Oh right, that was it. Now there is profiled noise reduction and it does
appear to work significantly better than using the profiled noise reduction
without a profile. I still can't get a usable image because the original is
just too out of whack, but DT has done pretty great job. I'm losing a lot
are you trying that with a clean import? dt will not read your exif data
again from file if there is already something in the db. try removing it
from db and reimporting (maybe close dt in between, just to be sure).
-jo
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Jiew Peng Lim wrote:
>
> On 9 June 2013 1
On 9 June 2013 18:55, HaJo Schatz wrote:
> Last time I've checked there was an open bug that DT doesn't interpret DNG
> EXIF data correctly. Field names are different between eg CR2 and DNG. Not
> sure what exactly DT makes of it, but I've experienced it doesn't play
> nicely with DNGs converted
you mant to set maker, too (not just model). isn't there a command to copy
the whole blob?
j.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jiew Peng Lim wrote:
> I fully agree that exposing the full list of noise profiles is not a good
> thing to do, but perhaps something to filter by camera brand>model>I
exif data comes straight from libexiv2. in case libraw is used to open your
image, we use that instead (used to be more up to date). possible that that
introduces inconsistencies. i've disabled libraw exif data, let's see if we
get complaints.
j.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, HaJo Schatz wr
It may not be that easy, actually. Last time I've checked there was an open bug
that DT doesn't interpret DNG EXIF data correctly. Field names are different
between eg CR2 and DNG. Not sure what exactly DT makes of it, but I've
experienced it doesn't play nicely with DNGs converted from CR2.
--
I fully agree that exposing the full list of noise profiles is not a good
thing to do, but perhaps something to filter by camera brand>model>ISO
could work.
I've tried editing the exif using exiv2, but darktable doesn't read those
values somehow. Or am I doing it wrong? I'm running these commands
yeah, no exif data, no denoising for you. could you copy over the exif
using exiv2 from the commandline maybe? exposing the full list of noise
profiles will fill your screen and be of little use to anyone else..
jo
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Jiew Peng Lim wrote:
> It hasn't? Last I rememb
Looks like if you haven't applied luma-denoising yet?
Add a second instance of profiled denoising, using the
non-local-means-algorithm and apply it with lightness-blending.
Regards,
Markus
Am 09.06.2013 11:31, schrieb Julian J. M.:
> I've tried your suggestion, but *it seems* I get more noise th
I got the same results as Julian. Enabling the hot pixel removal module
helps a bit, but there is indeed more noise when using wavelets with color
blend mode. It seems to just change the colour of the noise to green.
On 9 June 2013 17:51, Pascal Obry wrote:
> Julian,
>
> > I've tried your sugge
No, justo tries and it removes some of the blown pixels, but the overall
impression is the same.
The only difference between the two pictures I linked, is the activation of
the denoise profile.
BTW, maybe I was expecting a significant reduction in in perceived noise.
It's clear that it's doing so
It hasn't? Last I remembered, enabling the profile automatically selected
my camera and my ISO (I'm talking about .CR2 files). I'm using the Canon
60D. However, the profiles cannot be selected manually. This is where it
fails for images that do not have EXIF data, like the DNGs which I extract
from
Julian,
> I've tried your suggestion, but *it seems* I get more noise than in the
> original image... Am i missing anything?
>
> Before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ufpaxdc0i8riiet/Darktable_noise_1.png
> After: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lhz0xiv0z4k20e9/Darktable_noise_2.png
I don't see more noise
your camera has not been profiled, you're using the generic preset which is
expected to give terrible results.
-jo
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Julian J. M. wrote:
> I've tried your suggestion, but *it seems* I get more noise than in the
> original image... Am i missing anything?
>
> Before
I've tried your suggestion, but *it seems* I get more noise than in the
original image... Am i missing anything?
Before: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ufpaxdc0i8riiet/Darktable_noise_1.png
After: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lhz0xiv0z4k20e9/Darktable_noise_2.png
Julian.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:40 AM,
I have tried the profile denoising with wavelets, but blending with color
gives me more noise somehow. Blending with coloradjustment however, removes
most of the noise but leaves the image looking like an ugly watercolour
effect. I suppose there is nothing much I can do to make the image usable,
bu
Jiew,
> Yes, it looks absolutely terrible.
Yes terrible. But same answer than previous post on this mailing list. I
have activated the denoise profiles, using wavelet strength 4.0 and an
uniform blending using the color channel. Most noise is removed. Using
the hot-pixel removal module will hel
If anyone is interested in an example of a DNG file that I'm having trouble
doing noise reduction with, here it is:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzFGDdZw7pVwQWdQaXFKSkNiN3c/edit?usp=sharing
Yes, it looks absolutely terrible. It's part of a time lapse video I shot
using Magic Lantern's RAW HDR v
Hi,
I'm using Magic Lantern to do RAW HDR video, and basically the camera takes
the video in RAW format and you extract the individual frames as DNG files.
When I import them into DT (actually I just import one frame to edit and
then call darktable-cli to export everything), there is no option to
19 matches
Mail list logo
