Noise Ninja for Aperture

I'm a big fan of Noise Ninja in CS3 but recently I've been playing with Dfine and it's really, really good.

On the whole I'm staying away from aperture plugins - Silver Efex pro bogged it down to such an extent it was unusable.
 
It's feeling pretty good here. Faster than in Photoshop, IMHO. Giving me yellow bars, but what, I can play around with it.
 
bwana said:
I'm a big fan of Noise Ninja in CS3 but recently I've been playing with Dfine and it's really, really good.

On the whole I'm staying away from aperture plugins - Silver Efex pro bogged it down to such an extent it was unusable.
Click to expand...

cool
I'll check it out.
 
ldmelsa said:
cool
I'll check it out.
Click to expand...
So far its been trumping NoiseNinja (ps or otherwise) in all regards except for one - price.

I've got a few days left on the trial and it's looking more and more like I'll be ponying up for it too. :o
 
bwana said:
So far its been trumping NoiseNinja (ps or otherwise) in all regards except for one - price.

I've got a few days left on the trial and it's looking more and more like I'll be ponying up for it too. :o
Click to expand...

I checked it out. Very cool! Real simple to use too. I like how it works in PS.
 
I just spent about three hours playing with both. I don't really see a difference in the results. I just bought the Noise Ninja pro bundle - like the Aperture integration too much :)
 
koffiejunkie said:
I just spent about three hours playing with both. I don't really see a difference in the results. I just bought the Noise Ninja pro bundle - like the Aperture integration too much :)
Click to expand...
Really? I've been using NN for months now and I could see the difference straight off - I wonder what we're doing differently? :confused:

I think I'm going to give Noiseware a look too.
 
bwana said:
Really? I've been using NN for months now and I could see the difference straight off - I wonder what we're doing differently?
Click to expand...

You are clearly a much more advanced user then me. I guess one difference might be I hate the luminance reduction - makes everything looks blurry, so I turn that way down. I don't mind the image looking grainy, all I care about is getting rid of the odd colour spot.

I've gotten a lot of noise on many of my pictures over this weekend, and some weird effects on a bunch of long exposures, and I have no idea what's caused it. Have a look at this (big version). You may have to push up the brightness a bit. There's some weird pattern, it's quite visible on the clouds in the background.

I'm trying to figure out what's causing it, and the only thing I can think of is that it's some sort of interference. I got the same thing with two different lenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
koffiejunkie said:
You are clearly a much more advanced user then me. I guess one difference might be I hate the luminance reduction - makes everything looks blurry, so I turn that way down. I don't mind the image looking grainy, all I care about is getting rid of the odd colour spot.

I've gotten a lot of noise on many of my pictures over this weekend, and some weird effects on a bunch of long exposures, and I have no idea what's caused it. Have a look at this (big version). You may have to push up the brightness a bit. There's some weird pattern, it's quite visible on the clouds in the background.

I'm trying to figure out what's causing it, and the only thing I can think of is that it's some sort of interference. I got the same thing with two different lenses.
Click to expand...
Clouds? Its a night time shot of the Eiffel Tower. :)

EDIT - the wavy pattern?
 
Last edited:
I love noise ninja. One of my most often used pieces of software. Then again I dont have the advantage of relatively noise free raw images at high ISO settings. So its my best friend in those circumstances.
 
Wynsam said:
I love noise ninja. One of my most often used pieces of software. Then again I dont have the advantage of relatively noise free raw images at high ISO settings. So its my best friend in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I have resisted buying it until now because Photoshop seems to do a good enough job for my needs, but I hate having to use Photoshop for anything. Now that Noise Ninja can be done from within Aperture (way quicker), I'm loving it.

I don't have noise free RAW either. I cannot imagine why, but for some reason, the 40D doesn't apply NR to RAW, only to JPEG. I cannot understand the logic - the in-camera NR is damn good, it gets rid of chroma noise without making the images blurry. I want that in RAW.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I don't have noise free RAW either. I cannot imagine why, but for some reason, the 40D doesn't apply NR to RAW, only to JPEG. I cannot understand the logic - the in-camera NR is damn good, it gets rid of chroma noise without making the images blurry. I want that in RAW.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sony took huge flak for applying noise reduction pre raw file on their A700. Many felt they could do a better/more selective job via a pc than Sony could do in camera. Sony's approach was to to remove noise at pixel level. Perhaps part of the problem was that users could not turn it off.

On my "noisy" A100 I am very happy with the job noise ninja does in CS2.
 
Wynsam said:
Interesting. Sony took huge flak for applying noise reduction pre raw file on their A700. Many felt they could do a better/more selective job via a pc than Sony could do in camera. Sony's approach was to to remove noise at pixel level. Perhaps part of the problem was that users could not turn it off.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, that would piss people off. But if you can turn it off, it's no problem. It's off by default in the 40D anyway, so it wouldn't have bothered anyone.

What I'm wondering is if Noise Ninja (or whatever other plugin/software) gets an image to work with (i.e. the processed result from Aperture/Lightroom), or the raw information. The way I see it, I'm getting much better results from the camera's NR, and I suspect this is because the camera has the benefit of working with what comes out of the sensor before baking it to a JPEG.

Or maybe I'm complete wrong. Maybe the reason the 40D doesn't apply NR to the RAW image is precisely because the camera's built-in NR cannot deal with RAW, only with the final JPEG image?
 
Does not seem to make sense to me that you will better noise reduction via the cameras on-board processor than via raw conversion and then processing the jpg or tiff on a pc.

One can normally get so much more out a raw file pp ed on a pc than out of the on-board jpeg.

Maybe canon have really got it down to a fine art!
 
koffiejunkie said:
Well yeah, that would piss people off. But if you can turn it off, it's no problem. It's off by default in the 40D anyway, so it wouldn't have bothered anyone.

What I'm wondering is if Noise Ninja (or whatever other plugin/software) gets an image to work with (i.e. the processed result from Aperture/Lightroom), or the raw information. The way I see it, I'm getting much better results from the camera's NR, and I suspect this is because the camera has the benefit of working with what comes out of the sensor before baking it to a JPEG.

Or maybe I'm complete wrong. Maybe the reason the 40D doesn't apply NR to the RAW image is precisely because the camera's built-in NR cannot deal with RAW, only with the final JPEG image?
Click to expand...
Dont forget you're also getting "Apertures Noise Compensation" as found under "RAW fine tuning" so whats coming out of the camera might well still be fairly noisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X