Originally Posted by skibum5000
how can you call skynet the best of the three? It looks hideously waxy and unreal? encoding styles don't do that unles you are like talking HUGE differences in bitrate and encoder, like 40 vs 5 or something.
I do lots of still photography and it looks an awful lot to me what some NR plug-ins can do when turned up a bit.... I don't get why you don't think that looks at all like NR, when that exact look has shown up on tons of digital still photography forums....
Personally I think all three look hideous. Of the three, the Skynet has the least artifacting, etc added to the part which looks to be the original DI. I said too how the other two have lots of chroma noise too. It doesn't look like NR, but more Gaussian blur. Unless you consider a Gausian blur a form of noise reduction? I Also think a mild amount of unsharpen like mask was added before the application of Gaussian blur. I also think the original DI was fiddled with, similar to how you can use various processing to a camera raw using Photoshop ACR before loading a image.
The chroma noise, IMHO, is hiding and masking the problems in the other two. So they aren't necessarily better. But this is like arguing which soup tastes the least bad.
Basically, I'm thinking, no matter if you were to have a pixel for pixel representation of the DI used for this, it'd still look like garbage. Therefore, again IMHO, the Skynet is the closest in my eyes to what this particular DI looks like.