hi,
that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. for what it's worth, in
practice the nlmeans doesn't let any grain at all through due to the
piecewise constant prior that it's based on. well, only in regions
where it finds enough other patches that is. in the current
implementation with a radius
Hi,
The problem of a 2-passes denoising method involving 2 differents
algorithms, the later applied where the former failed, could be the
grain structure (the shape of the noise) would be different along the
picture, thus very unpleasing.
I thought maybe we could instead create some sort of
Hi
Yes, the patch size is set to 1 from the GUI, so it is not a bilateral
filter, and I guess it corresponds to a patch window size of 3x3 in the
code.
The runtime difference is near the expected quadratic slowdown:
1,460 secs (8,379 CPU) for 7 and 12,794 secs (85,972 CPU) for 25, which
means
heya,
thanks for the reference! interesting interpretation how the blotches
form. not sure i'm entirely convinced by that argument.
your image does look convincing though. let me get this right.. you
ran with radius 1 which means patch window size 3x3? not 1x1 which
would be a bilateral filter
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 05:34:24 +1100, rawfiner wrote:
Thank you for your answer I perfectly agree with the fact that the GUI
should not become
overcomplicated.
...and neither should large attachments (9 MB) be sent directly to a
mailing list.
Please use a link to large
hi,
if you want, absolutely do play around with K. in my tests it did not
lead to any better denoising. to my surprise a larger K often led to
worse results (for some reason often the relevance of discovered
patches decreases with distance from the current point). that's why K
is not exposed in
Hi
I am surprised to see that we cannot control the neighborhood parameter for
the NLM algorithm (neither for the denoise non local mean, nor for the
denoise profiled) from the GUI.
I see in the code (denoiseprofile.c) this TODO that I don't understand: "//
TODO: fixed K to use adaptive size