There is one other part to this though: speed to render. Interestingly the FCP X NR seemed to work best with “medium” levels of noise. Hopefully this is to be expected considering one comes with FCP X and one costs over a hundred bucks, however the difference was perhaps more than I expected. I’m guessing as I write this that YouTube will kill a bit of the result with it’s compression, however hopefully it’s pretty clear: NeatVideo does a much nicer job than the built in tool.
VIDEO NOISE REDUCTION FCPX ISO
I exposed each camera correctly for each ISO I wanted to test. I simulated a darker environment by killing most of the light and stopping down my aperture. The colours are darker which also shows more noise. I set up the cameras in a dim studio which has a reasonable amount of flat colour (so the noise shows more clearly). Canon EOS R with a 24-105 F/4 R mount lens.Panasonic GH5 with a Olympus 25mm F/1.2 lens.
VIDEO NOISE REDUCTION FCPX PROFESSIONAL
![video noise reduction fcpx video noise reduction fcpx](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RZjXF_3TgDQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
I grabbed three different cameras that I feel are typical of “run and gun” style cameras. This is a very quick and dirty test, but hopefully gives a sense of the difference between the two.
![video noise reduction fcpx video noise reduction fcpx](https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/28550-44598-Final-Cut-Pro-X-workflow-extensions-CatDV-11152018-xl.jpg)
Having purchased NeatVideo’s noise reduction filter some years ago (and upgraded to the latest version when it was released) I was keen to see how Apple’s version compared with the paid plug-in from NeatVideo. One of the new headline features of the release was inbuilt noise reduction. Apple this past week released a new version of FCP X (version 10.4.4).