What version of "neat image" do you use?

01/12/2006 09:20:38 PM · #1

.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 22:02:27.

saintaugust

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

01/12/2006 09:22:00 PM · #2

Originally posted by Drummie:

I checked their website & there are a few different versions.
- Demo, Home, Home+, Pro, & Pro+

I've been reading about others using this program, & think it would be good for my digital photos as well as older scanned photos that I'm restoring.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated
Lori

the 'free' one

01/12/2006 09:27:06 PM · #3

The biggest difference between the free and non-free is that you can use the non-free as a plug-in.

Many people will tell you that the free one does not save in high JPEG, but reading the product notes will tell you this is wrong. You cannot adjust the level it saves at, but it will always save at 91/100, pretty high quality.

EDIT: I use the free one.

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 21:27:20.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/12/2006 09:27:41 PM · #4

.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 22:02:41.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

01/12/2006 09:27:54 PM · #5

I use Noise Ninja, I like it better than Netimage...less plastic look...

mesmeraj

01/12/2006 09:33:40 PM · #6

i dont know but (and i may just be crazy) it seems to work better on my spouces pc than it does when i use it on mine.

crayon

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

01/12/2006 09:42:59 PM · #7

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DrAchoo, this I dont understand. I'm using the free one, and each time I click SAVE, it always tells me that due to being a free version, it would save JPG in a lousy lossy compression. How do you get 91/100 quality with the free version? Please enlighten me! Thanks

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

01/12/2006 09:45:50 PM · #8

I used the free version for a LONG time... until.... I needed to run NI and save as .tiff. The free version can't do this. That's when I forked out the bucks and upgraded. Even the limited batch processing was doable with the freebie, but .tiff is a big one.

Skyarcher

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/12/2006 09:51:12 PM · #9

Neat Image 5.0 Pro+

I also have Noise Ninja 2_0_2. It was before they came out with the plug-in version.

I used the demo first and decided it purchase them. Depending on what I'm working on and what I want to do determines, for me, which program that I use.

Both are good programs,if used correctly.

01/12/2006 10:01:23 PM · #10

Originally posted by crayon:

Crayon, you don't have to do anything. This is from their website:

"The JPEG compression is set to a fixed high quality level (91 in the scale 1-100) in Demo"

crayon

01/12/2006 11:02:06 PM · #11

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Crayon, you don't have to do anything. This is from their website:

"The JPEG compression is set to a fixed high quality level (91 in the scale 1-100) in Demo"

I hope they dont mean 91/100 compression rate, coz that would be VERY lossy compression - which I assume was each time I had to use the free NI version, my JPEGS will come out with pretty bad compression artifacts :(

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/12/2006 11:07:52 PM · #12

No, I'm pretty sure the way you are thinking of it it's 9/100 compression...

Prof_Fate

01/12/2006 11:15:03 PM · #13

I got the Home+ i think - the cheapest version with the plug in. I have not batched anything yet, but might be doing that soon. I use the plug in exclusivley (so far) since i got it - $50 i think. Not an enourmous cost. One day i may learn ho to use beyond the very basics. i dl's profiles for my camera, much better than auto profile 99% of the time. I played a bit with sharpening, but then got some info from canon on what they recomend for workflow so i stopped doing it that way.

deapee

Kodak V803

01/12/2006 11:19:16 PM · #14

I use the stand-alone, registered version. I didn't like the plug-in....I find it easier for workflow to just open straight into it, filter, save, then go to photoshop...

Oh, and I'm pretty sure it uses a REALLY bad compression ratio in the free one.

That being said, you might want to be careful if you're using the free version for selling prints or other money-making avenues, as technically, you could get sued.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/12/2006 11:23:23 PM · #15

It's worthwhile forking out a little cash and getting it as a plug-in I reckon. I never use it stand alone!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/12/2006 11:27:35 PM · #16

Originally posted by dpaull:

Oh, and I'm pretty sure it uses a REALLY bad compression ratio in the free one.

See, everybody thinks this, but nobody can back it up except with a feeling. I have a 16x24 on the wall using the free version of neat image and it looks just fine.

deapee

Kodak V803

01/13/2006 12:09:34 AM · #17

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dpaull:
Oh, and I'm pretty sure it uses a REALLY bad compression ratio in the free one.

See, everybody thinks this, but nobody can back it up except with a feeling. I have a 16x24 on the wall using the free version of neat image and it looks just fine.

Well, after frivolously searching the internet and neatimage.com for some information to back it up, I must say that I was wrong...it does apparently save at 91/100 which doesn't seem to bad to me. Although, I wouldn't necessarily include it first in my workflow being forced to save it to JPEG...I always save as a TIFF

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/13/2006 12:15:19 AM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The biggest difference between the free and non-free is that you can use the non-free as a plug-in.

Not quite so; Home and Pro are standalone, Home+ and Pro+ include the plugin and standalone versions. Pro has some bells and whistles Home doesn't, mainly geared to batch processing if I recall correctly. Whatever the differences, I decided i didn't need 'em and went with Home+.

Why do I want the plugin version? Because it allows you to NI selected areas of the image. That's a HUGE plus to my way of thinking. But I rarely use NI now that I have the 20D. I used in nearly every shot with the Coolpix 5700 after I got it.

I don't understand people who say NI is "too plastic looking" as if that's a criticism of the software itself; for sure you can push it to the limit and get that result, but used conservatively it's not possible to tell NI was part of the workflow. It's simply a remarkable tool for those who have to deal with even slightly noisy images.

Robt.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/13/2006 12:24:47 AM · #19

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...used conservatively it's not possible to tell NI was part of the workflow. It's simply a remarkable tool for those who have to deal with even slightly noisy images.

Robt.

Well said.

PhantomEWO

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/13/2006 12:27:42 AM · #20

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I agree if all you want to save is JPG the free one is just fine. If you want to work NI straight from RAW or save the output to TIFF than the paid way is the one you want.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/13/2006 12:34:42 AM · #21

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dpaull:
Oh, and I'm pretty sure it uses a REALLY bad compression ratio in the free one.

See, everybody thinks this, but nobody can back it up except with a feeling. I have a 16x24 on the wall using the free version of neat image and it looks just fine.

I agree if all you want to save is JPG the free one is just fine. If you want to work NI straight from RAW or save the output to TIFF than the paid way is the one you want.

If your sole use of NI is for preparing DPC entries, the free version is perfectly adequate. If youw ant to use it to fine-tune for large prints (and it's VERY valuable that way), buy the program.

R.

01/13/2006 01:04:55 PM · #22

.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 22:03:03.

01/13/2006 01:07:01 PM · #23

.

Message edited by author 2006-08-12 22:03:29.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/13/2006 01:12:55 PM · #24

Originally posted by Drummie:

Last night, I downloaded the free version. I imported an image that was originally 2.59MB. After I used the program & them saved the filtered photo, the saved copy was only 870KB. That is a big difference.
(((Please bear with me here, as I'm still getting used to different terminology))) But, it although I like how the program worked on my pic, it saved it at a lower quality.........unless there is a setting that I can change, but no options popped up for that......(am I missing something?)

With the home version, you can save it at a higher resolution? If so, then I may consider that.

With either of the "plus" versions (Home or Pro) you get NI as a plugin, and you don't need to save it at all, really; it's just another filter in the arsenal. Your save options are exactly the same as they always are in photoshop and you can follow your normal workflow.

R.