[DISCUSSION] Is noise reduction always detail reduction?

[Frank Fremerey]

Hi all,

At ISO 2000 I do not see a difference between these two developments. Do you? The only difference between these is NR on/off. 100% crop, shown in Photoshop side by side. I do not tell you yet, which one is which of course.

Please add examples with other ISO and cameras and you verdict.

Thank you

Frank

[rosko]

Hard to compare indeed !
I would say the left shot is 2000 isos, but I am not sure.
I think the scene is too soft to tell the difference (lack of micro-contrast)

I am surprised...
Which camera/sensor did you use ?
Now , I want to find out with my Z6 !

Have a great new year, Frank !

[Frank Fremerey]

Hard to compare indeed !
I would say the left shot is 2000 isos, but I am not sure.
I think the scene is too soft to tell the difference (lack of micro-contrast)

I am surprised...
Which camera/sensor did you use ?
Now , I want to find out with my Z6 !

Have a great new year, Frank !

This is the Toshiba/Sony/Israel/Nikon of my D850 at ISO2000 ... it is the same shot ... only difference: I chose NR=off in one of these while developing in Capture NX-D

[thedutchflyer]

Hallo Frank ,

a happy New Year to You and all the dear members on NikonGear !

The picture on the left side looks like the original, without a Noise reduction.
the Jpeg on the right side looks only a little bit softer and with a very little detail lost compared to the left one.
So I think the picture on the right side is the one with Noise Reduktion.

Would you please tell us the truth - which example is with and without the N.R. ?

thanks , Jœrgen

[Cyril]

These two pictures look the same to me. That however doesn't mean noise reduction is useless. Typically with noise, your mileage will vary. You captured this image with an excellent sensor. 2000 ISO isn't that high. Maybe if you captured another scene with 1000 or 800 ISO settings you'd have worse results. I've seen it with my nikon D70s and nikon D7000. It depends on the design of the sensor. You can test it yourself.
When it comes to noise reduction, the results depend on the software. I'm not familiar with nikon's raw processing and post-processing software but I use colour noise reduction all the time with Rawtherapee.

ISO is just applied signal gain, which means you'll be missing more signal data when you use higher ISO settings. This missing data is what causes digital noise. Generally, digital noise is not desirable but unless you're making huge prints and unless you went crazy with your settings, then modern sensors and modern post-processing will yield good results.

[Frank Fremerey]

Spoiler: Jœrgen is right

I promise to post another impressive example at 20.000 ISO

and I hope you and other readers here will post their examples too

[Frank Fremerey]

Now a clear case with ISO 40.000 on a tester Nikon D5, just when it came out many years ago. Again same file 100% crop with NR=ON vs. NR=OFF.

There is no guessing which is which necessary ...

I can tell you my conclusion: In camera NR = OFF and in most cases NR = Off in post production. But: there are cases in which I use NR to reduce chrominance noise ...

[Hermann]

I can tell you my conclusion: In camera NR = OFF and in most cases NR = Off in post production. But: there are cases in which I use NR to reduce chrominance noise ...

Same here. I really only use NR in special cases, like if I shot at high ISO with one of my old cameras (e.g. 1V1, D300) or at very high ISO with my D7500 (>6400 ISO). And I only use it very sparingly nowadays.

BTW, I do all my developing in NX-D. Works nicely now after those updates.

Hermann

[BW]

I never use in camera NR, but sometimes in PP. I could always live with grain but not the plasticky look the excessive NR gives. So I agree with you on this one Frank. I have also missed a few shots at night while the camera is doing the dark frame. One time I was on the brink of throwing the gear in the river when amazingly bright meteor broke into several pieces and gave the most fantastic sight I ever seen. The camera was off course doing it's thing while I was weeping 

[Frank Fremerey]

I never use in camera NR, but sometimes in PP. I could always live with grain but not the plasticky look the excessive NR gives. So I agree with you on this one Frank. I have also missed a few shots at night while the camera is doing the dark frame. One time I was on the brink of throwing the gear in the river when amazingly bright meteor broke into several pieces and gave the most fantastic sight I ever seen. The camera was off course doing it's thing while I was weeping 

What a pity to miss a shot because the camera is doing something that does not help in many cases.

That is why I bring at least two cameras to every importrant shooting.

[thedutchflyer]

The same here. With our Nikons and Leicas I never use a Noise Reduction in software/body on location.
If necessary I use it in post processing and make a decision upon look and feeling.
I doe not allow a software to doe this job automatically on location or while post processing.

Thanks
Jœrgen

[Nikkor Shooter]

Noise reduction may be applied to chrominance noise, luminance
noise, or both — at different intensities. A tweak that behaves a bit
like an opacity scale will give the option to preserve levels of details.

I any case, better results may be expected with RAW files.

[John Geerts]

The same here. With our Nikons and Leicas I never use a Noise Reduction in software/body on location.
If necessary I use it in post processing and make a decision upon look and feeling.
I doe not allow a software to doe this job automatically on location or while post processing.

Exactly. Agree.

Most Noise-reduction software is far too aggressive, affecting colours and white balance. The result is loss of character.   

When correcting noise Adobe Camera Raw is the favorite and usually the color-correction only.