Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NOISE

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:38:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise...Damn boring if it didn't...Perhaps
its what the noise looks like? Another words; many times-I see noise in
digital images...that's more like- spotted artifacts...With film...its more
grain like...Digital needs to get past this-plastic like-sheen..and
incorporate...film noise...into there cameras....

--
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{)
Patrick
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
A+Certified Tech....
-------------------------------------------------
My name is Patrick Boch-and I approve this message.
-----------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More about : noise

Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:38:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Patrick Boch" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D zvPd.38231$i42.13724@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise...Damn boring if it
> didn't...Perhaps its what the noise looks like? Another words; many
> times-I see noise in digital images...that's more like- spotted
> artifacts...With film...its more grain like...Digital needs to get past
> this-plastic like-sheen..and incorporate...film noise...into there
> cameras....

Photography is about recording and, at the same time, is an art form. Noise
is sometimes a nice addition to the art form but is usually not wanted for
recording.
February 13, 2005 1:38:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick Boch wrote:
> Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise...Damn boring if it didn't...Perhaps
> its what the noise looks like? Another words; many times-I see noise in
> digital images...that's more like- spotted artifacts...With film...its more
> grain like...Digital needs to get past this-plastic like-sheen..and
> incorporate...film noise...into there cameras....


I think what you are thinking of may be jpeg compression artifacts if
it's smearing over more than a few pixels. If CCD's could shoot in B&W
the noise grain would be a single pixel as opposed to interpolated
across the surrounding R,G&B pixels. I do see what you mean about the
larger blobby blur type of noise.
Related resources
February 13, 2005 1:38:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick Boch wrote:

>Digital needs to get past
> this-plastic like-sheen.

I agree. I've shot with several of the dSLR's and IMHO some just look "waxy"
even though they are void of most noise. I'm more interested in the overall
lood of the images/prints that looking at 200% crops =looking= for noise.
These waxy looking images aren't my cup of tea either, YMMV.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:38:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:38:27 GMT, "Patrick Boch"
> <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise.
>
> There is no noise in the world of film photography; film grain is not
> noise. In the CCD/CMOS world, noise is pixels that have some value,
> that wasn't recorded by photons entering the camera. Film is a
> chemical media and each and every grain of emulsion are only affected
> by the light striking it.
The grain does in fact introduce noise, you can even quantify it. For
any given area of the film there will be some random error as to the
light level that was in the original scene. This is noise and how much
it bothers you pretty much a matter of taste.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:38:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <377o9sF5asrh8U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Patrick Boch wrote:
>
> >Digital needs to get past
> > this-plastic like-sheen.
>
> I agree. I've shot with several of the dSLR's and IMHO some just look "waxy"
> even though they are void of most noise. I'm more interested in the overall
> lood of the images/prints that looking at 200% crops =looking= for noise.
> These waxy looking images aren't my cup of tea either, YMMV.

I think you're seeing noise filtering. If a small detail doesn't appear
to be part of a larger pattern, it gets blurred out. Trees, shrubs,
grass blades, and roof shingles are the usual victims. It gives photos
a VHS video look. CMOS sensors from a few years ago needed big fat gobs
of filtering. CCD sensors need lots of filtering when they heat up from
use. The good news is that today's CMOS sensors need almost no
filtering with an ISO in the 50 to 200 range. Photos look a lot more
realistic.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 2:12:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've played around with some RAW images off a D70, and I've been able to
reproduce a very grain-like noise that resembles film when you enlarge it.
When "really" blown up it did pixelate, but before that you'd swear the
image was made on film. I'm estimating while it still looks like "grain"
the image was at least 16x20. And all I used was the Nikon View software.

"Patrick Boch" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D zvPd.38231$i42.13724@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise...Damn boring if it
> didn't...Perhaps its what the noise looks like? Another words; many
> times-I see noise in digital images...that's more like- spotted
> artifacts...With film...its more grain like...Digital needs to get past
> this-plastic like-sheen..and incorporate...film noise...into there
> cameras....
>
> --
> {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{)
> Patrick
> ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> A+Certified Tech....
> -------------------------------------------------
> My name is Patrick Boch-and I approve this message.
> -----------------------------------------------
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
February 13, 2005 4:26:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> In article <377o9sF5asrh8U1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Patrick Boch wrote:
>>
>> >Digital needs to get past
>> > this-plastic like-sheen.
>>
>> I agree. I've shot with several of the dSLR's and IMHO some just look
>> "waxy" even though they are void of most noise. I'm more interested in
>> the overall lood of the images/prints that looking at 200% crops
>> =looking= for noise. These waxy looking images aren't my cup of tea
>> either, YMMV.
>
> I think you're seeing noise filtering. If a small detail doesn't appear
> to be part of a larger pattern, it gets blurred out. Trees, shrubs,
> grass blades, and roof shingles are the usual victims. It gives photos
> a VHS video look. CMOS sensors from a few years ago needed big fat gobs
> of filtering. CCD sensors need lots of filtering when they heat up from
> use. The good news is that today's CMOS sensors need almost no
> filtering with an ISO in the 50 to 200 range. Photos look a lot more
> realistic.

It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think it's
more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I process
the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it selectively is
it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this waxy look.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:26:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <378a87F58ttueU2@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
> > In article <377o9sF5asrh8U1@individual.net>,
> > Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Patrick Boch wrote:
> >>
> >> >Digital needs to get past
> >> > this-plastic like-sheen.
> >>
> >> I agree. I've shot with several of the dSLR's and IMHO some just look
> >> "waxy" even though they are void of most noise. I'm more interested in
> >> the overall lood of the images/prints that looking at 200% crops
> >> =looking= for noise. These waxy looking images aren't my cup of tea
> >> either, YMMV.
> >
> > I think you're seeing noise filtering. If a small detail doesn't appear
> > to be part of a larger pattern, it gets blurred out. Trees, shrubs,
> > grass blades, and roof shingles are the usual victims. It gives photos
> > a VHS video look. CMOS sensors from a few years ago needed big fat gobs
> > of filtering. CCD sensors need lots of filtering when they heat up from
> > use. The good news is that today's CMOS sensors need almost no
> > filtering with an ISO in the 50 to 200 range. Photos look a lot more
> > realistic.
>
> It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think it's
> more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I process
> the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it selectively is
> it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this waxy look.

Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -

100 - Perfection
200 - Very clean
400 - Minor noise, faintest hint of noise reduction
800 - Noise and noise reduction are noticeable
1600 - Noise and noise reduction badly damages fine details

I'm shooting in JPEG mode except when major post-processing is expected.
Were you using a RAW converter that might have applied filtering when it
shouldn't?
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 6:01:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:38:27 GMT, "Patrick Boch"
<pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise.

There is no noise in the world of film photography; film grain is not
noise. In the CCD/CMOS world, noise is pixels that have some value,
that wasn't recorded by photons entering the camera. Film is a
chemical media and each and every grain of emulsion are only affected
by the light striking it.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 9:10:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Marli wrote:
>
> > Must have been a Canon CMOS then.
>
> It was, it was a Canon 10D. Everyone brags about how clean they are
at
> 1600ISO and they BASH any camera that doesn't as being garbage. I
didn't
> care for the look this "smooth" sensor gives the overal image, lots
of
> people must? For me some noise is a lot less of an issue than this
waxy
> look is.
>
>
> > A CCD is not "Waxy", not mine anyway.
> > Not sure what the D2X looks like, its a CMOS.
> >
>
> No idea either.
> --
>
> Stacey
Could you post a link to one of the images off of the 10D that look
waxy to you?

Scott
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:06:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2005 08:05:38 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok here is the blue channel, it does not look that odd to me, what
in
> >this do you see that looks processed?
> >http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/39711754/original....
> >
> >Scott
>
>
> If you look at the this image -- and even
> more so in leaves.jpg -- you'll see nice
> evenly centered histograms in Red and Green,
> but the Blue channel has bottomed out.
>
> It's not a color balance issue, because
> the fencepost is quite neutral.
>
> There's something about the fencepost
> image that looks distinctly two dimensional.
>
> I'm not sure why but I've got a theory or
> two. One is that the green grass in the
> background is oversaturated. In a typical
> 3D scene, as objects recede, they lose
> saturation; that's a fundamental visual cue.
>
> I'm not trying to make a broad blanket
> condemnation of 10D images or digital
> captures in general. It's just that,
> to a long time film user, occasionally
> the digicam captures do take some
> getting used to.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The histogram for the blue channel of the leaves looks just like I
would think it would have to. You have an image with a lot of blue and
yellow. As for the blue being bottomed out this is not too much of a
surpise, yellows often have close to zero blue in them and it is likely
that the raw converter pushed the black level up just a bit off zero.

Do you have the raw file from this image, I would love to have a look
at it.

Scott
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:36:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2005 09:06:23 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The histogram for the blue channel of the leaves looks just like I
> >would think it would have to. You have an image with a lot of blue
and
> >yellow. As for the blue being bottomed out this is not too much of a
> >surpise, yellows often have close to zero blue in them and it is
likely
> >that the raw converter pushed the black level up just a bit off
zero.
> >
> >Do you have the raw file from this image, I would love to have a
look
> >at it.
>
>
> Yes, somewhere... it'll take a moment to find.
> I'll email it to you privately -- if you can
> handle a 6M attachment or so...
>
> Even so... I have lots of roughly similar images
> taken with C41 (color negative) film and have not
> seen a similar bottoming-out of the blue.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
No problem with large emails
send them to scott@sewcon.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:39:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:38:27 GMT, "Patrick Boch"
> <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise.
>
>
> There is no noise in the world of film photography; film grain is not
> noise. In the CCD/CMOS world, noise is pixels that have some value,
> that wasn't recorded by photons entering the camera. Film is a
> chemical media and each and every grain of emulsion are only affected
> by the light striking it.
>
>
Assume somehow I option a truly uniform background, and photograph it
with film. I then scan the film with a microdensitometer with a very
small aperture. If I then look at a plot of density vs horizontal
position in frame, I will see some noise. Now, admittedly some of that
will be electronic noise in the microdensitometer. However, for small
apertures, some will be due to structure of film itself, and statistics
of photon stream and photochemical process itself.

Sure, larger densitometer apertures average/reduce noise, but we could
do same exact thing with digital, though on a coarser basis.

There is virtually NO measurement we can make in our universe that has
zero noise (and photography basically involves measurement).
February 13, 2005 2:06:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Patrick Boch wrote:
> Why do we kick noise?....Film has noise...Damn boring if it didn't...Perhaps
> its what the noise looks like? Another words; many times-I see noise in
> digital images...that's more like- spotted artifacts...With film...its more
> grain like...Digital needs to get past this-plastic like-sheen..and
> incorporate...film noise...into there cameras....
>
Why should digital photography have the good features of film photography, and also the bad features? Each medium has some
advantages that can be used creatively, and some disadvantages. The same can be said of any art medium.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 3:03:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 13 Feb 2005 08:05:38 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ok here is the blue channel, it does not look that odd to me, what in
>this do you see that looks processed?
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/39711754/original....
>
>Scott


If you look at the this image -- and even
more so in leaves.jpg -- you'll see nice
evenly centered histograms in Red and Green,
but the Blue channel has bottomed out.

It's not a color balance issue, because
the fencepost is quite neutral.

There's something about the fencepost
image that looks distinctly two dimensional.

I'm not sure why but I've got a theory or
two. One is that the green grass in the
background is oversaturated. In a typical
3D scene, as objects recede, they lose
saturation; that's a fundamental visual cue.

I'm not trying to make a broad blanket
condemnation of 10D images or digital
captures in general. It's just that,
to a long time film user, occasionally
the digicam captures do take some
getting used to.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 13, 2005 3:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
>
> There is no noise in the world of film photography; film grain is not
> noise. In the CCD/CMOS world, noise is pixels that have some value,
> that wasn't recorded by photons entering the camera. Film is a
> chemical media and each and every grain of emulsion are only affected
> by the light striking it.


I don't think there is no noise but you do have a point that grain isn't
the same as digital noise, it's more like an overlay of speckles but for
all I know the actual grains are the correct color, just an introduced
texture. The noise comparisons I've seen shoot a grey card and the high
ISO images have colored speckles. I'm not sure film would have these
color noise effects though it certainly gets an obvious dimpled texture
that may not be introducing color aberations.

I might guess film has a soft blurry color noise behind the grain
whereas digital has a per-pixel noise.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 3:38:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Must have been a Canon CMOS then. A CCD is not "Waxy", not mine anyway. Not
sure what the D2X looks like, its a CMOS.


"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:377o9sF5asrh8U1@individual.net...
> Patrick Boch wrote:
>
>>Digital needs to get past
>> this-plastic like-sheen.
>
> I agree. I've shot with several of the dSLR's and IMHO some just look
> "waxy"
> even though they are void of most noise. I'm more interested in the
> overall
> lood of the images/prints that looking at 200% crops =looking= for noise.
> These waxy looking images aren't my cup of tea either, YMMV.
> --
>
> Stacey
February 13, 2005 3:38:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marli wrote:

> Must have been a Canon CMOS then.

It was, it was a Canon 10D. Everyone brags about how clean they are at
1600ISO and they BASH any camera that doesn't as being garbage. I didn't
care for the look this "smooth" sensor gives the overal image, lots of
people must? For me some noise is a lot less of an issue than this waxy
look is.


> A CCD is not "Waxy", not mine anyway.
> Not sure what the D2X looks like, its a CMOS.
>

No idea either.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 3:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 13 Feb 2005 09:06:23 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:


>The histogram for the blue channel of the leaves looks just like I
>would think it would have to. You have an image with a lot of blue and
>yellow. As for the blue being bottomed out this is not too much of a
>surpise, yellows often have close to zero blue in them and it is likely
>that the raw converter pushed the black level up just a bit off zero.
>
>Do you have the raw file from this image, I would love to have a look
>at it.


Yes, somewhere... it'll take a moment to find.
I'll email it to you privately -- if you can
handle a 6M attachment or so...

Even so... I have lots of roughly similar images
taken with C41 (color negative) film and have not
seen a similar bottoming-out of the blue.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 8:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think it's
> > more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I
process
> > the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it selectively is
> > it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this waxy look.
>
> Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -

Neither has anyone else. Nor with any other Canon dSLR. Stacey's simply
wrong on this.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 8:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:31:05 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think it's
>> > more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I
>process
>> > the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it selectively is
>> > it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this waxy look.
>>
>> Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -
>
>Neither has anyone else. Nor with any other Canon dSLR. Stacey's simply
>wrong on this.
>

Mostly I'm wondering how a 13.0 x 17.3 mm sensor
with 8 million pixels is going to deliver a better
quality image than the 10D's 15.1 x 22.7 mm sensor
which only supplies 6 million pixels.

The unit sensor area works out to almost exactly
half in the Oly (2.8E-5 mm^2 vs. 5.7E-5.)

But Stacey is careful to describe the Oly's
advantages in terms that defy measurement or
verification.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 10:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <mcmurtri-6F79A5.22494812022005@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>1600 - Noise and noise reduction badly damages fine details

Does anyone know of any links to a RAW 300D ISO1600 file? I'd like to
look at one and see if it is really ISO 800 pushed, like the 10D.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 10:08:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <cun38r$j20$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>Neither has anyone else. Nor with any other Canon dSLR. Stacey's simply
>wrong on this.

It happens when people over-noise-reduce. This is done by some P&S
cameras, but not DSLRs, as far as I know.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 12:36:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
>
> > Could you post a link to one of the images off of the 10D that look
> > waxy to you?
> >
>
>
> Don't take this personally, again have you tried shooting with the
other
> dSLR's to see what they produce "look" wise or just buy a canon
because
> everyone else does? I just didn't care for the "look" of the canon
10D test
> images I shot. If you are happy, don't sweat it. I did buy a canon
printer
> even though "everyone" uses Epson too.
>
> David and Rafe love to bash the camera I chose and have never even
seen one
> much less shot with one so I could care less what they think! I know
I
> love the images I'm getting from mine and I DID shoot with the other
> options myself to compare first. Maybe if ISO 800+ noise was my main
> criteria for "perfection" I would have chosen something else?
>
> --
>
> Stacey
In fact I did a lot of research before buying the 20D both reading
reviews and looking at photos from it and other DSLR on Pbase.com

The my question was do you have a link to one of these waxy photos, it
was not meant to say they don't exist but rather so I can tell what
you are referring to.

Scott
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:26:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:o c4v01ljr1ee5lekmf9t48jikve978d49f@4ax.com...
SNIP
> Even so... I have lots of roughly similar images
> taken with C41 (color negative) film and have not
> seen a similar bottoming-out of the blue.

IMHO it is caused by the lack of sharpening (really), it may sound odd
but a bit of sharpening will raise the number of bright blue channel
pixels. I just tried it on the JPEG crop and it changed a lot.

Bart
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 2:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think
it's
> >> > more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I
> >process
> >> > the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it selectively
is
> >> > it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this waxy look.
> >>
> >> Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -
> >
> >Neither has anyone else. Nor with any other Canon dSLR. Stacey's simply
> >wrong on this.
>
> Mostly I'm wondering how a 13.0 x 17.3 mm sensor
> with 8 million pixels is going to deliver a better
> quality image than the 10D's 15.1 x 22.7 mm sensor
> which only supplies 6 million pixels.

But you've misunderstood Stacey's point: more noise makes a better looking,
higher dynamic range image than those plasticy low-noise images that Canon
produces. ROFL.

> The unit sensor area works out to almost exactly
> half in the Oly (2.8E-5 mm^2 vs. 5.7E-5.)

That sounds off. Canon = 15 x 22.5 = 337.5 vs Oly = 13 x 17.3 = 224.9 =? Oly
= 67% of the Canon. Although the _effective_ area of the pixel also depends
on the microlenses.

> But Stacey is careful to describe the Oly's
> advantages in terms that defy measurement or
> verification.

Right. "As good as medium format". Not.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
February 14, 2005 2:37:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> In article <378a87F58ttueU2@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think it's
>> more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I
>> process the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it
>> selectively is it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this
>> waxy look.
>
> Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -
>

Ever shot with any other dSLR?

This is just my opinion of the images I got from that camera and of course
is just my -subjective- opinion. I tried several different dSLR's and just
didn't care for the look from the 10D I used, YMMV. Some people rate
"perfection" on noise looking at 100% crops, that's not my main objective.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 2:37:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <37ao88F4q1kcaU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
> > In article <378a87F58ttueU2@individual.net>,
> > Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It was a 10D that had this "waxy" look I didn't care for. I think it's
> >> more what type of sensor and how they process it that does this. I
> >> process the Images now with NO noise reduction and only apply it
> >> selectively is it's really needed. I'd rather see some noise than this
> >> waxy look.
> >
> > Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -
> >
>
> Ever shot with any other dSLR?
>
> This is just my opinion of the images I got from that camera and of course
> is just my -subjective- opinion. I tried several different dSLR's and just
> didn't care for the look from the 10D I used, YMMV. Some people rate
> "perfection" on noise looking at 100% crops, that's not my main objective.

I take part in a photography group where people share their photos. The
group ranges from point'n'shoot digital to large format film, hobbyists
to professionals. Sometimes photos are harmed by poor equipment but
most of the quality depends the person using it. I haven't seen any
problems with any Canon or Nikon DSLR.
February 14, 2005 2:43:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>>
>> Strange. I haven't had that problem on a Canon 300D -
>
> Neither has anyone else. Nor with any other Canon dSLR. Stacey's simply
> wrong on this.
>

And the canonites roll in...

Why would I have bought a E300 if I could have bought either one ( I owned
no lenses), used a 10D for a week and wasn't impressed enough to go buy
one?

I know you and the other canon fanatics judge a camera by noise graphs at
1600 ISO, looking at 200% crops and what "pros" say you should be using ,
I looked at the end results in print and =personally= liked the results
from the olympus better. The canon images just look "waxy" to me. YMMV.
--

Stacey
February 14, 2005 2:51:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

> Could you post a link to one of the images off of the 10D that look
> waxy to you?
>


Don't take this personally, again have you tried shooting with the other
dSLR's to see what they produce "look" wise or just buy a canon because
everyone else does? I just didn't care for the "look" of the canon 10D test
images I shot. If you are happy, don't sweat it. I did buy a canon printer
even though "everyone" uses Epson too.

David and Rafe love to bash the camera I chose and have never even seen one
much less shot with one so I could care less what they think! I know I
love the images I'm getting from mine and I DID shoot with the other
options myself to compare first. Maybe if ISO 800+ noise was my main
criteria for "perfection" I would have chosen something else?

--

Stacey
February 14, 2005 4:01:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <pMOdnXcpp839KpLfRVn-rg@speakeasy.net>
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

I SNIPED the film grain vs CCD/CMOS photon related "color speckles"
discussion, and then selectively gathered phrases to form a basis for
asking a couple questions. And I am not specifically addressing Paul,
because this subject has been an area of confusion for me. <G>

> ...noise comparisons...shoot a grey card...
> ...high ISO images have colored speckles.

(For the sake of discussion, I'll use "noise" defined as

noise : randomly generated colored speckles
generated by digital cameras
)

ISO 100 in low light also creates the same noise. Why is that?

I had a 1D Mark II for 2 days and the images had less noise than the
20D. Does the 1Ds Mark II have less noise than the 1D Mark II?

> I might guess film has a soft blurry color noise
> behind the grain whereas digital has a per-pixel noise.

How can there be "per pixel" noise, when the noise is randomly
distributed around a pixel that is the correct color?

This seems backwards. It's more like the sensor elements have an
accuracy tolerance that varies widely from pixel to pixel. (Design
and manufacturing compromises?)

Then there is the firmware imposed noise dictated by marketing
departments in order to maintain wide price gap between the entry
level (300D/20D) and professional (1D(s) Mark II) cameras and backs.

Speaking of purposely crippling the firmware, there is NO technical
roadblock keeping zero chrominance sub-sampling and near-lossless
quality level jpegs out of digital cameras. (Corporate greed is the
motivating factor. ;^)

Jeff
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 11:39:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:51:14 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>David and Rafe love to bash the camera I chose and have never even seen one
>much less shot with one so I could care less what they think! I know I
>love the images I'm getting from mine and I DID shoot with the other
>options myself to compare first. Maybe if ISO 800+ noise was my main
>criteria for "perfection" I would have chosen something else?


If you didn't spend half your time on this NG
defending your choice of DSLR, I'd never have
taken notice, Stacey.

I'm not that much of a gearhead myself.

I'm a long time Nikon (film) SLR user myself,
but my digicams are Canon. Brand loyalty
means squat to me.

I worked for a year with a Canon G2 before
deciding to go with the 10D.

My main objection to your argument is your
assumption that the rest of us choose our
gear out of ignorance or peer pressure.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
February 14, 2005 11:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>>Here's a nice noisy detail with & without noise reduction, RAW & jpeg:
>>
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
>
> ?? How can you "like" either of these blown to 400% images?


"Nice" as in "plenty visible for the sake of discussion".

That was shot in low ISO but low light and exaggerated with curves in
PS. 400% so that it is not a subjective squinty confusion but very clear
exactly what the noise looks like.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> I've just about decided to NEVER post anything that isn't -pro canon- as it
> just creates too much flak here, enjoy your camera and just ignore my past
> coments.

It'd be nice if no one posted truly either pro or con any brand, but
that ain't going to happen. There are some who can discuss pro's and
cons of cameras, including the ones they are heavily invested in, both $
and psychically, without becoming emotional, or irrational, or,
particularly since this is usenet, insulting, and there are those of us
who can't.

It may be that the trick is to not fall into the various traps that exist.

I hope you won't diminish your posting, as you have a lot to say.

--
John McWilliams
February 14, 2005 3:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
> secheese wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:38:27 GMT, "Patrick Boch"
<snip>
>>
> Assume somehow I option a truly uniform background, and photograph it
> with film. I then scan the film with a microdensitometer with a very
> small aperture. If I then look at a plot of density vs horizontal
> position in frame, I will see some noise. Now, admittedly some of that
> will be electronic noise in the microdensitometer. However, for small
> apertures, some will be due to structure of film itself, and statistics
> of photon stream and photochemical process itself.
>
> Sure, larger densitometer apertures average/reduce noise, but we could
> do same exact thing with digital, though on a coarser basis.
>
> There is virtually NO measurement we can make in our universe that has
> zero noise (and photography basically involves measurement).

From my experience with microdensitometry, the main noise component might be called grain noise, analogous to photon noise.
Think of the microphotometer as if it were counting silver grains.
February 15, 2005 3:32:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:51:14 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>David and Rafe love to bash the camera I chose and have never even seen
>>one
>>much less shot with one
>
> If you didn't spend half your time on this NG
> defending your choice of DSLR, I'd never have
> taken notice, Stacey.
>

Given the amount of bashing people give this camera (and any non-canon
camera) which I found from personal testing of several dSLR's to work MUCH
better than what people like yourself, who have never seen one, say you're
surprised? What if I posted than a 10D has so much noise it's unusable if I
had never even held on in my hands? You wouldn't coment? Or that the AF
doesn't work right etc etc.

You and David have made a BUNCH of posts about this camera system, so have
you used one yourself? Or do you judge image quality looking at graphs and
spec sheets? Here's something you might try, actually look at the results
you get from each one before you decide?


>
> I'm a long time Nikon (film) SLR user myself,
> but my digicams are Canon. Brand loyalty
> means squat to me.


??? Did you read what you just posted?

>
> I worked for a year with a Canon G2 before
> deciding to go with the 10D.


Because.... Couldn't be brand loyalty..

>
> My main objection to your argument is your
> assumption that the rest of us choose our
> gear out of ignorance or peer pressure.
>

More like you buy a camera from what someone else thinks of it.

I post I didn't care for the look of the images I got from a 10D and get
ATTACKED for having a subjective opinion? For saying there is more to image
"quality" that straight from the camera noise control? And instead of
actually discussing this, you and David once again turn to personal
insults. Why am I not surprised?
--

Stacey
February 15, 2005 3:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a nice noisy detail with & without noise reduction, RAW & jpeg:
>>>
>>
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>
>>
>> ?? How can you "like" either of these blown to 400% images?
>
>
> "Nice" as in "plenty visible for the sake of discussion".
>
> That was shot in low ISO but low light and exaggerated with curves in
> PS. 400% so that it is not a subjective squinty confusion but very clear
> exactly what the noise looks like.

So what do the different ones look like at normal viewing like downsampled
to viewable size or upsampled for printing? If you can't see it there, who
cares?
--

Stacey
February 15, 2005 10:55:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>paul wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's a nice noisy detail with & without noise reduction, RAW & jpeg:
>>>>
>>>
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
>>>
>>>?? How can you "like" either of these blown to 400% images?
>>
>>
>>"Nice" as in "plenty visible for the sake of discussion".
>>
>>That was shot in low ISO but low light and exaggerated with curves in
>>PS. 400% so that it is not a subjective squinty confusion but very clear
>>exactly what the noise looks like.
>
>
> So what do the different ones look like at normal viewing like downsampled
> to viewable size or upsampled for printing? If you can't see it there, who
> cares?

Here's D70 noise at ISO 1600 reduced for web and still very visible:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
I guess I need a faster lens 'cause I'm constantly struggling to capture
low light images.
February 16, 2005 11:01:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> paul wrote:
>
>>I played with the neatimage trial and liked what I saw
>
> Again you need the retail + version that works as a PS plugin to really use
> it this way. It's no harder to use than applying sharpen filter etc.


Yes, I think it should be a good tool to have.



>
>>How would it help to downsample in steps, I never
>>heard of that?
>>
>
>
> Yes, a single step upsample or downsample is bad, see the jaggies on the
> angled stem? That's from a single downsample. It also kills details in a
> wide angle landscape etc. I've started using Qimage for resampling, it has
> a "pyramid" resampling alogrithm that avoids needed to resample in 5-10%
> steps. Also is amazing how much it improves the sharpness in prints.
> Otherwise you need to do resampling in 10% at max steps.


Hmm, I never heard this. I'll take a look at qimage.



>>
>>>You don't need faster lenses, although it wouldn't hurt I suppose if you
>>>can stand less DOF.
>>
>>
>>My limited understanding is that a faster lens will let me use a faster
>>speed at any f-stop, basically like boosting the ISO across the board.
>
>
> Yes but at a price, shallower DOF which for macro shots and landsacpes can
> be a problem.



My understanding is that I could shoot at f/8 or 11 in low light with a
fast lens.


>>
>>Yes it's probably underexposed like that whole day's shooting which was
>>a disaster and a learning experience. In this case I might have
>>underexposed simply to get a fast enough shutter speed to avoid motion
>>blur. It was the only option (besides a tripod or image stablized lens).
>
>
> You really have to get past this -not using a tripod- if you want to make
> good photographs of subjects like this. If not, you'll always just get
> mediocre results no matter how much you spend on gear.


Well, patience in the field isn't my strong point, that would be more
like inquisitiveness. I do have patience to sort through a billion pics
later though. We each have our personal approaches. I'm pretty sure with
a fast image stabilized lens I'd be able to do a lot more of what I like
to do with better results.
February 17, 2005 3:30:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

>>
>> Yes but at a price, shallower DOF which for macro shots and landsacpes
>> can be a problem.
>
>
>
> My understanding is that I could shoot at f/8 or 11 in low light with a
> fast lens.


You should be able to do this with a slow lens as well unless it is a poor
quality one. F8 is F8 no matter if the lens is a F5.6 max lens or a f2.8
max lens.


>>
>> You really have to get past this -not using a tripod- if you want to make
>> good photographs of subjects like this. If not, you'll always just get
>> mediocre results no matter how much you spend on gear.
>
>
> Well, patience in the field isn't my strong point,

Might try working on that?

> I do have patience to sort through a billion pics
> later though.

That sound awful!

--

Stacey
February 17, 2005 11:23:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes but at a price, shallower DOF which for macro shots and landsacpes
>>>can be a problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>My understanding is that I could shoot at f/8 or 11 in low light with a
>>fast lens.
>
>
>
> You should be able to do this with a slow lens as well unless it is a poor
> quality one. F8 is F8 no matter if the lens is a F5.6 max lens or a f2.8
> max lens.


Am I understanding this wrong? A fast lens should shoot at a faster
speed at the same f-stop as a slow lens as I understand. It's not just
that it's capable of going to a lower f-stop number. Please clarify if
I'm mistaken.


>
>>>You really have to get past this -not using a tripod- if you want to make
>>>good photographs of subjects like this. If not, you'll always just get
>>>mediocre results no matter how much you spend on gear.
>>
>>
>>Well, patience in the field isn't my strong point,
>
>
> Might try working on that?
>
>
>> I do have patience to sort through a billion pics
>>later though.
>
>
> That sound awful!


Well, we all have our personalities. For me spending time in the field
fiddling with a tripod would drive me nuts, once I settle down on the
computer in the evening, I have no problem with patience.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:51:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:


> Am I understanding this wrong? A fast lens should shoot at a faster
> speed at the same f-stop as a slow lens as I understand. It's not
just
> that it's capable of going to a lower f-stop number. Please clarify
if
> I'm mistaken.
>

The only thing that makes a fast lens a fast lens is that it can go to
a lower f number. Lower f number = more light = faster shutter speed =
less motion blur
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:02:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Feb 2005 09:51:39 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>paul wrote:
>
>> Am I understanding this wrong? A fast lens should shoot at a faster
>> speed at the same f-stop as a slow lens as I understand. It's not
>just
>> that it's capable of going to a lower f-stop number. Please clarify
>if
>> I'm mistaken.
>>
>
>The only thing that makes a fast lens a fast lens is that it can go to
>a lower f number. Lower f number = more light = faster shutter speed =
>less motion blur

...and less DOF, which isn't always useful.

Noise is purely a factor of ISO & shutter duration, so a faster lens
only helps when it's being used wide open (wider than a slow lens is
capable of), which artistically, may not be the best choice.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

--
Owamanga!
February 17, 2005 9:02:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2005 09:51:39 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>paul wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Am I understanding this wrong? A fast lens should shoot at a faster
>>>speed at the same f-stop as a slow lens as I understand. It's not
>>
>>just
>>
>>>that it's capable of going to a lower f-stop number. Please clarify
>>
>>if
>>
>>>I'm mistaken.
>>>
>>
>>The only thing that makes a fast lens a fast lens is that it can go to
>>a lower f number. Lower f number = more light = faster shutter speed =
>>less motion blur
>
>
> ..and less DOF, which isn't always useful.
>
> Noise is purely a factor of ISO & shutter duration, so a faster lens
> only helps when it's being used wide open (wider than a slow lens is
> capable of), which artistically, may not be the best choice.
>
> There's no such thing as a free lunch.


OK thanks guys, I understood wrong then.
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 12:45:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <WuSdnd379KJhWYnfRVn-ow@speakeasy.net>,
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>Am I understanding this wrong? A fast lens should shoot at a faster
>speed at the same f-stop as a slow lens as I understand. It's not just
>that it's capable of going to a lower f-stop number. Please clarify if
>I'm mistaken.

The term "fast lens", as I understand it, derives from the fact that all
other things being equal, a lens with a larger aperture (lower f-stop)
will allow a faster shutter speed, but only at that aperture.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 12:55:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <vvm9115p5k8n52uplbp9ub0qecegg99923@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Noise is purely a factor of ISO & shutter duration,

Technically, this is true, but a lower f-stop may increase the
signal-to-noise ratio, and a larger one may increase it, at any given
ISO and shutter speed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
February 18, 2005 2:55:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:23:23 -0800
In message <WuSdnd379KJhWYnfRVn-ow@speakeasy.net>
paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
> > paul wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes but at a price, shallower DOF which for macro shots
> >>> and landsacpes can be a problem.

Landscapes much less of a DOF problem than macros.
If you get in the habit of pre-focusing then most
marginal DOF focus problems go away. Also, the
trick of auto-focusing on an object in the middle
of the focus target field and switching to manual
works well with me.

One of the more useful links that have been posted here.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

(heh...even old pharts new to all this learn once in a while...)

> >>> <snip "fast lens" part... already answered>

> >>> <snip lead-in to tripod discussion>
> >>
> >> I do have patience to sort through a billion pics
> >> later though.
> >
> > That sounds awful!

Indeed.

> Well, we all have our personalities. For me spending time in the field
> fiddling with a tripod would drive me nuts, once I settle down on the
> computer in the evening, I have no problem with patience.

Try a compromise, and don't settle for a cheaper smaller head, or a
non-rotating lock monopod. Find and try a Gitzo mono pod with a
NOVOFLEX CLASSICBALL 5 BallHead. It will serve as an "almost" tripod,
won't slow you down, can be used without touching the ground (it acts
like a stabilizer) and will actually save you time composing shots.
If you find a better, smoother, easier to use and more functional ball
head let me know... and do NOT settle for a small jerky light weight
head.

(there are a couple other heads in this class, but it's the only one I
could get my hands on. gonna get one for my gitzo explorer tripod,
too, so I can keep them tightly and permanently mounted. don't forget
quality quick releases and spare camera/lens side adaptors. ;^)

Jeff
!