/
Some times I simply rely on it while others I only tweak the demosaic
module to VNG4 two times full average or Amaze.
I should say however that I very rarely shoot at more than ISO 6400.
Never compared to RawTherapee... I had a bit
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:36:14 +0100, Matej Martinovic wrote:
> Hey,
>
> denoising in darktable is somewhat tricky:
>
> Use the *denoise (profiled)*, set it to "wavelet" and set blend mode to
> "color". This eliminates the awful color noise. Use a *second instance* of
> denoise (profiled), set it to
To get an image squeaky clean, you can set the blend mode to multiply
and then work the opacity slider to taste. Mind you, this tends to make
things a bit clinical.
Jack
On 2018-03-07 12:10 PM, darkta...@911networks.com wrote:
Thanks to all. It does help.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:36:14 +0100
Thanks to all. It does help.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 20:36:14 +0100
Matej Martinovic wrote:
>Hey,
>
>denoising in darktable is somewhat tricky:
>
>Use the *denoise (profiled)*, set it to "wavelet" and set blend mode
>to "color". This eliminates the awful color noise. Use a *second
>instance* of deno
Hey,
denoising in darktable is somewhat tricky:
Use the *denoise (profiled)*, set it to "wavelet" and set blend mode to
"color". This eliminates the awful color noise. Use a *second instance*
of denoise (profiled), set it to non-local means and choose blend mode
"lightness". With that second
DT 2.4.1
I'm having problems with the denoising:
Canon 7DMkII and Canon 70-200L IS f/4 ISO1250
Darktable:
* before denoise: https://i.imgur.com/k9Njy70.png
* denoise profiled: https://i.imgur.com/Unw2i8O.png and it's very
blotchy
* equalizer denoise: https://i.imgur.com/8E1CzHt.png (w/o the
18 matches
Mail list logo
