[Tig] Noise Reduction: where in pipeline?
craig at optimus.com
Fri Jun 10 15:21:26 BST 2011
That was part of my point Richard -
I do, most often use detrain close to the source... In the case of Baselight, we try and work with source files for every camera out there... And yes I put degrain at the top of the stack....
But very often, I am fixing exposure issues or specific dark areas that when opened to the forces of light come with quite a bit of noise. There's nothing more fun than a really underexposed piece of phantom footage... Degraining at the source in a case like that gives you very little... But if you've been aggressive too early, you definitely can't do much later... We've all seen stock 16mm degrained too many times...from film, them tape, then tape again...ugh.
Believe me, I get and understand where best to apply the tool. My point here is that doing it at source is one step, and the potential next step is a denoise just before final output. I don't have a great tool for that, but I've seen some plugins that are amazing in the right circumstance. Next Video comes to mind.
This has been a Mobile Transmission
On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:08 AM, Richard Kirk <richard at filmlight.ltd.uk> wrote:
> Sohonet http://www.sohonet.co.uk sponsors the TIG.
> Support from Nucoda www.imagesystems.tv
> The TIG thanks Michael Wilsker for support.
> Replying to Craig Leffel<craig at optimus.com> ...
> Yep. Digital cameras have their own problems. You have reminded me of a couple of points...
> Basically, what we are trying to do here is to filter out the parts of the image that come from the image capture system. This usually means you have to model what you think the noise is to design the filter. Degrainers usually take out blobs that are not much bigger than a pixel. This means they will probably work quite happily on digital camera noise, but they may not work on a very fast but still underexposed film with big grains and the blue 'fireflies' in the shadows. You often need a different filter for this: Baselight has the 'spatial' filter, and other systems doubtless have their equivalent.
> There are other things you might want to take out that have long term structure. You can get differences between odd and even lines or pixels. I have seen this on some video jobs, and this often fools degrainers into keeping all the features because the fine detail has long-range structure and may be present on adjacent frames. If you have stuff like that, then you will have to filter it out before you use a degrainer. This is one case where the degrainer can and should move up the pipeline a bit.
> Can you automate degraining? We can't automate it fully, because what is image and what is noise is often a grading decision. You may want a grainy look, you may not. Some people degrain women's faces to make them look smooth, but leave the gain on men's faces to make them look rugged. It would be hard to automate that. So, to do the job properly, we need a lot of sliders and buttons, and presets for different media.
> I don't really mind if people stick the degrainer on the bottom of the stack under their grades and masks and cut-outs and blends and whatnot. Whatever gets the job done. But don't blame it on the degrainer if it would have worked at the top of the stack. :)
> Richard Kirk
> FilmLight Ltd. Tel: +44 (0)20 7292 0400 or 0409 224 (direct)
> Artists House, Fax: +44 (0)20 7292 0401
> 14-15 Manette Street
> London W1D 4AP
More information about the Tig