Athentech noise reduction introduces artefacts

[afx]

A company wants and has to make profit. So I don't think that this was an "all or nothing" decision. Probably it was a Corel-cost Picturecode-revenue decision.

I personally know from Picturecode that they just do not want to license NN anymore. I knew about that long before Corel started to remove it in AS 1.2.
Of course, throwing billions at them might change their attitude, but I hardly call that a sensible cost benefit calculation.

If this assumption is true (only Corel or Picturecode can tell) than there would still be an option to offer a non free plugin the user who wants NN has to pay for if he wants to use it. This could generate direct revenue for Picturecode. Why should Picturecode deny take this money?

Because they do not have the resources (last time I checked, it was a two man company) to handle it and supporting any other converter but their own PictureNinja would hurt them there.

They already gotten very reclusive in B5 time while PictureNinja was not even official. They guys at BibbleLabs had to work around limitations of a binary lib for which PC did not want to help to adjust it better to the new architecture,
They are just not interested in doing things for other converters anymore. Do you see an NN PS plugin? Nope. No longer available either and the market there would be huge compared to AS.

Corel could on the other hand think about removing the Athentech anti noise solution, because it does not really work and the free wavelet anti noise works so much better anyway.

Well, that is very much dependent on image content.

In most cases, I had stopped using NN and used only WD, and today I surely use more WD than the Athentech stuff, but I tend to try it first as it is easier and faster.

cheers
afx

[rainer042]

Ok, if Picturecode really does not want to license NN any more than there is no chance. The only consequence for a photographer wanting to work with ASP2 would then be to use free plugins. Else the same that happens now to NN might happen again in I don't know, say ASP3 with the Athentech solution offered now.

So if NN should not return, then I see another problem: over time you are left with edit settings for processed photos, using plugins that just like NN no longer exist and if you want to change something in an old photo you have to start from scratch, do all the work again you already did before.

The other solution, keeping and using all the old versions like bibble4,5, APS1 is over time not really easy. Especially with ASP1 and ASP2 both using .xmp files. If you do not take care enough which photo was processed with which ASP-version and open say an ASP1-processed photo in the latest ASP version you loose the old NN settings. There is no warning about this. So even if you discover your error and start the "correct" ASP1-Version, this will not really help since some of the settings will have been deleted by ASP2.

I think this problem should be addressed in future updates especially if NN does not return.

Rainer

[afx]

So if NN should not return, then I see another problem: over time you are left with edit settings for processed photos, using plugins that just like NN no longer exist and if you want to change something in an old photo you have to start from scratch, do all the work again you already did before.

I still have Bibble 4 on my W7 box

But realistically, there are two approaches.
If you like what you did in the old software make sure you have rendered files and be done with it.
Otherwise just create things from scratch.
That worked pretty well for me for the last 10 years....
Ho often do you really need to rework things? That is usually a miniscule percentage of images.
And if they are really old, completely newer software will have different rendering algorithms anyway, typically allowing you better processing of the old stuff.

Of course, keeping old versions around in VMs can be useful.

In my experience, I have about 2 files where a specific rendering in B4 with plugins was hard to achieve in B5 or other tools.

I think this problem should be addressed in future updates especially if NN does not return

Interestingly enough, there was a last minute change to AS2 that addressed this issue for missing plugins but not NN.

cheers
afx

[rainer042]

Of course, keeping old versions around in VMs can be useful.

Well in my eyes a software should make life easy and keeping a VM is way that works, but think you should make a VM for each new MS Word or OpenOffice version in order to be able to edit your old texts. You probably would not want this.

Interestingly enough, there was a last minute change to AS2 that addressed this issue for missing plugins but not NN.

This is interesting but if its certain that licensing NN from Picturecode is dead, then has the NN plugin problem simply been forgotten?

Rainer

[afx]

but think you should make a VM for each new MS Word or OpenOffice version in order to be able to edit your old texts. You probably would not want this.

I do not think this comparison is valid...
A current version of Office will not give you the same letter placement as the one from 10 years ago.
But in this case nobody bothers.
And I have old OpenOffice Plugins that will no longer run today.
I also have old code that will not run on newer compilers / interpreters unless adjusted.
So what....

This is interesting but if its certain that licensing NN from Picturecode is dead, then has the NN plugin problem simply been forgotten?

No idea I must admit. Never bothered to ask though.

cheers
afx

[R Frydryck]

Hello,

So really I want my Noise Ninja back! The Athentech solution is not suited for good noise reduction. At the moment allthough I purchased AFSP2 I will stick with AFSP1 because of the rather bad noise reduction in AFSP2.

So Corel: What about plans to add a plugin that would allow at least NN registered users to use NN again or another better solution?

Thanks
Rainer

rainer042 is a good base line for a noise test, but he is missing a key factor about noise. While noise is distracting it can in some cases it add sharpness. I have seen many images where the noise image looked much better than the blurry fixed one. His examples only take into account pure noise and not detail.

We also need to talk about luminance noise vs color noise, as color noise is the distracting multicolored speckles that are very distracting. While luminance noise can actually improve sharpness. acdsee Pro 7 can adjust Noise with Luminance, Strength, and Color, quite nicely as I do not need anything else while using low ISO's

This post is not to refute rainer042 findings, as I think very highly of Noise Ninja, but the test needs to be completed with an image that shows detail. Like a face or an eye with eyelashes. This will not only show noise correction but how blurry the actual image looks after the process is completed.

While I moved on from ASP2 I agree with rainer042, if ASP2 dost not allow registered NN users to use the plugin that needs to be fixed asap.

[mikkokan]

One downside loosing Noise Ninja is that using plugins is again more clicks and adjusting. It was so easy to simply choose usually from 4-10 NN from frontpage now have to click another tab, then activate, then there are sliders, then go back to front page again...

I tried Wavelet noise killer, it does good job but I dont like how the skin tones are in the final image. I have Neat Image Pro that I must use in extreme situations but I really miss an easy working noise solution.

[afx]

One downside loosing Noise Ninja is that using plugins is again more clicks and adjusting. It was so easy to simply choose usually from 4-10 NN from frontpage now have to click another tab, then activate, then there are sliders, then go back to front page again...

Use the the customTools.ui file to put the tools you need together.

cheers
afx

[mikkokan]

Thanks, I'll look into that!

[mikkokan]

Could you please help where is this file located or do I need to download something? Using Linux.

[rainer042]

rainer042 is a good base line for a noise test, but he is missing a key factor about noise. While noise is distracting it can in some cases it add sharpness. I have seen many images where the noise image looked much better than the blurry fixed one. His examples only take into account pure noise and not detail.

We also need to talk about luminance noise vs color noise, as color noise is the distracting multicolored speckles that are very distracting. While luminance noise can actually improve sharpness. acdsee Pro 7 can adjust Noise with Luminance, Strength, and Color, quite nicely as I do not need anything else while using low ISO's

Well I agree that my original blue sky photo is not the best candidate for showing the power or lack of when removing different kinds of noise.
However I also compared a typical High ISO photo with lots of noise in it and the results of the different anti noise tools like Athentech, Wavelet and Noise Ninja. The result of this comparison (see below) was that Noise Ninja is still the best in three solutions I compared. Next came Wavelet and then Athentechs solution.

Take a look here: http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php ... ab78a2e82f

I think if you look at the results, this shows for NN that removing noise does not simply mean to only blurr the image.

[mikkokan]

Noise Ninja is still the best in three solutions I compared. Next came Wavelet and then Athentechs solution.

I agree! Noise ninja is the best of these three and it preserves the best natural skin tones.

[afx]

Could you please help where is this file located or do I need to download something? Using Linux.

See http://flightofthebibbles.blogspot.de/2 ... -tabs.html

The Bibblelabs crew never got around to build a UI for it, so that old blog post is the only reference.

cheers
afx

[R Frydryck]

Well I agree that my original blue sky photo is not the best candidate for showing the power or lack of when removing different kinds of noise.
However I also compared a typical High ISO photo with lots of noise in it and the results of the different anti noise tools like Athentech, Wavelet and Noise Ninja. The result of this comparison (see below) was that Noise Ninja is still the best in three solutions I compared. Next came Wavelet and then Athentechs solution.

Take a look here: http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=53682

I think if you look at the results, this shows for NN that removing noise does not simply mean to only blurr the image.

I never doubted you rainer042
This example gave a much more practical example, which supported your original post. Nice update.

[mikkokan]

I thought that I would give Athentech noise killer a second chance.

Here's the FIRST image that came out. Taken ISO 6400. Very impressive

Look at the line fom door to brides eye.


Here's a same image but it's processed with Neat Image.