Noise about noise...

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Stacey, Feb 16, 2005.

  1. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    paul wrote:

    > Stacey wrote:
    >
    > 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-Area/Santa-Cruz/2005-01-26&PG=4&PIC=19>
    > I guess I need a faster lens 'cause I'm constantly struggling to capture
    > low light images.


    Here's that image fixed. >5 minutes using neat image plugin in PS7and I'm
    real sure if I wasn't working on a recompressed, downsampled (single step
    downsampling?) already sharpened jpeg, I could make it look even better
    than this.

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/21_DSC8238.jpg

    You don't need faster lenses, although it wouldn't hurt I suppose if you can
    stand less DOF. Noise ISN'T something that can't be easily fixed and IMHO
    it's easier to fix noise than crappy color renditions or WB problems,
    motion blur etc..

    BTW the original looks underexposed which might be why it's that noisy to
    start with?


    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Feb 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Stacey

    SteveJ Guest

    I also see banding somewhat in the picture, not just a Canon problem.


    "Stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > paul wrote:
    >
    >> Stacey wrote:
    >>
    >> 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-Area/Santa-Cruz/2005-01-26&PG=4&PIC=19>
    >> I guess I need a faster lens 'cause I'm constantly struggling to capture
    >> low light images.

    >
    > Here's that image fixed. >5 minutes using neat image plugin in PS7and I'm
    > real sure if I wasn't working on a recompressed, downsampled (single step
    > downsampling?) already sharpened jpeg, I could make it look even better
    > than this.
    >
    > http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/21_DSC8238.jpg
    >
    > You don't need faster lenses, although it wouldn't hurt I suppose if you
    > can
    > stand less DOF. Noise ISN'T something that can't be easily fixed and IMHO
    > it's easier to fix noise than crappy color renditions or WB problems,
    > motion blur etc..
    >
    > BTW the original looks underexposed which might be why it's that noisy to
    > start with?
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Stacey
     
    SteveJ, Feb 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Stacey

    paul Guest

    Stacey wrote:

    > paul wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Stacey wrote:
    >>
    >>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-Area/Santa-Cruz/2005-01-26&PG=4&PIC=19>
    >
    >>I guess I need a faster lens 'cause I'm constantly struggling to capture
    >>low light images.

    >
    >
    > Here's that image fixed. >5 minutes using neat image plugin in PS7and I'm
    > real sure if I wasn't working on a recompressed, downsampled (single step
    > downsampling?) already sharpened jpeg, I could make it look even better
    > than this.
    >
    > http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/21_DSC8238.jpg
    >
    > You don't need faster lenses



    Are you sure faster lenses don't give faster speed at the same f-stop?



    > although it wouldn't hurt I suppose if you can
    > stand less DOF. Noise ISN'T something that can't be easily fixed and IMHO
    > it's easier to fix noise than crappy color renditions or WB problems,
    > motion blur etc..
    >
    > BTW the original looks underexposed which might be why it's that noisy to
    > start with?



    Yes it was pretty badly underexposed and it's almost a 100% crop, not
    reduced much, and at 200mm on a 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 so struggling with a
    bad lens at that range. I posted as an extreme example of digital noise.
     
    paul, Feb 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Stacey

    Stacey Guest

    paul wrote:

    > Stacey wrote:
    >>
    >> You don't need faster lenses

    >
    >
    > Are you sure faster lenses don't give faster speed at the same f-stop?



    Yes VERY sure.

    >I posted as an extreme example of digital noise.


    I understand that and it was a good one to show that even EXTREAM noise can
    be tamed.

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Feb 18, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertisements

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.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian Baird

    D2X: Noise Box

    Brian Baird, Feb 23, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    108
    Views:
    1,889
  2. larrylook

    how to avoid noise at higher iso?

    larrylook, Apr 3, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    971
  3. Alan Browne

    Ping JPS: Luminance noise v. RGB noise

    Alan Browne, Jan 2, 2006, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    702
    Alan Browne
    Jan 3, 2006
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    2,917
    RichA
    Oct 14, 2006
  5. Cymbal Man Freq.
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    662
    Cymbal Man Freq.
    Sep 27, 2007
  6. .
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    877
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2008
  7. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    429
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
  8. Rich

    Ugly noise versus "good" noise

    Rich, Oct 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    376
Loading...