Use NV on full image size?

general questions about Neat Video
Post Reply
mr_ianashton
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:10 am

Use NV on full image size?

Post by mr_ianashton »

I do a lot of time lapse work, with individual raw stills at 5472 x 3648 pixels. These are first worked in Photoshop where I export to tif at 1920 x 1080. I use After Effects to work the tifs to a final clip. Neat Video is making me rethink this workflow. Would it be fair to say that the more pixels NV has to work with the better? And that if NV is only able to sample a small area of uniform pixels in an image, it is better that those pixels be greater in number? If so I`d leave the downsizing to AE rather than Photoshop. Time consuming but better as far as NV is concerned, do you think? Thanks.
NVTeam
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:12 pm
Contact:

Post by NVTeam »

More pixels but more noise too (resizing reduces the noise). So doing everything in AE may not be necessarily better but still worth trying directly. Please make sure you build a new noise profile for the larger frames.

Vlad
mr_ianashton
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:10 am

Post by mr_ianashton »

Hello Vad,

This question came up in my mind again today. I think what I`m asking is - in a complex, "busy" image with few uniform areas, NV presumably has a better chance of finding a uniform area of adequate pixels using an image with more pixels. But will this translate to a more accurate sample and therefore better noise reduction?
Thanks
NVTeam
Posts: 2745
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:12 pm
Contact:

Post by NVTeam »

More pixels does not necessarily means a better profile. In fact, both better and worse outcomes are possible.

Vlad
mr_ianashton
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:10 am

Post by mr_ianashton »

thank you for your quick reply Vlad.

That settles it for me then. Smaller it is.
Post Reply