Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
We used to have a saying in CSIRO that one mans noise is another mans signal.
<snip>
There is noise there as there is in any image. If I cannot see noise in an image then a bit of clipping has been done and real faint signal lost.
So in the end there is no real argument just semantics as to what is noise in an image.
In order to improve our images we need to sort real signal from real noise. Not just eliminate 'noise' and lose faint signal that is real.
Oh yeah very nice image Mike.
Bert
|
Thankyou Bert, finally, some soothing clasical music is injected into this noise issue
Noise aversion in processing is significantly mediated by trends in how images "should" look from a popularist, conformist as well as aesthetic perspective. In the end it is often just trendy popular opinion that can prevail. A smooth image for a smooth images sake is often prefered over one that reveals faint details and structures that has a little noise. I try to run the gauntlet between the two as I like elements of both approaches
NOISY MIKE 