Neatimage as plug-in only; how to use tools and options?

questions about practical use of Neat Image
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Neatimage as plug-in only; how to use tools and options?

Post by janwalker »

I thought I remembered running a stand-alone version of Neat Image sometime in the past. Maybe it was the demo. Anyhow, the current v4.5 version for Mac (with CS2 anyhow) comes only as a plug-in.

When the plug-in starts up, there is no application toolbar. So some of the instructions and descriptions given in the forum are impossible to use. If there are preferences for NeatImage, I can't find a way to set them.

This seems rather odd. I am having some difficulty making a high quality profile (more than 80% quality) from the calibration target and was hoping to find more tools in the application to help with that. But everything is unavailable (I think).

Jan
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

You probably remember the Windows version of Neat Image, it does have the standalone version. The Mac versions is currently a plug-in only and its GUI is somewhat different. Still, there is the same function "Auto Profile with Calibration Target" (available using the (>) button) that should be used to build profiles with shots of the Calibration Target. 80% quality is good too. When unsure, send a sample shot to macsupport by e-mail and we will check if the shot itself can be improved (sometimes it is in focus instead of slightly-out-of-focus).

Hope this helps,
Vlad
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

Definitely not the Windows version! I've never had a Windows machine!

How would you describe the amount of out-of-focus? My first test shots were very much out of focus and I realized that it was hard to tell where the borders of the color patches were for the darker ones. Maybe Neat Image had trouble also? Should I crop my image to include just the actual target itself as in the calibration image?

Is it something like "kinda crummy autofocus" (which is easy on my camera unfortunately).

Jan
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

The test shot of the target should include all target and preferably have the target fill the whole frame too.

If you send me a sample shot then I will be able to tell if the amount of out-of-focus is adequate. It should be just slightly out of focus to avoid having any surface/texture details from the paper/display in the target shot. Neat Image wants to analyse the noise produced by the camera, not those surface details, otherwise noise profile will not be accurate.

Vlad
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

I think I'll accept your offer to look at one of my calibration images. I'm finding it challenging to figure how to shoot a calibration image that makes a good quality profile.

The standard PNG image is open in Photoshop, full screen. I'm shooting at the screen of a laptop, with the camera on a tripod. I have the camera and computer in natural light, away from a window so that the screen has its best chance of showing contrast.

My questions about the image:

- it is low contrast, with "white" at about 18-20% on Photoshop's K scale and "black" at about 82-87%. I always set the camera for minimum contrast boost (otherwise all the whites blow out). Do I need better separation between white and black to get a good profile?

- it has a green color cast. I've tried three different kinds of white balance settings but each time the color balance in the white, black, and grey areas is far from neutral. Should I get it neutral? What kind of lighting do you generally recommend for shooting images from monitors? Do I need to use a big LCD monitor instead of a laptop screen?

- I moved the focus away from where the camera autofocus put it (certainly far enough to mess up any photograph I try to take!) but on the left side I can clearly see high spatial freq vertical lines, especially in higher res jpgs. Is it enough out of focus?

Here's a URL to the image:
http://www.RegattaActiveImages.com/priv ... ageCal.jpg

Thanks for any suggestions.
Jan
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

The main problem is this shot is that it is in-focus. You will analyze details of the laptop display (its pixels) instead of the camera noise.

I recommend to shoot slightly out of focus to blur all those surface and/or pixel details.

Regarding contrast, it is not very important but if you can make bright area come out white in the shot then it is better.

Color cast is no problem

Hope this helps.
Vlad
Last edited by NITeam on Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

OK, yes, this helps.

Also I suddenly remembered that the LCD screen is lit from behind by a fluorescent bulb so perhaps I can use one of the fluorescent WB settings for it to get the color rendering more neutral also.

Thanks.
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

Yes indeed, that works. One of the settings gives me decently neutral white and black so I'm happy that the colors are better represented, whether or not it matters! Also, the contrast improved, with white at 10% and black at 91%.

It probably helped to clean the computer screen before shooting as well :?

The profile made from the calibration target reported Quality 91%, which is far better than the other one where it was too much in focus. What is the theoretical maximum?

Many thanks. I'll be back later with other questions about the meanings of the numbers in the profile ...
Jan
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

Theoretical maximum is 100% of course. It is not difficult to achieve. In fact if you send me a profile I can tell you what can be improved. However, in most cases 91% is already good enough.

Vlad
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

Tried it again with shooting a different image of the calibration target. The profile constructed this time has quality of 82% (lower). I'd like to understand both why the profile quality is varying and how to make it higher quality. Is it in the image of the target?

In case you need both files:

http://www.RegattaActiveImages.com/priv ... 0-wrot.dnp
http://www.RegattaActiveImages.com/priv ... alib-2.jpg
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

The image is good. Try to move the selection to the center of the main square, it will give a bit better uniformity and produce higher quality profile.

Vlad
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

When I use the command Auto Profile with Calibration Target, Neatimage moves the selection away from the center, to the left and up although still inside the middle square. So I can't do what you suggest.

I tried cropping the image with photoshop to make it exactly the right perspective, with the center of the image in the center of the middle green square. Neatimage moved the selection anyhow as before, making me wonder if it is calculating where the center is based on the exif data with the image or something like that.

Anyhow, I don't get it. I'd expect something better defined than just moving the center point around, which it isn't doing for me anyhow. This is a Mac, just in case that makes a difference.
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

I do not recommend to modify the image in Photoshop, this will spoil the noise and resulting noise profile.

If that is Mac, please select an area in the center and click Auto Profile (with regular image), that will do it.

It is actually very easy since there is no need to try to get those 100% so hard, the quality of the profile is in fact quite the same as with 91%, at least for that shot that I have seen. What is important is to get the shot of the calibration target right. You have it right already so the resulting profile is good. Pelase do not worry about those numbers.

Vlad
janwalker
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:09 am
Location: Cambridge MA USA

Post by janwalker »

This is a surprise. Actually I now have a profile described as "100% quality". All I did was to re-shoot the target in a dark room using a different white balance setting on the camera, "fluorescent bulb 2" for anyone with an Olympus camera.

Jan
NITeam
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:43 pm
Contact:

Post by NITeam »

That is quite normal. I also get 100% when I move the selection to the center of the above image and use Auto Profile. The image is right, so profile is right.

Vlad
Post Reply