For RichA - sony A700 noise reduction

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Alpha User, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. Alpha User

    Alpha User Guest

    Hi Rich,

    I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was a
    orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
    couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
    they *do*, and that's enough for me.

    Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter for
    A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in Bibble. The
    first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web use) and the
    second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a touch of
    sharpness.

    Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
    similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
    they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

    Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera, I'm
    happy to accept it from them ;)

    image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

    image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg
     
    Alpha User, Mar 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alpha User

    RichA Guest

    And I get:

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access /
    g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg on this server.
    Apache/2.0.58 (Unix) Server at i.pbase.com Port 80
     
    RichA, Mar 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alpha User

    Bob Remeaux Guest

    No problems here.
     
    Bob Remeaux, Mar 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Alpha User

    Alpha User Guest

    And I get:

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access /
    g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg on this server.
    Apache/2.0.58 (Unix) Server at i.pbase.com Port 80<<
     
    Alpha User, Mar 24, 2008
    #4
  5. They sure are clean, the second one sharoens up nicely. Do you find the
    color accuracy better with Bibble than Sony's RAW convertor?
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Mar 25, 2008
    #5
  6. Alpha User

    Alpha User Guest

    Hi,

    I haven't used the supplied Sony software much - it was just too messy and
    cumbersome (lot's of little windows floating everywhere;)

    I have tried all the available converters, including the free ones, and for
    my money (and I don't buy software lightly) Bibble just romps home with the
    A700 files.

    Before I parted with my money to Eric Hyman I did a final comparison and
    narrowed it down to Bibble and ACDSee. In the end, the bibble (noise ninja)
    NR was just 'the best', no question about it in my mind.

    This requirement is specific to the A700 files which (imo) are noisier than
    they should be for a CMOS chip. With a Canon, perhaps, the Bibble advantage
    might not be so clear - but we have to look for specific solutions to
    specific problems, and for the A700 raws that means Bibble (again, imo)

    I *don't* like the quirky Bibble interface so it's certainly not a matter of
    being seduced by sexy software ;) ACDSee was much more modern, and had some
    nice features - BUT, although I tried as hard as I possibly could, it was
    just impossible to get rid of all the chroma noise on high ISO shots.
    Whereas Bibble just magics it away with a simple click - quite amazing,
    actually, and it leaves virtually all the detail intact. What noise is left
    is transformed into fine luminance grain (well, 99% of it) and the end
    result is almost identical to D300 high ISO's

    That allows Sony to play it's own trump card, which is the remarkable
    preservation of colour at the higher ISO's - in fact, the colour
    preservation is so good that you occasionally have to desaturate high
    ISO's.

    This is another Bibble ISO 5000 shot - which, I think, shows the high ISO
    colour retention from the A700

    http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg
     
    Alpha User, Mar 25, 2008
    #6
  7. Alpha User

    Cryptopix Guest

    That first picture shows Bibble's typical poor de-mosaic engine at
    work. The red is bleeding out from the screwdriver handle and the
    mosaic faults (artifacts) are visible in the shadow under the bench
    top. I couldn't be bothered with the second one.

    You've also made a classic error. You are trying to show knowledgeable
    people a D grade image to somehow prove your opinion that Sony high
    noise reduction doesn't do what that picture shows it does do...
    And... That a God Awful RAW converter like Bibble is anything more or
    less than just that... Go figure.

    Altogether a poor effort to demonstrate anything except how bad Bibble
    actually is and how much stupidity exists in this group when someone
    post to an International forum but black lists nearly everyone they
    make the announcement to so they can't do what I just did... Tell you
    truthfully you are completely wrong.

    If you really are serious - and I doubt you are, you'd post a picture
    like this one:http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm. Same size
    image. No artifacts from either DxO Optics Pro converter or from
    crappy JPEG handling and over compression.

    If you are going to preach to the converted, get converted first. If
    you are going to try and pull a stunt like you just tried and failed
    to "block" people you don't like, learn a bit about the process before
    you realize it simply can't be done to anyone but a rank amateur... Or
    is that your target audience?
     
    Cryptopix, Mar 25, 2008
    #7
  8. Alpha User

    Alpha User Guest

    That first picture shows Bibble's typical poor de-mosaic engine at
    work. The red is bleeding out from the screwdriver handle and the
    mosaic faults (artifacts) are visible in the shadow under the bench
    top. I couldn't be bothered with the second one.

    You've also made a classic error. You are trying to show knowledgeable
    people a D grade image to somehow prove your opinion that Sony high
    noise reduction doesn't do what that picture shows it does do...
    And... That a God Awful RAW converter like Bibble is anything more or
    less than just that... Go figure.

    Altogether a poor effort to demonstrate anything except how bad Bibble
    actually is and how much stupidity exists in this group when someone
    post to an International forum but black lists nearly everyone they
    make the announcement to so they can't do what I just did... Tell you
    truthfully you are completely wrong.

    If you really are serious - and I doubt you are, you'd post a picture
    like this one:http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm. Same size
    image. No artifacts from either DxO Optics Pro converter or from
    crappy JPEG handling and over compression.

    If you are going to preach to the converted, get converted first. If
    you are going to try and pull a stunt like you just tried and failed
    to "block" people you don't like, learn a bit about the process before
    you realize it simply can't be done to anyone but a rank amateur... Or
    is that your target audience?<



    Er, are you an arsehole who happens to be a Troll, or a Troll who happens to
    be an arsehole?

    Either way, it's piss poor flame-baiting - if your lovemaking technique is
    as poor as your trolling, your wife must be fucking everyone who knocks on
    the front door.

    No chance of an address, I suppose?.....
     
    Alpha User, Mar 25, 2008
    #8
  9. What "screwdriver handle"?
    What bench?
    ISO 100 images to demonstrate high iso noise or non-noise?
    Clever!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 25, 2008
    #9
  10. Alpha User

    Cryptopix Guest

    There in lies the problem with people who think they are smart but are
    just trying to be.
    Anyone who thinks they can prevent others from seeing their pictures
    by blocking a bunch of IP addresses is about as smart as the dog
    forging my name in their posts. Not smart at all.

    In answer to your bait: I don't have time to stuff around massaging
    your ego when you behave the way you do, If you can't stand the heat,
    stay out of the kitchen of cook up something really impressive.
    Invented bullshit and 70% JPEG compression of rubbish laying around on
    your desk to conceal your piss poor attempt at forging a "real" High
    ISO shot is not anymore impressive than blocking your audience from
    seeing it. Not even a nice try... Just plain stupid.
     
    Cryptopix, Mar 25, 2008
    #10
  11. Alpha User

    Cryptopix Guest

    Well no Actually Wolfgang. It was to demonstrate that you don't need
    to use 70% JPEG compression to get a clear image. Had the OP used 20%,
    those of his critics who actually got to see the pictures would have
    been able to make a valid assessment of them. As it is, there is so
    much crap in the image, it is impossible to make any judgment.

    As for my shot... You really wouldn't be impressed with ISO 3200
    images from a 10D. It was to demonstrate the IQ you could expect to
    get from a lens that saved you the cost of a camera body in it's
    price. Think, read, comprehend. Not one of your better traits Wolfgang
    but I'm sure you could work on it if you tried.
     
    Cryptopix, Mar 25, 2008
    #11
  12. Alpha User

    Alpha User Guest

    There in lies the problem with people who think they are smart but are
    just trying to be.
    Anyone who thinks they can prevent others from seeing their pictures
    by blocking a bunch of IP addresses is about as smart as the dog
    forging my name in their posts. Not smart at all.

    In answer to your bait: I don't have time to stuff around massaging
    your ego when you behave the way you do, If you can't stand the heat,
    stay out of the kitchen of cook up something really impressive.
    Invented bullshit and 70% JPEG compression of rubbish laying around on
    your desk to conceal your piss poor attempt at forging a "real" High
    ISO shot is not anymore impressive than blocking your audience from
    seeing it. Not even a nice try... Just plain stupid.


    Well, bugger me! - I thought that you were a Troll, and it turns out that
    you're just bloody stupid!

    (or, possibly, on crack?)

    OK, let's take this from the top

    1] The photo's are completely genuine - they don't purport to be artistic
    creations, they are snaps taken at high ISO in order to show our chum RichA
    that Sony's NR isn't as detrimental as he seems to think. Personally, I
    think the noise performance is pretty good.

    2] I'm having some difficulty in understanding your raving about 'blocked'
    IP's. They are on Pbase, FFS!, available to anyone with sufficient
    intelligence to click on the fucking link!

    3] The jpg compression is very high - perhaps too high, but done as a quick
    and dirty method of decreasing the file size. Had I known that a leading
    authority, such as your good self, was going to view them I might have
    chosen a better algorithm. Or, there again, I might have just thought,
    "**** you - if you don't like them, tough shit" (to be fair, it would
    probably have been the latter option)

    4] The desk *is* a disgrace! - guilty as charged.

    5] You mentioned the red handle of the screwdriver 'bleeding'. I went to a
    200% enlargement of the already heavily compressed file - and found no
    evidence of this. This should be a matter of some concern to you, as it
    might indicate the onset of a sight problem. Your first step should, of
    course, be to immediately cease masturbating while drooling over high ISO
    photo's from the Sony A700, and the next should be to book an urgent
    appointment with an Optometrist.

    6] After the Optometrist (who must come first, because your sight is
    precious) a visit to a Psychiatrist to try and resolve your hatred of the
    Sony A700 would, I suggest, b money well spent. He might help you to
    understand that hating a camera because it performs well at high ISO's is,
    well, decidedly 'weird' - and could eventually end up with you being locked
    up.

    There, I'm glad we had a little chat to clear up any misunderstanding. Now,
    **** off.
     
    Alpha User, Mar 25, 2008
    #12
  13. Well, I agree,
    http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg
    will not count as the greatest shot ever, but even with "70%
    JPEG compression" (I assume you mean JPEG compression as based on
    some specific program's idea thereof and assume that everyone
    thinks it's the same --- you are wrong[1]) I think the image is
    clear enough to be sure that there _is_ no "screwdriver
    handle" and bench.
    I see.
    Let's see:
    - you compare your ISO 100 shot with a ISO 5000 shot.
    - you 'demonstrate' image quality with a 720x476(!) image, and
    that even with an image where distortion cannot be judged.
    - then you complain about spurious things in the other
    imaghe.

    Well, that's easy, you are nuts and see screwdriver handles
    where there are none.

    Your "bugs" image could probably be made with a coke bottle bottom
    and serious oversharpening.
    Well, now, that's projection for you.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] in the Gimp, 70% would be OK to good, way enough for the
    web, and 20% would be more cubism and Andy Warhole than
    an image.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 26, 2008
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.