I use it a lot, and to avoid over cooking the image, and to make it act more like you would expect from a deconvolution tool (which it is not) I make the process with several iterations... much like stretching mutiple times but with denoise AI and shaperning AI, I keep using both and making small subtle improvements, if you try to do it in one go it will add a lot of fake structures, but if you iterate it several times small improvements each time you will make the tool resolve the detail much more precisely without having to guess and invent details that are not supposed to be there...
I've had great luck with Topaz denoise when I keep it really low and subtle, so it's not completely erasing the noise, but it calms it down and gives it a more film-grain look.
I find Topaz an indispensable part of my workflow now. The great part about it is that as each image is different, it's infinitely customisable, from a choice of 5 different AI models to strength sliders for both denoise and sharpness and post-processing sliders for 'recover original detail' and 'colour noise reduction'. You can also have a preview of up to 4 different configurations on the screen at the same time which helps to get the tweaking spot on.
Nice to see you enjoy the software! I don't have much experience on it, but I normally use "low light" because in general it gives a softer, more natural result. Also I noticed that using Topaz during the editing process can lead to some weird artefacts (for example zooming in 400% I can see something that resembles the RGB pixel grid), so I always use it as my last step to clean the image. It is also worth noting that it makes miracles on daylight images...
You are absolutely right about the artefacts. I noticed them too. That said, I think it does a nice job. As you say, its a must have for daylight images.
I use this along with noise exterminator alternating between them to get best results, it works best when you remove the stars and employ it then reintegrate the stars
![Гравитация - это не сила [Veritasium]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wKXsHqExLGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Found this helpful? Why not subscribe for more?
I use it a lot, and to avoid over cooking the image, and to make it act more like you would expect from a deconvolution tool (which it is not) I make the process with several iterations... much like stretching mutiple times but with denoise AI and shaperning AI, I keep using both and making small subtle improvements, if you try to do it in one go it will add a lot of fake structures, but if you iterate it several times small improvements each time you will make the tool resolve the detail much more precisely without having to guess and invent details that are not supposed to be there...
I've had great luck with Topaz denoise when I keep it really low and subtle, so it's not completely erasing the noise, but it calms it down and gives it a more film-grain look.
That's really interesting! I will try with toned down settings. Thank you :)
Hi , I recently purchased Topaz Denoise and really like what it does . It improves my images considerably. I use it quite a bit. Thanks for the video.
Love it! I can see why you like it. It does improve images considerably.
Yes to Topaz. Plus I use Gigapixel to enlarge my images for printing and display. Thanks.
I must try Gigapixel. Haven't used it yet. Sounds interesting :)
I find Topaz an indispensable part of my workflow now. The great part about it is that as each image is different, it's infinitely customisable, from a choice of 5 different AI models to strength sliders for both denoise and sharpness and post-processing sliders for 'recover original detail' and 'colour noise reduction'. You can also have a preview of up to 4 different configurations on the screen at the same time which helps to get the tweaking spot on.
Yes I saw the 4 different configurations settings. This can be so good and useful when used properly!
Nice to see you enjoy the software! I don't have much experience on it, but I normally use "low light" because in general it gives a softer, more natural result. Also I noticed that using Topaz during the editing process can lead to some weird artefacts (for example zooming in 400% I can see something that resembles the RGB pixel grid), so I always use it as my last step to clean the image.
It is also worth noting that it makes miracles on daylight images...
You are absolutely right about the artefacts. I noticed them too. That said, I think it does a nice job. As you say, its a must have for daylight images.
I found denoising an image when its starless is a better option then re-adding the stars, like you say it's not perfect but it doesn't do a bad job.
That sounds like a good way to go. I will try like you suggest and see how I go :)
@@AstroOnBudget Let us know whether it made any improvements or not I'd be interested to hear.
I use this along with noise exterminator alternating between them to get best results, it works best when you remove the stars and employ it then reintegrate the stars
Thanks for the tip. I might try doing what you do to see what difference that makes :)
Hi, I always watch your video. can you also make a video tutorial on how to remove walking noise?
Thank you. Will do :)
@@AstroOnBudget wow! thanks! will wait for it 🤗
Thanks
You are most welcome
Have you tried Gimp's G'MIC plugin for removing noise from images? If you have, how do you think it compares to Topaz?
Hey Paul! Topaz is much better than G'MIC which makes sense because Topaz is trained AI.
Since I have NoiseXterminator I don’t use Topaz anymore. I don’t like what it does to the stars.
Thats fair enough. I checked the stars and you are right if looked closely, it does some odd things with the stars.
Topaz do crazy things on all my astro-pics I don't use it anymore.I prefer camera raw to denoise.
you have to use it sparingly if it does that and always fade the result. Used properly it is invaluable
Camera raw is excellent tool as well.