BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
 

Neat Image or Noise Ninja???


Could a few of you tell me which one is better and why? I've downloaded the trial versions of Neat Image as well as Noise Ninja and have tried them out.

There are a few things about NI I don't understand. Sometimes it will say, "area not uniform in Y channel" and "clipping in B channel." When I see that and apply the filter anyway it typically makes the image too soft.

It seems to me that Noise Ninja leaves the image with blotchy looking pixelation much of the time. I haven't printed anything using either program. These are just observations I've noticed on the monitor.

Just curious which program people prefer and if they have the same issues and how to get around them.

Thanks!


To love this question, log in above
9/12/2006 8:39:03 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Anyone???


To love this comment, log in above
9/12/2006 6:53:53 PM

 
Ed Wenger
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/9/2004
  Sharon, I looked into both of these programs before settling in Neat Image. To me the Neat Image adjustment controls were a little easier to understand. The “User Manual” that comes with it is pretty much worthless, but with a little trial and error I got it. I pretty much use the “Photo Grain” setting and tweak the Hi Frequency and Luminance sliders


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 3:45:09 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Thanks Ed! I'm leaning towards Neat Image as well. I just wish I knew what to do when there isn't a large enough area to sample. Anything that doesn't have a portion of sky like a shot of grasses doesn't seem to work well.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 6:10:00 AM

 
anonymous A.    Cats and pigeons time... I belive that PureImage from mediachance.com is probably the best thing since sliced wholemeal. Cheap, too!

Although, I have to say that the most recent updates to the noise reduction tools in PaintShopPro are very, very good, too. But if you are still using PS, PureImage can be used as a standalone program or a plug-in.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 6:13:27 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Thanks, David! I'll check both of those out. Hopefully PSP still has trial downloads.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 6:21:16 AM

 
Tamera S. Phillips
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/28/2005
  I use Neat Image as well because of it's ease in use. I agree with Ed in that I just had to do a lot of trial and error. Let us know which you decide on Sharon.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 12:29:50 PM

 
anonymous A.    Because I have never needed anything else once I started using PureImage I don't know if this applies to the offerings from other companies, but it is very easy to use, has plenty of options for dealing with a wide range of noise problems, and is quite intuitive. But it also offers a whole range of image enhancements and image matching tools for colour to establish mood or do colour matching, correct exposure or enhance colour... it is really a very nice tool.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 3:11:57 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Thank you, Tammy & David!

David, I downloaded PureImage and was pretty impressed. Thanks for the suggestion! Later tonight I'll try it on some images I've been having problems with and let you know how it stacks up against Neat Image.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 4:47:46 PM

 
anonymous A.    That would be interesting, Sharon. I'll look forward to reading your "comparitive Review". I don't know that I've ever seen one on this kind of software before, so it should be very useful.


To love this comment, log in above
9/13/2006 9:46:38 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  David, I used the default settings on both programs. After getting rid of the noise I opened both images in Photoshop and compared them at 100%. The image from Pure Image seemed to have lost a little more detail than the one done in Neat Image, but when I lowered the Noise Level setting in PI from 8 to 4 there didn't seem to be any noticable difference in detail, but the sky in PI was smoother than it was with NI. I'm not sure how fair a comparison this is. I've read that you get a lot less compression with Neat Image if you buy the software, but I was more impressed with PI.


To love this comment, log in above
9/14/2006 6:22:37 AM

 
anonymous A.    That's interesting; How does it compare with Noise Ninja?


To love this comment, log in above
9/14/2006 7:05:38 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  David, I personally like Noise Ninja the least, but since I haven't printed anything I don't know how fair that assessment is. I like the layout and controls of Noise Ninja better than Neat Image. I just "thought" I saw a little more noise on my monitor after running my shots through Noise Ninja. To be fair I didn't play around with the controls of NN much so I would imagine NN would compare favorably had I done that.


To love this comment, log in above
9/16/2006 8:18:14 PM

 
Jon Canfield   Sharon -

I suggest taking a look at Noiseware from www.imagenomic.com. I was a NoiseNinja fan for quite a while before trying this program - the results were fantastic, and I'm now a convert.

Jon


To love this comment, log in above
9/18/2006 8:39:38 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Jon, thank you! I just tried Noiseware and like it a lot. I was leaning towards Pure Image, but this one is very impressive as well. I think this is the one I'm going to go with. It worked well on a couple of photos I couldn't get Neat Image to work at all on due to areas not being uniform and clipping. I found Neat Image frustrating due to these issues.

Thanks everyone!


To love this comment, log in above
9/18/2006 10:51:52 AM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.