I'm doing some tests but I'm curious if someone is already ahead of me. I have darkenergy so I could use that to denoise the raw footage once it's rendered as a prores video etc or I could use the noise reduction available in adobe camera raw before transcoding the DNGs into the subsequent format (for me usually prores). What does everyone think?
Personally I use temporal denoising in 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 using a temporal denoiser comparing noise profile over multiple frames like Neat Video and Dark Energy. Wouldn't even consider NR in ACR for raw video.
Thanks, I'll definitely check my results in Darkenergy, I hadn't even thought about the "comparison between frames" quality that specifically video de-noisers have. That's a good point.
Why not use NR in ACR?
Quote from: duncanidaho25 on July 15, 2013, 03:30:36 PM
Why not use NR in ACR?
I believe you retain more detail by using temporal NR in video editing.
wouldn't it be better to use NR in ACR before exporting, so you have a clean ProRes 4444 mov?
If I've understood it right you have to remove the noise only at the end. Because if you do it before and than you color grade you will create some artifacts.
Yeah, I prefer temporal denoising over spatial since it works kinda like multi-sampling for scanning pictures (you make more than 1 scan to cancel out the random noise that occurs). For video, previous and future frames to the same job. The only difference here is that video involves moving pictures so it's trickier. Good temporal denoisers are usually motion-compensated though. I use MVtools in Avisynth for that.
Edit: oops, double post
I've seen a test that indicates it does not matter if you denoise before or after color work.. but I'm sure there are situations which could give other results.
To me it makes sense to use video denoising and not doing it on the separate stills. It should be easier for the software to see the difference between detail vs noise using several frames on a static background. I used Magic Bullet first but lately Neat Video which gives better results on half the time (at least when I did the comaprisons a year or two back).
I still see ugly pattern and color noise on 5Dmk3 raw video.
Will we ever have noise without pattern and down on pixel level?
U wouldnt bother denoising with acr. Its way too agressive.
Neatvideo does a phenomenal job.
Theres also the chroma denoiser technique in resolve which gives a more traditional grain like look
QuoteU wouldnt bother denoising with acr. Its way too agressive.
Neatvideo does a phenomenal job.
Theres also the chroma denoiser technique in resolve which gives a more traditional grain like look
chroma denoiser is that not available in the lite version?
Would Magic Bullet's Denoiser II work as well as Neatvideo?
Camera Raw denoising is WAY superior to anything you can do later, since it draws on the full RAW data, and a database of noise profiles. Unfortunately, Camera Raw needs EXIF info to do its thing. Theres no Exif data in ML Raw video so far. I'm either using Neat Video, with much inferior results to what we would get with Exif in CR, or I use Exiftool to add the important ISO and camera make / model tags to the DNGs (so they denoise nicely in CR).
There are some conflicting opinions here. Anyone have any comparison videos?
I have this: https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/102516342678541815125/albums/5898773988033658657/5898773988557612882?pid=5898773988557612882&oid=102516342678541815125&authkey=CIfd6p7T0KbiDQ
No exif is what we get right now. Exif is what you get when adding correct ISO information. Denoise settings are noted next to the image. Download and inspect color channels to really see the difference.
Best thing you could do to get less noise is lobby for exif information in ML Raw.
Thanks for sharing, I'll start adding the exif info until ML has the time to integrate it.
Quote from: duncanidaho25 on July 15, 2013, 09:59:33 PM
chroma denoiser is that not available in the lite version?
If I remember correct there was a workaround.
@ duncanidaho25
So how do you add that EXIF then? :-\
@mageye - http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6963.msg59455#msg59455
Anyone know the work around for using noise reduction in Resolve?
Quote from: duncanidaho25 on July 15, 2013, 09:59:33 PM
chroma denoiser is that not available in the lite version?
Would Magic Bullet's Denoiser II work as well as Neatvideo?
Quote from: duncanidaho25 on July 16, 2013, 02:19:46 AM
@mageye - http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6963.msg59455#msg59455
Anyone know the work around for using noise reduction in Resolve?
here's the tutorial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=degEMVPLPdU
chroma denoiser isn't available on the lite version, but the author mentioned this in one of the replies
"Yes, the lite version can't do noise reduction but here's a workaround that works similarly. Instead of using the NR, go to the Blur/Sharpen page, and blur the chroma channel. It effectively does that same thing."so give it a shot and report back.
also, don't bother with Magic Bullet denoiser, its rubbish. it smears everything.
here's an example of MB denoiser vs Neatvideo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznIlC8hUh0
Quote from: duncanidaho25 on July 15, 2013, 09:59:33 PM
chroma denoiser is that not available in the lite version?
Would Magic Bullet's Denoiser II work as well as Neatvideo?
Not in my experiences, RG Denoiser is softening the image a lot more and you loose more detail then NeatVideo in most cases.