8MP noise issue

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I've been looking at three new 8mp cameras:

Nikon 8700
Olympus 8080
Konica Minolta Dimage A2


I looked at all three a few days ago and was impressed with some of the
Minolta's features (high res EVF, Anti-shake, auto EVF-LCD mode, manual
focus, 5 user configs, overall form-factor...)

Then I looked at some shots at steves-digicams. What a difference a photo
makes!

Apparently, they all use the Sony CCD yet, for example, the noise exhibited
on the Minolta at higher iso's (>200) is *much* worse than the others. So
it's a software issue? If so, could it be corrected or improved through an
update?


L.
2 answers Last reply
More about noise issue
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    "listener" <listener@nospam.net> wrote in message news:Xns94C797EB53337some1outthere@38.144.126.102...
    > I've been looking at three new 8mp cameras:
    >
    > Nikon 8700
    > Olympus 8080
    > Konica Minolta Dimage A2
    >
    >
    > I looked at all three a few days ago and was impressed with some of the
    > Minolta's features (high res EVF, Anti-shake, auto EVF-LCD mode, manual
    > focus, 5 user configs, overall form-factor...)
    >
    > Then I looked at some shots at steves-digicams. What a difference a photo
    > makes!
    >
    > Apparently, they all use the Sony CCD yet, for example, the noise exhibited
    > on the Minolta at higher iso's (>200) is *much* worse than the others. So
    > it's a software issue? If so, could it be corrected or improved through an
    > update?

    Corrected? No. Improved? Yes. The 2.7 micron dot pitch
    of Sony's 8MP CCD has proven to be just too small to avoid
    severe chromatic aberration problems, and no amount of
    processing can correct it, although processing can convert the
    fringing to neutral tones which makes it less apparent.

    Rick
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

    On 10 Apr 2004 18:55:09 GMT, listener <listener@nospam.net> vaguely
    proposed a theory
    .......and in reply I say!:
    remove ns from my header address to reply via email

    It appears that if I post my usual ramblings, I get the piss taken,
    but here we go again. I hope I am not condescending. You are looking
    at a fair bit of money and appear to have had a bit of a shock.

    As Rick said, it can be improved.

    However, several things:

    - AFAICS, noise and other problems get worse as you try to pack more
    and more pixels into an area on a sensor. Makers are doing this to
    keep lens sizes down for a given Zoom power.

    - Rick mentioned chromatic aberation. This usually shows as "blue
    fringing". It's not what I refer to as noise, but I see certainly that
    it can be, because noise is "unwanted information". Is this what you
    mean? If so, then post-processing can remove the blue cast, and if you
    really, really want the picture, you can maybe recolour the affected
    areas (which are often left grey). I am still working on doing this
    last bit. At present on shots that I really care about, I actually
    cover the fringe with a clone of a nearby area, zoomed right in to the
    fringing. This can be very tedious. Difficulty depends on the photo,
    and whether you want a presentable, "rescued" picture or are really
    after "that shot".

    - if you mean speckling, then it _can_ be a software/firmware issue.
    * Many cameras have built-in noise reduction algorithms. Some only
    apply them at your behest. Others apply them automatically, probably
    on longer exposures.
    * No software is going to "fix" the problem without affecting the
    picture's sharpness to greater or lesser extent. You may find that the
    camera then adds "sharpness" to the picture, tereby in essence
    corrupting it even more.
    ** In a much lower field, I have an Oly 750 (apart from a funds
    shortage, I wanted to be sure that digital cameras were going to
    revive my photography). It has noise reduction for exposures longer
    then 1/2 second (1 sec?). This is pretty clever at removing noise, but
    does remove a tiny amount of sharpness. The post-processing way is to:
    *** have shots of your lens cap, and arithmetically sibtract
    these from the picture. This works quite well, but in the end you have
    to still get rid of some of thw worst spots. Can again be tedious.
    *** use a programme like Noise Ninja. Again this will affect
    the final picture's detail. However, you can set the level of
    smoothing, and the sharpness and contrast of the final result, and
    preview it, unlike a camera, which will probably be very "generic".

    * It's very difficult to compare "noise" between cameras without
    having a standard shot. It annoys me a bit that this has never been
    done by the reviewers AFAIHS. Grey background, ISo various, exposure
    various. Show results. Noise is affected by many things. For instance;
    exposure time (longer = worse), ISO speed (higher = worse), amount of
    feature in parts of the shot (less = more noticeable). I started to
    look at the pictures shown for the cameras you mentioned, but at my
    piddly little 26400 dl speed, I could be here all day. Can you name
    any of those pictures that were particularly troubling to you? I would
    be interested enough to have a look, see what I think may have caused
    the differences, and run Noise Ninja over them to see if I can get a
    result. I may not even be set up to get the best results (you need a
    noise chart for the camera itself to do that) but I have seen some
    amazing improvements.

    BTW, I use Noise Ninja. I have no affilation otherwise. I think it's a
    bloody great little programme though.


    >I've been looking at three new 8mp cameras:
    >
    >Nikon 8700
    >Olympus 8080
    >Konica Minolta Dimage A2
    >
    >
    >I looked at all three a few days ago and was impressed with some of the
    >Minolta's features (high res EVF, Anti-shake, auto EVF-LCD mode, manual
    >focus, 5 user configs, overall form-factor...)
    >
    >Then I looked at some shots at steves-digicams. What a difference a photo
    >makes!
    >
    >Apparently, they all use the Sony CCD yet, for example, the noise exhibited
    >on the Minolta at higher iso's (>200) is *much* worse than the others. So
    >it's a software issue? If so, could it be corrected or improved through an
    >update?
    >
    >
    >L.

    ****************************************************
    I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
    us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
    .........no I'm not.
Ask a new question

Read More

Cameras Peripherals