NoiseXTerminator vs MureDenoise

[STEVE333]

This is a comparison of NoiseXTerminator (NXT) vs MureDenoise in PixInsight. Because I'm doing NB imaging all of my images are monochrome. I haven't tried it with color images.

I have been using MureDenoise for some time now to perform noise reduction for my linear images because it does a better job of noise reduction than I can do any other way. Now I want to test NXT.

The pictures below show a comparison between the two approaches for a linear image for both unstructured background and for target details. I used NXT with Denoise = 0.90 and Detail = 0.15, the default settings.

The pictures on the left show a zoomed in view of the original stacked image.
The middle pictures show the MureDenoise processed images.
The rightmost pictures show the NXT processed images.

UNSTRUCTURED BACKGROUND

DETAILS

I have found NoiseXTerminator (NXT) to be far superior to MureDenoise:

• Visually the NXT processed images are much less noisey than the MureDenoise processed images.

• Many of my stacked images have significant noise but NXT has been able to smooth it out every time.

• NXT runs faster than MureDenoise.

• NXT has not left any artifacts (cross-hatched regions) as MureDenoise sometimes does.

• NXT has also done a fine job or retaining the details.

• NXT seems to sharpen the stars a little.

• The amount of noise reduction can be adjusted with NXT, not true with MureDenoise. Very helpful!! The picture below shows examples of two NXT noise reduction levels. The image on the left is the original image. The middle image has Denoise = 70 and the rightmost image has the default setting of Denoise = 90.

I used NXT on my recent mosaic and was completely satisfied in all aspects. It has made my processing task much easier.

Hope this is useful. I'll be glad to answer any questions if I can.

Steve

[Juno16]

Very nice comparison Steve. Thanks for taking the time to compare denoise methods.

I have worked a bit more with NXT and have had excellent results with both linear and non-linear images.

I also own Topaz DeNoise AI and find that NoiseXTernminator is a much easier tool to work with. The Topaz product does produce a fine job, but will produce artifacts if the settings and Models are not carefully adjusted and monitored.

This isn't the best example of NXT, but I just opened up an image of the Leo Triplet and tightly cropped the Hamburger Galaxy (NGC 3628) where I had over processed the image with Topaz Denoise. The detail is overly sharp and the Topaz application created grainy artifacts in both ends of the Hamburger. NXT with default settings cleaned up the artifacts that the Topaz product left and left the overly sharpened central details untouched. Impressive!

NoiseXTerminator and StarXterminator (I have both) are both excellent products and I am very happy to have them in my toolbox. Thanks again Steve!

[bobharmony]

Thanks for the comparison, Steve. I like the way NXT protects the details. To my eye it actually enhances detail while doing a better job of noise reduction. I'm going to be trying out the Windows PhotoShop version soon.

Bob

[STEVE333]

Very nice comparison Steve. Thanks for taking the time to compare denoise methods.

I have worked a bit more with NXT and have had excellent results with both linear and non-linear images.

I also own Topaz DeNoise AI and find that NoiseXTernminator is a much easier tool to work with. The Topaz product does produce a fine job, but will produce artifacts if the settings and Models are not carefully adjusted and monitored.

This isn't the best example of NXT, but I just opened up an image of the Leo Triplet and tightly cropped the Hamburger Galaxy (NGC 3628) where I had over processed the image with Topaz Denoise. The detail is overly sharp and the Topaz application created grainy artifacts in both ends of the Hamburger. NXT with default settings cleaned up the artifacts that the Topaz product left and left the overly sharpened central details untouched. Impressive!

Capture.PNG

NoiseXTerminator and StarXterminator (I have both) are both excellent products and I am very happy to have them in my toolbox. Thanks again Steve!

You're welcome Jim - I like your comparison showing how NXT removed the grainy artifacts. Seems to be an easy choice?

Thanks for the comparison, Steve. I like the way NXT protects the details. To my eye it actually enhances detail while doing a better job of noise reduction. I'm going to be trying out the Windows PhotoShop version soon.

Bob

I agree Bob. Good luck.

Steve

[STEVE333]

Very nice comparison Steve. Thanks for taking the time to compare denoise methods.

I have worked a bit more with NXT and have had excellent results with both linear and non-linear images.

I also own Topaz DeNoise AI and find that NoiseXTernminator is a much easier tool to work with. The Topaz product does produce a fine job, but will produce artifacts if the settings and Models are not carefully adjusted and monitored.

This isn't the best example of NXT, but I just opened up an image of the Leo Triplet and tightly cropped the Hamburger Galaxy (NGC 3628) where I had over processed the image with Topaz Denoise. The detail is overly sharp and the Topaz application created grainy artifacts in both ends of the Hamburger. NXT with default settings cleaned up the artifacts that the Topaz product left and left the overly sharpened central details untouched. Impressive!





NoiseXTerminator and StarXterminator (I have both) are both excellent products and I am very happy to have them in my toolbox. Thanks again Steve!

You're welcome Jim - I like your comparison showing how NXT removed the grainy artifacts. Seems to be an easy choice?

Thanks for the comparison, Steve. I like the way NXT protects the details. To my eye it actually enhances detail while doing a better job of noise reduction. I'm going to be trying out the Windows PhotoShop version soon.

Bob

I agree Bob. Good luck.

By the way I also like how the amount of noise reduction can be adjusted in NXT by adjusting the Denoise parameter. No such adjustment in MureDenoise.

Steve

[Juno16]

Seems to be an easy choice?

Yes. I own it now. I have StarXTerminator already, so it was $39 instead of $59.

BTW, I don't know if you ever tried SXT, but I have found it to slightly edge out Starnet2 in many cases. Cleaner star removal. Not in every image, but most. Just my experience. Thanks Steve.

[STEVE333]

Seems to be an easy choice?

Yes. I own it now. I have StarXTerminator already, so it was $39 instead of $59.

BTW, I don't know if you ever tried SXT, but I have found it to slightly edge out Starnet2 in many cases. Cleaner star removal. Not in every image, but most. Just my experience. Thanks Steve.

Thanks Jim.

When making my recent mosaic Starnet2 didn't remove about 5 medium sized stars from one of the images! It's the first time I've ruin into that, but, it was very annoying! I had to use an alternate approach because I was going to need ALL the stars later to reinsert them at the end. I'm going to give StarXTerminator a try to see how it works on that same image.

That's a nice bonus getting $20 off when purchasing both XT programs.

Steve

[XCalRocketMan]

I have found NoiseXTerminator (NXT) to be far superior to MureDenoise:

• Visually the NXT processed images are much less noisey than the MureDenoise processed images.

I have been experimenting with NoiseXTerminator as well, and like you, have found it to be excellent. A few more processing runs while I have the 30 day trial to test it out more, but it looks like this is a purchase I'm willing to make.

[XCalRocketMan]

Seems to be an easy choice?

Yes. I own it now. I have StarXTerminator already, so it was $39 instead of $59.

BTW, I don't know if you ever tried SXT, but I have found it to slightly edge out Starnet2 in many cases. Cleaner star removal. Not in every image, but most. Just my experience. Thanks Steve.

Yeah, I've tried SXT during the trial period but I found, in my cases, that it didn't offer much above what StarNet2 was doing for no cost. So I decided not to purchase SXT.

[STEVE333]

I just purchased NoiseXTerminator and have downloaded the StarXTerminator free trial.

I used StarXTerminator on an image where Starnet2 left 4 or 5 medium bright stars. StarXTerminator worked perfectly. Very encouraging.

Steve

[Juno16]

Yeah, I've tried SXT during the trial period but I found, in my cases, that it didn't offer much above what StarNet2 was doing for no cost. So I decided not to purchase SXT.

Hi Michael,

I had already purchased SXT before Starnet2 was released. Starnet 2 was very much superior to Starnet++. When Starnet2 was released, it was superior to SXT until RC Astro released the latest version of STX. The latest version works better for me than Starnet2 in most (not all) cases as far as leaving residuals. Since I have both, I usually try a run of each and compare, then go with the cleanest starless version (and so far, it has been the SXT version for me).

Thanks!

[XCalRocketMan]

Yeah, I've tried SXT during the trial period but I found, in my cases, that it didn't offer much above what StarNet2 was doing for no cost. So I decided not to purchase SXT.

Hi Michael,

I had already purchased SXT before Starnet2 was released. Starnet 2 was very much superior to Starnet++. When Starnet2 was released, it was superior to SXT until RC Astro released the latest version of STX. The latest version works better for me than Starnet2 in most (not all) cases as far as leaving residuals. Since I have both, I usually try a run of each and compare, then go with the cleanest starless version (and so far, it has been the SXT version for me).

Thanks!

Well that's good to hear. Not sure if I'm ready to purchase both, but NXT is first up

[Jockinireland]

Thats a very valuable assessment and write up Steve, thanks. I fully agree that NX does an excellent job - both on the noise but also on improving detail and even sharpening the stars a little.