-
1. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
Studio North Films Nov 29, 2012 11:59 AM (in response to illucine)Hi,
Neat video uses both gpu and cpu. it has a performance setup that will test the cpu and the gpu and advise what best to use it.
try to also use the rgb curves,
good luck
Baz
-
2. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
ExactImage Nov 29, 2012 4:27 PM (in response to illucine)Neat Video is still going to take several hours for lengthy sequences. If we need to de-noise a 60 min sequence it can easily take 6-7 hours using an i7 + GTX570 GPU.
Denoising just takes time!
We tend to only add the denoise once the edit is locked down, and also make it thr first effects applied so that any colour correction etc is done on the denoised frames.
-
3. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
JSS1138 Nov 29, 2012 7:02 PM (in response to illucine)Instead of Shadow/Highlight, try the middle gray adjustment on the Input Levels of the Three Way Color Corrector.
-
4. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
illucine Dec 3, 2012 12:03 PM (in response to JSS1138)Studio North Films wrote:
try to also use the rgb curves,
I don't think that would make much difference because the noise is in the source material and changing the levels, whether by RGB Curves or Shadow/Highlight, will make it more visible. Also, I've never found curves very easy to use although I know some people swear by them.
ExactImage wrote:
Neat Video is still going to take several hours for lengthy sequences. If we need to de-noise a 60 min sequence it can easily take 6-7 hours using an i7 + GTX570 GPU.
That would be a major improvement over the 21 hours it took to render my 38 minute sequence using DE:Noise.
Jim Simon wrote:
Instead of Shadow/Highlight, try the middle gray adjustment on the Input Levels of the Three Way Color Corrector.
I tried it but I'm not able to simultaneously bring up the shadows and bring down the highlights like I can with Shadow/Highlight. And I still have the problem of the noise becoming more visible.
Thanks for all your responses. It would be great to hear from anyone who has actually used both of these plugins and knows the differences in time and quality between them.
Roy
-
5. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
Ann Bens Dec 3, 2012 12:34 PM (in response to illucine)I tested Neat Video and DE;noise on their noise reduction ability not on the time it would take to finish the task.
I found DE;noise to give me a better result.
Picture quality was more impostant to me then duration.
-
6. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
illucine Dec 3, 2012 1:29 PM (in response to Ann Bens)Thanks Ann. That's good to know.
-
7. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
Fuzzy Barsik Dec 3, 2012 3:57 PM (in response to illucine)Disagree with Ann, 'cos my experience is completely opposite.
You can download the demo and judge on your own.
Take into account the differences between demo and pro editions.
-
8. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
ejsanch1 Mar 16, 2013 3:23 PM (in response to illucine)Give Dark Energy for After Effects a shot. Very fast, killer denoise results, amazing film simulation.
-
9. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
JSS1138 Mar 17, 2013 3:39 PM (in response to ejsanch1)I second Dark Energy. Simply stunning results with noise removal, faaaaaaar better than Neat Video. (But hey, for $500, it damn well better be.)
-
10. Re: Neat Video vs. RE:Vision DE:Noise
illucine Mar 17, 2013 5:48 PM (in response to ejsanch1)Thanks for the tip on Dark Energy. I'd never heard of it before. I did notice it's a bit pricey.




