@frullaccia I did a reply in the correct topic about e vs. i, please keep on topic, thanks.

@apefos: Sorry to post in this thread since it's about denoising, but is it possible to modify the matrix for higher sharpness too? Not like Moon T4 for example. What I mean is to increase the micro sharpness instead of total sharpness.

@apefos Rainy afternoon, teleconverter on, full zoom, no tripod. Trees at 200-250 meters. Version 24 from this denoise patch vs version I from "The Patch". MP4 files; same compression. Link: https://bft.usu.edu/rf6mj https://bft.usu.edu/d8q4z

This thing can have an interesting solution for denoise, if my theory is correct.

I did some tests with neatvideo right now. What happens is:

In a iso 2000 video with luma and chroma noise, if you apply just spatial denoise, there is no tremble in denoised video. If you apply temporal denoise, some areas of image trembles. The more the amount of temporal denoise, the more the tremble. NeatVideo levels for temporal denoise are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 0 is disabled, 1 is one frame before, one frame after, and so on... the temporal denoise when comparing the previous and after pixels changes the position of the rendered image in some areas.

The "the patch" are tweaked to show the noise from the sensor, not to hide it, in an attempt to deliver a cinematic, filmic image, good for the big screen.

The "denoise 24" is tweaked to compress more the image and mud the noise and texture into a flat look, better for low datarate web videos.

The videos uploaded by @frullaccia have a MP4 recompression from the original MTS videos. The MP4 recompression does some kind of temporal compression using information from one frame to another from the original I, P and B frames, to generate new more compressed I, P and B frames. This way the high compression of MP4 acts as a denoise, because high compression muds the noise and textures. This allows we to can explain why the images from the "the patch I" trembles after recompression and from the "denoise 24" does not tremble: it is because there is less noise in the denoise 24 video, then the MP4 recompression does not need to mud any significant noise, so when using information from before and after frames to generate the new I, P and B frames the parts of image keeps in the same place. So the "denoise 24" patch is proving to be better for recompressed videos for web upload.

One thing I do not know yet: would be better to disable the deblocking tables or would it helps even more to avoid noise and macroblocking? Here it is the "denoise 24" now with a deblocking table enabled and also a better tweaked chroma matrix. Probably the "denoise 24" is the sweet spot because the quantization in luma matrix is 1.5 and in the chroma matrix is 2.94 resulting in a final quantization near 2. This can handle all the isos. Also 24 is 4x6 which is interesting maths. 24 is also the last digit of the great 24p matrix in the "the patch" which delivers the best texture in the dcn6 series. Now deblocking is following these maths in the "denoise 24".

Based on these tests I also did another version of the "denoise 36" following same maths ideas. The higher quantization on it can be better for in camera denoised videos from high iso. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the new "denoise 24" vs. the new "denoise 36" in iso 2000 which is a good high iso limit for the GH2. Both compressed to MP4 using same compression level.

@frullaccia the handheld streess tests you do are great to develop the "denoise" patches. you show same areas and movements in each shoot, great for comparisons. the recompression to mp4 also helps to see which patch will look better after editing and recompression. Thanks!

One question: which picture profile are you using and which noise reduction level are you using in the picture profile? Thanks again.

these versions are not working ok, use upload from previous post, without fallback and deblocking tables

@apefos All these versions are interesting. The texture is always very good. I cannot see big differences between 12 and 40. But I should test again in low lights at high iso.

Probably Denoise 24 has a little less noise than I.

IDynamic was disabled. OIS and autofocus single were on. The profile of the camera was in Standard mode (-2 -2 +1 -2). ISO was 160 (I also made a try at 800 ISO).

HBR is also very well performing.

Talking about mp4 compression, I think you're right. I noticed a strange denoise compression from the 24version file, the first time I made these copies. Once they were compressed, the difference between 24 and "I" was not real. The 24 version being much more neat than the original mts file. I made this second copy, which is more realistic (I didn't change any compression set. I just made a second copy from the original file, to see what happened).

Yes. After the first compression, denoise 24 was much more neat. I made a second copy from the original, which came out with a different result. I don't know why. It is the copy that you have seen.

So...

I can tell, all these versions show a very fine texture.

the difference in chroma noise between denoise and the patch is not so significant, but I used some ideas from denoise in the the patch fallback to improve chroma noise reduction, so I will keep using the patch.