Posted by Larry Fischer on September 6, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Fairly new to RAW. Using a trial of NX2 and purchaced Capture One.
There seems to be an inverse relationship with noise and sharpness. Can anyone describe this if it does exist. Is there a balance that is a benchmark or is it in "the eye of the beholder"?
Thanks, the fisch
"That persons who enter reluctantly into offices become habituated, grow fond of it, and are loath to resign it. They feel themselves flattered and elevated, and are apt to forget their constituents, until the time returns that they again feel the want of them."--John DeWitt Essays, Nov. 5, 1787
Inverse relationship is a good enough description for me. The more noise, the more you break down the margins between light and dark or between colors, which is how we preceive sharpness.
I can't imagine the meristics involved in developing a benchmark to take it beyond the old eyeball method.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on September 6, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Sharpening, unless taken to crunchy extremes, does not create noise. Sharpening actually identifies what it believes to be boundaries between lighter and darker objects in the image, and darkens the dark side of the boundaries to a width determined by the radius value, and extent determined by the amount value, and lightens the light side of the boundaries by the same amount. Doing this creates the illusion of sharpness. If you have noise, sharpening will treat it the same way and enhance the contrast boundaries. By all means, get rid of your noise before you sharpen your images.
Posted by Buck Ward on September 6, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I don't know the technicalities, but I think you're right, there is a relationship between sharpening and noise. I don't think it's limited to RAW files though.
Sharpening must be applied judiciously. Sharpening too much accentuates noise, creates halos, and otherwise can degrade an image. Hence the critique term "over-sharpened."
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 6, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Great help so far. Thanks
The instructions on my program says sharpening depends on proposed use. A web photo does not do well with intense sharpening but for photographs it is recommended that sharpening be very high--according to the instructions (Capture One 4 program). Do you all agree????
And, what is an "average" radius, if there is one, that you recommend?
Good stuff!!!!
ther fisch
"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."--Andrew Carnegi
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 6, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Kelly's right. Sharpening won't "create" noise. If too much sharpening is applied, it will accentuate or make more noticeable the noise already present for the reasons stated. That said, if you're using low ISO settings, noise really shouldn't be an issue to begin with unless you're applying an inordinate amount of sharpening in which case you may also be getting halos and other sharpening artifacts.
What kind of ISO settings are you using?
Have you tried the High Pass method rather than Unsharp Mask? It's a much more subtle approach and less destructive as well.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on September 6, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Well, there is no "average radius". You have to eyeball it. First though you have to get to the actual print size on your monitor and do your eyeballing. Easier said than done, but bare with me...
Measure your monitor resolution. You know what your pixel count is in each direction from your monitor resolution settings. Measure your displayable height and width of your monitor and divide your resolution settings by those measurements. Normally the result will be the same. My Mac Cinemas are 102 ppi for example. Yours will be somewhere around that, ranging from 90-something to 120 ppi. Write that number down.
Open a duplicate copy of your image and set the resolution to be exactly what you wrote down in the last step. Then resize the image without resampling, to the size you are going to print. Never use View Print Size in any software, including Photoshop, as they all assume a monitor resolution of 72 dpi, something that hasn't existed since the time you booted an Apple off of a floppy disk.
Open your sharpening tool and set your amount to somewhere around 100% to 150%. Then, adjust your radius until your print "looks good". Looks good for print may not look so good on the monitor, but you'll get the right feel after a few test prints. Write down those values and toss the duplicate copy. We're done with that.
Go back to your original image and check the image resolution. Divide that number by the monitor resolution and write that number down. Multiply the radius you found in your duplicate image experiment by that ratio. That is your new radius value for sharpening this image. Open your sharpening tool and set the new radius and amount (amount from the duplicate image experiment). Image will look like crap, but the print will be excellent. Never do this for an image that is only displayed on the web. My radius values typically range from 1.6 to 2.2 and amounts from 100 to 150 percent.
That's just sharpening for output which you do just before the print or converting to CMYK for press. There are other times to sharpen, but not so drastic as this.
Hope that helps a bit...
Posted by John Mumaw on September 6, 2008 at 7:58 PM
1) I wouldn't sharpen in the RAW converter unless that's where you do all of your image editing. Sharpening should be your last step, so if you import your converted images to PS or another image editor, save the sharpening 'til you finish there.
2) Not every single part of the image needs to be sharpened (e.g. skies, etc.). I only sharpen in PS because I can selectively sharpen my images using layers and layer masks. Also, I can sharpen only the Luminosity (lightness) channel by changing the Layer Blend mode from normal to Luminosity, avoiding artifacts and color fringing that may occur when you sharpen the color (RGB) channels.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 6, 2008 at 8:26 PM
One caveat to what John said....a lot of people (the guys at Pixel Genius among them, who developed the very popular PhotoKit Sharpener) use a three step sharpening flow.
1) Capture sharpening from the RAW file. Usually a small amount, because you aren't sharpening for any final product (web or print). The point of this step is simply to bring back a little of the sharpness that the camera loses via the anti-aliasing filter and demosaicing of the RAW file.
2) Creative sharpening of the TIFF/PSD/JPG for really doing proper sharpening on screen, and targeted to certain areas, etc. Whatever you feel the image needs, really.
3) Output sharpening where you sharpen again based on the print medium, size, printer, etc.
So, what I'm getting at, is that for a lot of people, sharpening isn't a last step - it's involved throughout the process. It may still be the last step prior to printing or web presentation still though.
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 8, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Yes, all this helps. Appreciate the time all of you took to reply. I'll study everyone's info and compare it with my instructions for CaptureOne.
I've been doing sharpening in RAW and that appears not to be recommended. I guess I need to start saving for PS.................... I'm using an oldie call PhotoImpact. No layering, etc. Sharpening appears to be crude.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Larry - If you only feel like you need some of the functionality of PS, PS Elements is a nice option. It's all I've ever owned - although limited 16-bit image support could be a deal-breaker.
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The post processing capabilities of PS intrigues me.
I do (attempt) some astronomical photography. The apparent "layering" of multiple images would be of benefit to reduce exposure times and associated "tracking" issues with the telescope. PS is just so widely taked about I guess it is the best. I'm using Phase One Capture One 4. It seems adequate and has a good work flow, but in comparing noise reduction in RAW (which now I guess I should wait for post processing) with Nikon Capture NX 2 I think noise is reduced better by Nikon. Color seems a bit more brilliant also. I guess that can/could be controlled after initial processing. We all have to have something for which to work; perhaps mine is PS, eh? I'm re-studyining my instruction manual for Phase One for noise and sharp.... Thanks again for the input.
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 8, 2008 at 4:30 PM
One question was asked (Robert Fisher) what kind of ISO I'm using.
I do a lot of sunrise, sunset. I use a tripod and seldom shoot above 200. Shooting a Nikon D300 I'm usually between Low -1.0 and ISO 200, with intermediate settings of Low -0.7 and Low -0.3 available as one approaches ISO 200. Low -1.0 translates into ISO 100-160. I primarily use small aperatures and have long exposures. Low ISO, as I understand, does not give as much contrast but I can gain that back in processing. Low ISO is also, if I understand correctly, conducive to less noise.
Kelly, your're radius of 1.6 to 2.2 is larger than Phase One recommends as a starting point. But as I read your presentation, you are talking pre-printing, right?
They also recommend a 2-stage sharpening. First for fine detail in the image. Secondly, a more aggressive sharpening after the image has been sized for printe dimensions. I think that is where you are because they mentioned it could look overdone for printing but usually is not. In passing, the program apparently has "sharpening presets" which I need to try.
Phase One speaks of Noise Reduction in terms of Luminance, Color Noise.
Posted by David Bostedo on September 8, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Larry - Noise reduction should definitely be done in RAW if you are talking about a general reduction over the whole image. More agressive or targeted reduction can be done in other ways. RAW noise reduction using the RAW data is better done, IMO, than the noise reduction algorithms post processing.
Sharpening is what is being more recommended as done post RAW processing. And as far as techniques go, here are a couple of good articles by Thom Hogan and Ron Bigelow. Ron Bigelow's goes through several different technique, with various types of masking.
As far as PS goes, layers and stacking and masks can be done in Elements (perhaps by downloading a plugin for masks). The deal breaker may be that it has limited 16 bit support. So if you save 16 bit TIFFs, you'd probably need CS3/CS4.
As for noise reduction, it's almost always done in terms of luminance and color noise. And the noise is just as likely to be related to exposure length, and getting proper exposure, as it is to ISO. Underexposing is sure to reveal a lot more noise during RAW processing. Whatever the ISO, exposing to the right (ETTR) if possible is the best way to minimize noise. This means you expose so that the highlights are very close to being clipped, even if it means you're overexposing the image. Then you bring it back down during RAW conversion. This maximizes the signal to noise ratio on the sensor, so the noise is minimized.
Finally, the "Low" modes of ISO on your camera aren't really low ISO. Instead, the camera takes an exposure at a higher ISO (200 in your case) and converts the RAW data in camera. You could theoretically get the exact same result by using ISO 200 and adjusting the exposure yourself. See this thread for more info.
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 8, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Yes, Larry you're right. There are two components to noise - colour noise and luminance noise. Colour noise is easier to get rid of without softening or otherwise degrading the image file. I asked about the ISO you were using because it sounded like you were getting a fair bit of noise in your shots which shouldn't happen at lower ISO settings unless you've got areas of underexposure.
There's also a difference between noise and what's called dark current. Dark current is what you get with longer exposures. Noise is random. Dark current is not. Dark current is entirely repeatable under the same conditions. This is why many cameras now have what the manufacturers call 'long exposure noise reduction'. Using the term dark current rather than noise would simply confuse people even more. What the camera does with this feature turned on is it makes a second exposure immediately after the first with the lens diaphragm close (no light gets in). The second, or dark frame exposure, is for the same length of time as the original. What happens then is that since dark current is repeatable, the computer in the camera compares the two frames and effectively subtracts the dark current or 'long exposure noise' from the original capture, leaving you with a cleaner, less 'noisy' image. If you're using longer exposures with your sunrise/sunset shots and your camera has this feature (I don't know Nikon gear, I shoot Canon) you might try turning it on to see what difference it makes.
As far as actual noise, there's no more noise at 1600 ISO than there is at 100 ISO. The noise 'appears' more evident because of the boosting that has to happen to the electronic signal from the sensor as the light data is captured. You're boosting the signal but that also boosts the noise. As you boost the ISO above the natural sensitivity of the sensor; which is the lowest ISO setting you can shoot at without invoking special functions, you also boost the noise and the signal to noise ratio degrades, making the noise appear more evident.
I don't know how many years you've had your current digital darkroom software but you might look at upgrading. Technology changes rapidly. Both noise reduction and sharpening algorithms have been improved. P1, while a terrific RAW converter isn't, in my opinion, as good as Adobe Camera RAW. The latest version of ACR is very, very good. It has good noise reduction tools built in. There's also a sharpening tool, although it's not quite as good as the tools in PS or PSE.
I'm not going to get into actual workflow specifics because everyone has their own and are very passionate about how they work their photos and will get into very heated arguments about whether or not a single sharpening is better, when to do it, etc. I'm not a fan of USM, others are. Use whatever works for you.
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 9, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Again thanks for the thoughtful and knowlegable replies.
My RAW program is modern. PhaseOne, CaptureOne 4. It does 16-bit color to TIFF or JPEG.
I'm new to this level of digital photography. So far I've learned:
-shoot to the right to fill the pixels but don't clip except for tips of clouds and sun
-color noise and luminence noise are different. Color noise is easier to treat and "does not soften" the image
-use camera's lowest "natural ISO" without invoking camera's special function of noise reduction which can boost noise production (Nikon D300 would be ISO 200); but it has been suggested to try the long exposure noise reduction feature for comparison by a Canon shooter.
-don't confuse "dark current" with noise
-reduce noise in RAW but adjust sharpness in post-RAW program for output to web or print, each of which require different adjustments. Some photos for prints may appear "oversharpened".
-I have not printed anything large through a professional lab; perhaps this would be the best teacher?
-eventually I will need a 16 bit PS CS3/CS4 $$$$
Agreed?????? the fisch
Posted by David Bostedo on September 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Larry - some responses :
-use camera's lowest "natural ISO" without invoking camera's special function of noise reduction which can boost noise production (Nikon D300 would be ISO 200); but it has been suggested to try the long exposure noise reduction feature for comparison by a Canon shooter.
There's nothing wrong with using the Low ISO modes on your camera if it gives you the result to want. You may lose a bit of dynamic range, but likely the camera is doing a bit of ETTR for you. Whether you use ISO 200 or lower, if you aren't blowing the highlights, you should be getting good quality.
-don't confuse "dark current" with noise
Well it's still "noise" in the broadest sense...just that it's not random, so it can be compensated for, just like vignetting or lens distortions (if you're familiar with those).
-I have not printed anything large through a professional lab; perhaps this would be the best teacher?
Perhaps, but I've learned a lot more by printing myself. There's much more opportunity to play with file preparation. Not to mention printer settings and papers, etc. Small sections of large prints, prepared several different ways, are a decent option to save money from the labs. For instance, if you want to print something 24"x18", you might want to print a representative part of the image and crop out a 5x7 piece. Then you can get a bunch of 5x7's made with various settings, papers, etc, and see what you like.
-eventually I will need a 16 bit PS CS3/CS4 $$$$
There's nothing wrong with just using Lightroom if it suits what you need. But PS is a totally different beast, as I think you've realized. There are alternatives though to spending $$$$ - the main one being the free GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program). Pretty powerful, most of the features of PS including curves, layers, masks, etc. Once again, like Elements, the big sticking point is the 16-bit support. Perhaps it would be worth trying in 8-bit mode (JPG or 8-bit TIFF) just to see what you can do with it. It IS free after all. I'm not sure what other cheaper programs are out there with 16-bit support.
Discussion
16 repliesThere seems to be an inverse relationship with noise and sharpness. Can anyone describe this if it does exist. Is there a balance that is a benchmark or is it in "the eye of the beholder"?
Thanks, the fisch
"That persons who enter reluctantly into offices become habituated, grow fond of it, and are loath to resign it. They feel themselves flattered and elevated, and are apt to forget their constituents, until the time returns that they again feel the want of them."--John DeWitt Essays, Nov. 5, 1787
I can't imagine the meristics involved in developing a benchmark to take it beyond the old eyeball method.
Sharpening must be applied judiciously. Sharpening too much accentuates noise, creates halos, and otherwise can degrade an image. Hence the critique term "over-sharpened."
The instructions on my program says sharpening depends on proposed use. A web photo does not do well with intense sharpening but for photographs it is recommended that sharpening be very high--according to the instructions (Capture One 4 program). Do you all agree????
And, what is an "average" radius, if there is one, that you recommend?
Good stuff!!!!
ther fisch
"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."--Andrew Carnegi
What kind of ISO settings are you using?
Have you tried the High Pass method rather than Unsharp Mask? It's a much more subtle approach and less destructive as well.
Measure your monitor resolution. You know what your pixel count is in each direction from your monitor resolution settings. Measure your displayable height and width of your monitor and divide your resolution settings by those measurements. Normally the result will be the same. My Mac Cinemas are 102 ppi for example. Yours will be somewhere around that, ranging from 90-something to 120 ppi. Write that number down.
Open a duplicate copy of your image and set the resolution to be exactly what you wrote down in the last step. Then resize the image without resampling, to the size you are going to print. Never use View Print Size in any software, including Photoshop, as they all assume a monitor resolution of 72 dpi, something that hasn't existed since the time you booted an Apple off of a floppy disk.
Open your sharpening tool and set your amount to somewhere around 100% to 150%. Then, adjust your radius until your print "looks good". Looks good for print may not look so good on the monitor, but you'll get the right feel after a few test prints. Write down those values and toss the duplicate copy. We're done with that.
Go back to your original image and check the image resolution. Divide that number by the monitor resolution and write that number down. Multiply the radius you found in your duplicate image experiment by that ratio. That is your new radius value for sharpening this image. Open your sharpening tool and set the new radius and amount (amount from the duplicate image experiment). Image will look like crap, but the print will be excellent. Never do this for an image that is only displayed on the web. My radius values typically range from 1.6 to 2.2 and amounts from 100 to 150 percent.
That's just sharpening for output which you do just before the print or converting to CMYK for press. There are other times to sharpen, but not so drastic as this.
Hope that helps a bit...
2) Not every single part of the image needs to be sharpened (e.g. skies, etc.). I only sharpen in PS because I can selectively sharpen my images using layers and layer masks. Also, I can sharpen only the Luminosity (lightness) channel by changing the Layer Blend mode from normal to Luminosity, avoiding artifacts and color fringing that may occur when you sharpen the color (RGB) channels.
1) Capture sharpening from the RAW file. Usually a small amount, because you aren't sharpening for any final product (web or print). The point of this step is simply to bring back a little of the sharpness that the camera loses via the anti-aliasing filter and demosaicing of the RAW file.
2) Creative sharpening of the TIFF/PSD/JPG for really doing proper sharpening on screen, and targeted to certain areas, etc. Whatever you feel the image needs, really.
3) Output sharpening where you sharpen again based on the print medium, size, printer, etc.
So, what I'm getting at, is that for a lot of people, sharpening isn't a last step - it's involved throughout the process. It may still be the last step prior to printing or web presentation still though.
I've been doing sharpening in RAW and that appears not to be recommended. I guess I need to start saving for PS.................... I'm using an oldie call PhotoImpact. No layering, etc. Sharpening appears to be crude.
I do (attempt) some astronomical photography. The apparent "layering" of multiple images would be of benefit to reduce exposure times and associated "tracking" issues with the telescope. PS is just so widely taked about I guess it is the best. I'm using Phase One Capture One 4. It seems adequate and has a good work flow, but in comparing noise reduction in RAW (which now I guess I should wait for post processing) with Nikon Capture NX 2 I think noise is reduced better by Nikon. Color seems a bit more brilliant also. I guess that can/could be controlled after initial processing. We all have to have something for which to work; perhaps mine is PS, eh? I'm re-studyining my instruction manual for Phase One for noise and sharp.... Thanks again for the input.
I do a lot of sunrise, sunset. I use a tripod and seldom shoot above 200. Shooting a Nikon D300 I'm usually between Low -1.0 and ISO 200, with intermediate settings of Low -0.7 and Low -0.3 available as one approaches ISO 200. Low -1.0 translates into ISO 100-160. I primarily use small aperatures and have long exposures. Low ISO, as I understand, does not give as much contrast but I can gain that back in processing. Low ISO is also, if I understand correctly, conducive to less noise.
Kelly, your're radius of 1.6 to 2.2 is larger than Phase One recommends as a starting point. But as I read your presentation, you are talking pre-printing, right?
They also recommend a 2-stage sharpening. First for fine detail in the image. Secondly, a more aggressive sharpening after the image has been sized for printe dimensions. I think that is where you are because they mentioned it could look overdone for printing but usually is not. In passing, the program apparently has "sharpening presets" which I need to try.
Phase One speaks of Noise Reduction in terms of Luminance, Color Noise.
Sharpening is what is being more recommended as done post RAW processing. And as far as techniques go, here are a couple of good articles by Thom Hogan and Ron Bigelow. Ron Bigelow's goes through several different technique, with various types of masking.
As far as PS goes, layers and stacking and masks can be done in Elements (perhaps by downloading a plugin for masks). The deal breaker may be that it has limited 16 bit support. So if you save 16 bit TIFFs, you'd probably need CS3/CS4.
As for noise reduction, it's almost always done in terms of luminance and color noise. And the noise is just as likely to be related to exposure length, and getting proper exposure, as it is to ISO. Underexposing is sure to reveal a lot more noise during RAW processing. Whatever the ISO, exposing to the right (ETTR) if possible is the best way to minimize noise. This means you expose so that the highlights are very close to being clipped, even if it means you're overexposing the image. Then you bring it back down during RAW conversion. This maximizes the signal to noise ratio on the sensor, so the noise is minimized.
Finally, the "Low" modes of ISO on your camera aren't really low ISO. Instead, the camera takes an exposure at a higher ISO (200 in your case) and converts the RAW data in camera. You could theoretically get the exact same result by using ISO 200 and adjusting the exposure yourself. See this thread for more info.
There's also a difference between noise and what's called dark current. Dark current is what you get with longer exposures. Noise is random. Dark current is not. Dark current is entirely repeatable under the same conditions. This is why many cameras now have what the manufacturers call 'long exposure noise reduction'. Using the term dark current rather than noise would simply confuse people even more. What the camera does with this feature turned on is it makes a second exposure immediately after the first with the lens diaphragm close (no light gets in). The second, or dark frame exposure, is for the same length of time as the original. What happens then is that since dark current is repeatable, the computer in the camera compares the two frames and effectively subtracts the dark current or 'long exposure noise' from the original capture, leaving you with a cleaner, less 'noisy' image. If you're using longer exposures with your sunrise/sunset shots and your camera has this feature (I don't know Nikon gear, I shoot Canon) you might try turning it on to see what difference it makes.
As far as actual noise, there's no more noise at 1600 ISO than there is at 100 ISO. The noise 'appears' more evident because of the boosting that has to happen to the electronic signal from the sensor as the light data is captured. You're boosting the signal but that also boosts the noise. As you boost the ISO above the natural sensitivity of the sensor; which is the lowest ISO setting you can shoot at without invoking special functions, you also boost the noise and the signal to noise ratio degrades, making the noise appear more evident.
I don't know how many years you've had your current digital darkroom software but you might look at upgrading. Technology changes rapidly. Both noise reduction and sharpening algorithms have been improved. P1, while a terrific RAW converter isn't, in my opinion, as good as Adobe Camera RAW. The latest version of ACR is very, very good. It has good noise reduction tools built in. There's also a sharpening tool, although it's not quite as good as the tools in PS or PSE.
I'm not going to get into actual workflow specifics because everyone has their own and are very passionate about how they work their photos and will get into very heated arguments about whether or not a single sharpening is better, when to do it, etc. I'm not a fan of USM, others are. Use whatever works for you.
My RAW program is modern. PhaseOne, CaptureOne 4. It does 16-bit color to TIFF or JPEG.
I'm new to this level of digital photography. So far I've learned:
-shoot to the right to fill the pixels but don't clip except for tips of clouds and sun
-color noise and luminence noise are different. Color noise is easier to treat and "does not soften" the image
-use camera's lowest "natural ISO" without invoking camera's special function of noise reduction which can boost noise production (Nikon D300 would be ISO 200); but it has been suggested to try the long exposure noise reduction feature for comparison by a Canon shooter.
-don't confuse "dark current" with noise
-reduce noise in RAW but adjust sharpness in post-RAW program for output to web or print, each of which require different adjustments. Some photos for prints may appear "oversharpened".
-I have not printed anything large through a professional lab; perhaps this would be the best teacher?
-eventually I will need a 16 bit PS CS3/CS4 $$$$
Agreed?????? the fisch
There's nothing wrong with using the Low ISO modes on your camera if it gives you the result to want. You may lose a bit of dynamic range, but likely the camera is doing a bit of ETTR for you. Whether you use ISO 200 or lower, if you aren't blowing the highlights, you should be getting good quality.
Well it's still "noise" in the broadest sense...just that it's not random, so it can be compensated for, just like vignetting or lens distortions (if you're familiar with those).
Perhaps, but I've learned a lot more by printing myself. There's much more opportunity to play with file preparation. Not to mention printer settings and papers, etc. Small sections of large prints, prepared several different ways, are a decent option to save money from the labs. For instance, if you want to print something 24"x18", you might want to print a representative part of the image and crop out a 5x7 piece. Then you can get a bunch of 5x7's made with various settings, papers, etc, and see what you like.
There's nothing wrong with just using Lightroom if it suits what you need. But PS is a totally different beast, as I think you've realized. There are alternatives though to spending $$$$ - the main one being the free GIMP (Gnu Image Manipulation Program). Pretty powerful, most of the features of PS including curves, layers, masks, etc. Once again, like Elements, the big sticking point is the 16-bit support. Perhaps it would be worth trying in 8-bit mode (JPG or 8-bit TIFF) just to see what you can do with it. It IS free after all. I'm not sure what other cheaper programs are out there with 16-bit support.