Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

How often do you Neat Video

Owen Rennie

Owen Rennie

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
761
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Sydney
Website
www.driftwoodcinema.com
Just curious on how often you guys apply a noise reduction such as Neat Video to Red footage? Even stuff that is properly exposed and basically noise free.

Do you apply to every shot on the timeline regardless if noisy or not? Or only the shots that show noise?

Also i guess its a personal taste but do any of you actually like the look of noisy footage in some cases?

The footage in particular i'm working on was shot on Scarlet MX doco style and unfortunately i have more noisy shots than i'd like... but some of the noise such as shots filmed in downtown Bangkok kinda look cool all noisy and gritty.. but is that just unprofessional to leave them noisy? Once again i realise that's a personal preference.....

Thanks

Owen
 
I like texture so I tested it but never used it. I normally add grain to the stuff I work on so neat video would then be a bit contra productive :)

But it happens that I use the denoise and or detrain in flame on compositing layers to even out noise levels but then for sure I need to add grain on top of it.

But it's all done with mixed feelings. A good texture, to me at least, looks really nice on a good screen with no compression etc. (I work in 12bit uncompressed and for TV master as uncompressed 8 bit quicktime) but then when going to the web or most of the quite shitty broadcasting specs the stuff gets compressed and the added texture will hurt the compression.

A glossy image can be nice but that as well can be eaten by compression so I'm finding my self trying to balance right in between the two.
 
Like Bob, I think there have been about two times I have used it.

Battistella
 
I guess it also has to do with the type of work one does. Obviously, on production shoots it's not really needed as there are proper lighting tools available to help achieve the desired look. When I am in a doc style situation.... Or event situation...where the conditions are not conducive to achieving a desirable image, but the content has value, neat video can definitely help repair clips and get them to a place where they can blend well with clips that are properly exposed.

its cheap. It works nicely in those situations.... But render time is rough.
 
;-)
 
Thanks again guys.. I've decide to only apply it on the very few clips that are really underexposed and extremely noisy.. Not sure what i would do without reduser ;)

Owen
 
Michael Jarvis said:
I guess it also has to do with the type of work one does. Obviously, on production shoots it's not really needed as there are proper lighting tools available to help achieve the desired look. When I am in a doc style situation.... Or event situation...where the conditions are not conducive to achieving a desirable image, but the content has value, neat video can definitely help repair clips and get them to a place where they can blend well with clips that are properly exposed.

its cheap. It works nicely in those situations.... But render time is rough.
Click to expand...

Agree, But before getting to that point I would actually for a lot of stuff go 360 shutter and possibly even shoot lowframerate plates to comp into the shots. neat video and similar smearing tools is something I see as the very last resort.
 
I bought NeatVideo some time ago. Used it a few times in 2011/12. Nothing after that however. I do feel its the best bang for your buck for the type of noise reduction it provides.
 
Anyone know what Fincher used for stabilization and noise reduction on Gone Girl?

I use it constantly, but primarily for compositing purposes to clean something up before re-graining.
 
If you find you must use any kind of noise reduction, then you already lost the war. Very rarely there is a time I'd use noise reduction. Frankly, modern cameras capable of creating noise free images in pretty much any instance, barring complete failure to light. If I do need noise reduction, than I'd hope, that built in Resolve temporal noise reduction is good enough. It is c capable of looking at 5 frames for determining the noise profile. Anything bigger than that does increases the CPU and GPU load. Additionally, as I already had mentioned in other thread, there is a big penalty in using Neat Video. It does a lot of noise reduction by softening the Blue channel. Clearly, that is not a good thing. Additionally, from the user demo video on their site, it appears, that in order to built the full noise profile, Neat Video requires number of flat field selections, that can take some time. And then, from the same video, it appears, that the actual temporal noise reduction is not used at all! It must be enabled manually. So, I wonder how many users actually bother with building the full noise profile and instead just use the auto mode? All that can't be good for the image and I would definitely advise against using Neat Video on any shots, that don't need noise reduction. Better yet, if you must, just use the built in temporal noise reduction in Resolve. It is surprisingly good...
 
jake blackstone said:
If you find you must use any kind of noise reduction, then you already lost the war. Very rarely there is a time I'd use noise reduction. Frankly, modern cameras capable of creating noise free images in pretty much any instance, barring complete failure to light. If I do need noise reduction, than I'd hope, that built in Resolve temporal noise reduction is good enough. It is c capable of looking at 5 frames for determining the noise profile. Anything bigger than that does increases the CPU and GPU load. Additionally, as I already had mentioned in other thread, there is a big penalty in using Neat Video. It does a lot of noise reduction by softening the Blue channel. Clearly, that is not a good thing. Additionally, from the user demo video on their site, it appears, that in order to built the full noise profile, Neat Video requires number of flat field selections, that can take some time. And then, from the same video, it appears, that the actual temporal noise reduction is not used at all! It must be enabled manually. So, I wonder how many users actually bother with building the full noise profile and instead just use the auto mode? All that can't be good for the image and I would definitely advise against using Neat Video on any shots, that don't need noise reduction. Better yet, if you must, just use the built in temporal noise reduction in Resolve. It is surprisingly good...
Click to expand...

Social Network went through the Lowry Process and Gone Girl had obvious noise reduction throughout. There's a case to be made for its use as an aesthetic choice.
 
jake blackstone said:
If you find you must use any kind of noise reduction, then you already lost the war. Very rarely there is a time I'd use noise reduction. Frankly, modern cameras capable of creating noise free images in pretty much any instance, barring complete failure to light. If I do need noise reduction, than I'd hope, that built in Resolve temporal noise reduction is good enough. It is c capable of looking at 5 frames for determining the noise profile. Anything bigger than that does increases the CPU and GPU load. Additionally, as I already had mentioned in other thread, there is a big penalty in using Neat Video. It does a lot of noise reduction by softening the Blue channel. Clearly, that is not a good thing. Additionally, from the user demo video on their site, it appears, that in order to built the full noise profile, Neat Video requires number of flat field selections, that can take some time. And then, from the same video, it appears, that the actual temporal noise reduction is not used at all! It must be enabled manually. So, I wonder how many users actually bother with building the full noise profile and instead just use the auto mode? All that can't be good for the image and I would definitely advise against using Neat Video on any shots, that don't need noise reduction. Better yet, if you must, just use the built in temporal noise reduction in Resolve. It is surprisingly good...
Click to expand...

I agree, Resolve is very good and most can work in real time, neat video up to 7 fps.
 
Matt W. said:
Social Network went through the Lowry Process and Gone Girl had obvious noise reduction throughout. There's a case to be made for its use as an aesthetic choice.
Click to expand...

No, noise reduction is not an aesthetic choice. Most of the time it's a necessity. Lowry Process is a proprietary process and very few can afford it. I bet you, if Lowry Process was used ( I don't know if that is a fact), only select scenes used it and those scenes had noise reduction for a single practical reason- images were noisy.
If "Gone Girl had obvious noise reduction throughout", then they failed. Good NR like good VFX or color grading shouldn't be obvious...
 
jake blackstone said:
No, noise reduction is not an aesthetic choice. Most of the time it's a necessity. Lowry Process is a proprietary process and very few can afford it. I bet you, if Lowry Process was used ( I don't know if that is a fact), only select scenes used it and those scenes had noise reduction for a single practical reason- images were noisy.
If "Gone Girl had obvious noise reduction throughout", then they failed. Good NR like good VFX or color grading shouldn't be obvious...
Click to expand...

Fincher has used some level of noise reduction on every feature he's shot digitally; prior to Gone Girl it was the Lowry Process... not sure what it was on Gone Girl. It's pretty apparent in the texture of the image, particularly in dark scenes, that something has changed; he also stabilizes most locked off shots and you can see and feel that, too. It dehumanizes the camera.

Whether it's a choice or a compromise seems like semantics based on whom you ask.

There was a day when auto-tune was viewed the same way...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top