03-01-2011, 02:25 PM
As written above: You won't see an improvement, because you can't trick the laws of physic.
Color and luminance noise will have the same levels *and* you have a higher risk of posterisation in critial parts. Underexposure will reduce the bit depth your sensor chip is theoreticly able to deal with. By compensating the underexposure during postprocessing you "stretch" the bits and *may* cause visible colour gaps. It is not an issue in most cases.
If you have troubles with visible noise artifacts/reduced details using built-in noise reduction in Camera RAW/Lightroom or DPP (or other RAW converters) I strongly suggest to take a look towards tools like Noiseware, Noise Ninja, NeatImage and Topaz DeNoise. Dealing with high noise levels is always a compromise between noise reduction and loss of detail. DPP tries to deal noise with two rulers. Noiseware has some 3 dozens, but you won't have to use them and just rely on default settings most of the time.
Ciao, Walter
Color and luminance noise will have the same levels *and* you have a higher risk of posterisation in critial parts. Underexposure will reduce the bit depth your sensor chip is theoreticly able to deal with. By compensating the underexposure during postprocessing you "stretch" the bits and *may* cause visible colour gaps. It is not an issue in most cases.
If you have troubles with visible noise artifacts/reduced details using built-in noise reduction in Camera RAW/Lightroom or DPP (or other RAW converters) I strongly suggest to take a look towards tools like Noiseware, Noise Ninja, NeatImage and Topaz DeNoise. Dealing with high noise levels is always a compromise between noise reduction and loss of detail. DPP tries to deal noise with two rulers. Noiseware has some 3 dozens, but you won't have to use them and just rely on default settings most of the time.
Ciao, Walter