Registered Noise Ninja

[afx]

It is certainly possible for 16 bit photo software to run 8 bit plugins or 16 bit plugins as 8 bit.

Only if you are willing to sacrifice performance and quality. Inconsistent 16bit support was what kept me off Photoshop in the days when I was looking for my first image editor...
All raw converters need to run in 16bt. 8bit would not be able to encompass the range that the sensors (typically 12 or 14bits) deliver.

cheers
afx

[MikeFromMesa]

Only if you are willing to sacrifice performance and quality.

Which is why I don't use 8 bit plugins with 16 bit software. And why I asked about whether or not the Registered functionality was 8 bit or 16 bit. I did not (and still do not) want to pay for 8 bit functionality when I am running 16 bit software.

[andysalay]

It is certainly possible for 16 bit photo software to run 8 bit plugins or 16 bit plugins as 8 bit. For example, the Sagelight editor offers to run my 16 bit Topaz plugins as 8 bit if I wish (I don't wish to do so).

Because denoise plugin should be executed as soon in the pipeline as possible, for preventing of amplifying and changing the noise by subsequent adjustments, and NN is ASP "native" or "built into the core" component, so this is possible. It is really executed very early. For keeping data in fine 16-bit resolution for all the other adjustments (to prevent posterization after tonal/colour changes, etc.), the data cannot be truncated/rounded to 8-bit. It would not be possible to run NN in 8-bit and retain data in 16-bit for further edits.

So NN is run in 16-bits, just like all edits in the ASP.

Regards,
Andy Salay

[claudermilk]

<smithers voice>Excellent!<smithers voice>

Thank you! It's an important setting.

I believe you were going more for the Mr Burns voice rather than Smithers.

D'OH! Yes, that's what I meant ...hangs head in shame...

[bananahead]

Probably bad news.

[RickHeath]

Probably bad news.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll just have to see how it all pans out for them.

I note from the quote the dilemmas & problems of choosing the development path with limited resources to throw at it. It reminds me a bit of the machinations of the B4 to B5 transition.

If NN disappears from ASP then there is still the prospect of using Wavelet Denoise to fill the gap, the only real problem is pictures you want to go back and re-work, The output of B5 and B4 is still there (for me at least - I tend to almost never delete images, probably one reason why my 1GB images disk is 2/3 full! ) if I just want another copy, but I've found that it generally works better to start from scratch for the odd rework as the both the program has changed and, more often than not, the way I go about developing an image to be how I want it has also changed over time.

Regards

Rick.

[claudermilk]

My take on it is more probably good news. We, as users, will have another option available to us. Corel will have more incentive to improve ASP to compete with the newcomer. I am interested and will take a look when they release it.

[Tadjio]

My take on it is more probably good news. We, as users, will have another option available to us. Corel will have more incentive to improve ASP to compete with the newcomer. I am interested and will take a look when they release it.

Presumably, then, it is worth registering Noise Ninja to get the discounted offer.

[Tadjio]

One thing I am noticing using Noise Ninja (standard) is that it 'shifts' or 'stretches' the histogram into the Shadows, causing them to be 'blown'.
I am using a Strength setting of 2.0 and Smooth of 10.0 typically.
Does anyone know why, or have any comment?