Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5089 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2203 times:
Yes. But do you mean you can SEE the effect on the quality? I do not - but i definitely know that NeatImage reduced (big time) the file size. A file that would be over 1mb if saved in the highest quality normally can be as much as half that size after doing the neat image.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
The filesize reduction is I think a reasonable expectation... let's see if I can analogise this...
Consider that a grainy image has millions and millions of individual pixels each with their own colour value... it's grainy after all!
When you run it through Neat-Image you are removing the grain and making the image colours "Smoother", so the number of individually coloured pixels is down and therefore more amenable to JPEG compression.
Hehehe! I'm sure someone far more verbose will have a better explanation for you guys very shortly!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
Rindt From Germany, joined May 2000, 930 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2181 times:
I've found the best "trick" with NeatImage is to select a box in the sky of your photo, just big enough to be able to analyze high/med/low freqs. (but NOT very low freqs) - and then analyze it. Then on the next tab, use a "Y" value of between 40-60%, and have the very-low freq. box checked off. Usually does the job everytime without making the shot look like a fake painting.
What other people think of you is none of your business!