Jump to content

Worms and Topaz De-Noise

Anteric
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anteric Newbie

Anteric

Posted
Posted

I have good results removing worms with Topaz De-Noise on auto settings. I am shooting RAF from a XT-30 in LR Classic 9.2. I have a couple of questions

1. Why do I get artefacts in about half my RAF files only?

2. If it is a RAF processing issue, why do I see it in jpegs too?

3. Has anybody else tried the Topaz De-Noise editing.

Finally, I have no connection whatsoever with Topaz

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
matsonfamily Apprentice

matsonfamily

Posted
Posted

I know of a X-Trans worm effect that may be what you're referring to.  Maybe 5 pixels long, with a L at the end, and hundreds of them.  I usually see it at 50% zoom, and always at 100% zoom, more noticeable at high sensitivity.  In my experience X-Trans produces more natural looking lines [than Bayer] at 25% zoom and less (and seems to do better at geometric designs, e.g.: tiny b&w lines), but Bayer seems to do better cropped in to 100% zoom (and at natural curves).  Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but handling them is very raw software dependent.  As for Topaz's software, I haven't used it.  Maybe you could attach some small screenshots or samples of what you're experiencing, and then someone will be able to answer?

attached an example off google (from dpreview's forums) about x-trans vs bayer.  two nearly identical cameras, but the clearer one on the right is x-trans.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
YOUTA Community Regular

YOUTA

Posted
Posted
On 4/3/2020 at 7:46 PM, Anteric said:

I have good results removing worms with Topaz De-Noise on auto settings. I am shooting RAF from a XT-30 in LR Classic 9.2. I have a couple of questions

1. Why do I get artefacts in about half my RAF files only?

2. If it is a RAF processing issue, why do I see it in jpegs too?

3. Has anybody else tried the Topaz De-Noise editing.

Finally, I have no connection whatsoever with Topaz

thanks

actually it's simply because adobe still doesn't implement the de-mosaicing algorithm for fujifilm's x-trans filter .capture one ,luminar etc. has implemented it , so is topaz ,so that's why topaz software's able to provide a good image output from fujifilm x-trans sensor camera's . that's the reason why the output from all adobe software's not good for fujifilm x-trans sensor camera raw files .x-trans filter array is new and the advantages is you get sharper images , the next advantage is that the grains at higher iso from camera is similar to film camera's rather than digital camera grains . so if adobe decide to implement the de-mosaicing algorithm ,you'll no longer get any worms ,until then you can try another method , open up the raw file in capture one or luminar or topaz products ,and then convert it into DNG or TIFF , then you can work with it in adobe software's without seeing any worm effects . i hope this helped . have a nice day !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
lamacchiacosta Contributor

lamacchiacosta

Posted
Posted

It actually does. To avoid re-writing the all system and keep retro compatibility, they manage X-trans sensors through the "Enhance details" function, for RAW pictures. You have to enable that (it will create a new .dng image) and reduce Sharpening to zero to see the worms disappear and finally have a great starting point for your editing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
YOUTA Community Regular

YOUTA

Posted
Posted
On 1/6/2021 at 12:59 PM, lamacchiacosta said:

It actually does. To avoid re-writing the all system and keep retro compatibility, they manage X-trans sensors through the "Enhance details" function, for RAW pictures. You have to enable that (it will create a new .dng image) and reduce Sharpening to zero to see the worms disappear and finally have a great starting point for your editing.

enhance detail is only a workaround  ,if c1 , luminar , topaz ,darkroom etc , can do it without any extra steps ,adobe could if they wanted . they simply aren't doing it ,many users found out that reducing sharpness while importing to lightroom fix the issue , so if adobe wanted they can fix this pretty easily . have a nice day ahead !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • jerryy
      Fungus

      By jerryy · Posted

      A fungus in the forest.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...