Hiding Noise in FCPX

[MBFrancis]

Without Filmconvert, Neat Video, any plug-ins or extra software other than perhaps LUTS, what are some ways to hide noise in FCPX? 

I can think of crushing shadows, but to my knowledge with FCPX, it's not exactly as precise as I'd want it to be not to mention contrasty looks aren't my sort of thing. Am I missing some key stuff here?

[Axel]

Why wouldn't you buy a plugin? Neat Video certainly is the best, but it's not the cheapest. For just noisy shadows, Photon Pro (~ $30) can be sufficient, and it's faster in FCP X, because it has no alien GUI, it seems to have been made with Motion (one could build a lot of fast plugins for FCP X within Motion, but you'd need knowledge, experience and patience).

You are right about the precision (or lack of) of the colorboards of FCP X. On the other hand, crushing blacks won't help much. Many use Resolve as FCP X's color-app, where you have unlimited precision. But what really helps is to avoid the 'noise floor' during the shoot. Visible noise is low SNR.

[MBFrancis]

Just to keep the workflow streamlined, I would prefer not working with plug-ins if possible. I have tried the Neat Video demo, and while definitely a great tool, it really bogs down my older model MBP. Again with Resolve, my system is too limited to handle the system requirements.

What is your experience with Photon Pro? 

Also, it seems M43 cameras, Panasonic in particular which I'm working with, have quite a bit of noise around darks and midtones even at low ISOs, so I'm not sure how I could avoid the noise floor if possible.

[Liam]

I don't know fcpx very well at all, but I found a makeshift tutorial for hitfilm noise reduction which I assume would work in other nle's, in which you "find the edges" and hold onto them, then add slight blurring to the rest. It seemed effective, I didn't have a chance to test it myself. I doubt it would be easier than a plugin, maybe not even easier for your computer to handle. But other than crushing blacks, over exposing in camera slightly, or a plugin, Idk if there are really other options. If you use film grain, you could probably get away with just putting it right on top of the noise and save a step. If you're using like a gh4 (you said m43 right?) with a lot of settings in camera to deal with, it's possible something in there is messing with the noise, making it worse. There was a post on that.. a while ago on this forum. Doubt I could find it again.

[MBFrancis]

I haven't really been messing with my camera settings as I keep Highlights/shadows normal and leaving contrast at 0. It's not bad noise per se, but I do notice very fine noise even at 200 iso, something that apparently gh4/lx100/g7/etc users say they notice as well. 

I have yet to use filmconvert which is expensive and assuming just as taxing on my hardware. Some film grain samples such as ones from color vision are nice, but I have had varying results with some samples only making more a of noisy mess on targeted areas rather than seamlessly blending it in altogether. 

That Hitfilm tutorial does sound intriguing though.

[Liam]

here's that - not great footage he was using, not sure how well the controls would transfer to fcpx, maybe not as good for something subtle, like I said, I haven't had a chance to mess with it. but if it helps! good luck

[Axel]

22 hours ago, MBFrancis said:

. It's not bad noise per se, but I do notice very fine noise even at 200 iso, something that apparently gh4/lx100/g7/etc users say they notice as well. 

You don't mention your camera. I once had the GH2 (loved it). Users stated, they had more noise @ Iso200 than Iso640. In fact, tests with lens cap on proved Iso320 to have the least noise. This may very well have been the camera's so-called native Iso. That's also where you'd have the highest dynamic range. You should then only choose higher Isos that are dividable by that (i.e, 160, 320, 640, 1280, not 100, 200 etc.).

Panasonic cameras also have a feature called "iDyn". Even in bright sunlight, the shadows are boosted separately, causing noise. Put it off.

23 hours ago, MBFrancis said:

What is your experience with Photon Pro? 

Test it with the demo (it will render a crossfade). You won't be able to play back the clip you applied Photon Pro to in real time, you will have to render it (ctrl + r), but at least it won't slow down FCP X's general performance (as Neat does to some extend, but not as much as the otherwise wonderful CoreMelt plugins, i.e. TrackX with the Mocha tracker). 

Rule of thumb: Use every API-plugin you want, but before you install something with own GUI, make a test and be sure you know how to de-install it. Known exception: ColorFinale won't slow down FCP X.

23 hours ago, MBFrancis said:

Just to keep the workflow streamlined, I would prefer not working with plug-ins if possible. I have tried the Neat Video demo, and while definitely a great tool, it really bogs down my older model MBP. Again with Resolve, my system is too limited to handle the system requirements.

> Run FCP X on El Capitan. It really makes the app run smoother, a streamlined OS for a streamlined NLE. Allegedly it boosts performance on older MBPs by 15%, but judging by my old MP, it's more. 

> Follow these advices to make FCP X more responsive (watch to the end where it says don't max out your disc space, this is in my experience the biggest factor in improving speed: fastest and biggest drives and the footage (read speed) always on a separate drive:

> do use optimized media if your CPU is weak, but turn off background rendering. Individually render clips with lots of (or slow, such as denoising) effects. Render files can easily fill your limited disk space in the background.

Then keep in mind, that even on a tiny MB (not "P"), people can edit 4k video, so don't despair:

 

[MBFrancis]

To keep it simple, my concern is using the LX100. Apparently the native ISO is 200 I believe, but I still find the noise (even if in a fine pattern) to be quite distracting.

As for a demo on Photon Pro, I don't seem to be able to find one. Some reviews of crashing has me concerned, with positive ones only coming for earlier versions and those with high end hardware. Oddly enough, one review claims rendering times are worse than Neat Video.

I have similar concerns upgrading to El Capitan. Considering many people's mixed experiences, I'm not sure I wanna risk possible improved performance for a worse one.

I have a mid 2012 13" Macbook Pro just to clear things up.

 

[Axel]

19 minutes ago, MBFrancis said:

To keep it simple, my concern is using the LX100. Apparently the native ISO is 200 I believe, but I still find the noise (even if in a fine pattern) to be quite distracting.

As for a demo on Photon Pro, I don't seem to be able to find one. Some reviews of crashing has me concerned, with positive ones only coming for earlier versions and those with high end hardware. Oddly enough, one review claims rendering times are worse than Neat Video.

I have similar concerns upgrading to El Capitan. Considering many people's mixed experiences, I'm not sure I wanna risk possible improved performance for a worse one.

I have a mid 2012 13" Macbook Pro just to clear things up.

 

The answer is Time Machine. Back up your status quo on an external drive and try it. Maybe you are right with Photon Pro. Didn't use it for quite some time now.

[Bioskop.Inc]

Don't skimp if you really need to de-noise your footage - Neat Video isn't just the best at removing noise, it is also the best tool for sharpening your footage too (if you do that). Yes it takes a long time to render & I know its a pain with an older machine, but you do that as your final step.

[Nick Hughes]

I find that Neat Video 4 performs much faster than the previous version (on my macbook pro). Still not lightning fast, but I don't find myself getting too frustrated at the waiting times.

[M Carter]

Neat video is a great solution and the value for the money is impressive. Want some tips?

Any shoot that you fear dealing with noise - high ISOs or deep shadows - shoot a second or so of a flat surface, not overly dark or bright (no channels clipped. so avoid intense colors), the more it fills the frame the better. Defocus the lens so you're just shooting noise, and shoot it at the same ISO and WB as the shot. Slate your noise clips if necessary (but generally, if you have three takes followed by a clip that's a tiny file size, you'll know it's your noise clip). Or make a point of sticking a card in at the head or tail of a shot so your noise profile card is part of the clip. Use the noise clip to make the auto noise filtering profile and apply that. And try to save your profiles intelligently (IE, make a folder with camera name, and name the clips with ISO and WB, like --folder: NX1--> filne name: daylight-1600iso). I don't know how important WB is for fine-tuning noise, but since WB is adding gain to specific channels, it's probably key for accurate noise removal. And if you use custom WB you won't have an existing profile.

ALL OF THE ABOVE takes seconds (many shots have a good enough flat space, but NV likes a pretty good sized chunk, I think 128px square is the max??), and you can end up with a nice library for shots when you don't have a good solid to tune the noise filtering. NEAT VIDEO IS BETTER WHEN IT'S NOT GUESSING - give it a solid noise profile for the specific shot.

Try to render neat video only once; on some NLE timelines, you'll force a re-render if you tweak any setting like color or contrast or opacity. So do your edit, and then render out prores (or whatever) of your clips in the edit (add heads & tails for transitions if needed) with NV and re-import; color correct on top of those.

I just use neat video in After Effects; I'll ID the clips that need it, setup a project, create the noise profiles (some projects you might need only need one or two), add the effect, and hit "render" before I go to bed, leave for a meeting, whatever. Then you're done with it and your NLE will work with native - and noiseless - files.

[MBFrancis]

Thanks for the advice everyone, at this point I may just pick up Neat Video after all. 

12 hours ago, M Carter said:

 

Any shoot that you fear dealing with noise - high ISOs or deep shadows - shoot a second or so of a flat surface, not overly dark or bright (no channels clipped. so avoid intense colors), the more it fills the frame the better. Defocus the lens so you're just shooting noise, and shoot it at the same ISO and WB as the shot. Slate your noise clips if necessary (but generally, if you have three takes followed by a clip that's a tiny file size, you'll know it's your noise clip). Or make a point of sticking a card in at the head or tail of a shot so your noise profile card is part of the clip. Use the noise clip to make the auto noise filtering profile and apply that. And try to save your profiles intelligently (IE, make a folder with camera name, and name the clips with ISO and WB, like --folder: NX1--> filne name: daylight-1600iso). I don't know how important WB is for fine-tuning noise, but since WB is adding gain to specific channels, it's probably key for accurate noise removal. And if you use custom WB you won't have an existing profile.

I remember seeing that tip in a tutorial when I had considered buying NV. Thanks for that!

 

12 hours ago, M Carter said:

Try to render neat video only once; on some NLE timelines, you'll force a re-render if you tweak any setting like color or contrast or opacity. So do your edit, and then render out prores (or whatever) of your clips in the edit (add heads & tails for transitions if needed) with NV and re-import; color correct on top of those.

Would that not create a degradation of IQ by exporting and re-importing, even in prores? I use FCPX for my NLE, and I'm not sure if AE or Premiere has a similar output but would creating a new compound clip copy help the process instead?

[Nick Hughes]

28 minutes ago, MBFrancis said:

Would that not create a degradation of IQ by exporting and re-importing, even in prores? I use FCPX for my NLE, and I'm not sure if AE or Premiere has a similar output but would creating a new compound clip copy help the process instead?

It's not going to impact to IQ in any significant way if it's just once or twice in prores. Export h.264 five times in a row? Yeah, you'll probably see some generation loss.

[Axel]

2 hours ago, MBFrancis said:

Would that not create a degradation of IQ by exporting and re-importing, even in prores? I use FCPX for my NLE, and I'm not sure if AE or Premiere has a similar output but would creating a new compound clip copy help the process instead?

All changes are calculated in an order that can be controlled only to some extend. For example the order of color corrections can be changed. Denoising is the effect that's rendered first in the pipeline (after speed changes, which aren't strictly effects), so before color correction anyway.

So although it says put Neat first in line, you can't change what actually happens under the hood. But it's important nonetheless, because otherwise you would (just for instance, this is true for a lot of effects) judge your colors with colored noise in them.

What I wouldn't recommend is re-importing neated clips. Not only is this a cumbersome workflow (FCP X has no real batch exporter for individual clips, to start with), it's unnecessary.

Instead, I would tag all clips that need Neat with "Neat" (make it ctrl+number or leave the keyword-HUD open) before writing them in the timeline, edit, go to timeline index, search tags >"Neat" >select all, apply Neat to all (by double-clicking on the effect), neat them individually (i.e. by M Carters presets), then color-correct. You don't need real time playback  for CC,  the frame the skimmer/playhead is on is rendered in the cache. By the same method, you can toggle Neat on or off by checking or de-checking the box in inspector. If you want to see your whole timeline in real time with Neat, you can select all "Neat", then render selected.

In theory, a compound clip copy would be an elegant way to avoid re-importing, but the copy just refers to the render files for playback, but in case you put another effect on top of that clip, the render queue is being triggered from the start. I didn't try it just now, but that's what I expect. This is to avoid "generation loss" by recompression, which does matter. Report.

[M Carter]

On February 19, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Nick Hughes said:

It's not going to impact to IQ in any significant way if it's just once or twice in prores. Export h.264 five times in a row? Yeah, you'll probably see some generation loss.

When Prores first came out, early testers rendered the same clip again and again, like ten generations. Even when pixel-peeping, they couldn't spot any artifacts. Prores is freaking solid. And keep in mind, doing a render to only reduce noise - even from a prores file - will give you a clip with significantly improved IQ. (If you're doing, say, 4k on a 1080 timeline to reframe, I'd go as minimal as possible on the NR and be very easy on the sharpening). If you're shooting to crush blacks and not using LUTs, you could amp your shadows up a notch on that render pass as well - basically treat this pass as a "raw conversion" to get your footage to its optimal starting point.

Axel's workflow seems really solid as well, just toggle NV on for your final render or to check how NR and sharpening affects color choices (you never know). My workflow with non-prores original footage (I shoot NX1, H264, AVCHD, depending on the gig or the shot) is to do my trims and shot organizing with MPEG Streamclip to Prores HQ at the highest resolution I have and tag clips that need NR or stabilizing, retiming, whatever. If my workflow aligns with it, I'll do all the after effects work I know needs to be done along those lines and render while I'm at a meeting or overnight. So my sort of "philosophy" is get everything done I know needs doing before I begin my edit. But hey, I'm STILL cutting with FCP 7 so process time and native-file issues are big for me.  That often means I've tweaked clips that won't end up in the edit - but then again, after client input, some of those unused clips get called in at the last minute, so for my workflow, it keeps the last hours of a project moving fast. In Axel's scenario, last minute edit changes may mean lots of rendering time. It's a YMMV situation and depends on your workflow. 

(And yeah, I need a next-gen Mac Pro before long, but I do a lot of Protools work and it will be a pretty giant upgrade, ditching internal raid for thunderbolt raid, a ton of enclosures, a new PT interface as mine is firmwared-out, and about $1k in non-Adobe software upgrades… it's an entirely new system for me or, say, a kitted-out Ursa mini…)