gigo wrote:
fine - what about some non-canon samples ?
gigo
I was going to do this but this guy beat me to it , he did nearly the same thing as you saw at the canon site , I think the results are Very interesting and you will too
Wow, such an interesting topic. But speaking from first hand experience with the D100 - it does everything I need it to do for me, which is really what its all about. I shoot theatre photography, and almost always using ISO 1250 - 1600, and I get great results.
thanks a lot john ! i appreciate the pointer :-) yes they look nice indeed !
wish i had access to full size version ! resize always hides the grain - the reason why i ask for full size is so that i have an idea how well they handle sharpening - especially since fred has an action just for high iso files ( https://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/ES )
Note how grain can appear to bring out more detail.
The worst part about the 1Dmk2 noise was the extreme chroma noise...big blotches of mottled color in the background. The Fuji S2 shows a fair amount of Luminance noise, but when rendered from Adobe Camera RAW the noise pattern itself is random and can pass for film grain.
Edited by Sectarian on Mar 19, 2004 at 03:33 PM GMT
Also Gigo , prints and not 100% crops are the test , all this hub-ub is nonsense if looked at on a monitor at 72 dpi, this is one reason the Kodak SLR/n RAW files are available along with free PhotoDesk or ACR so that people can make a PRINT from the files , all these cameras are winners in nearly all areas , Noise shall not be the final arbitor for me , it is only 1 aspect of a fine image or imaging system , it is silly to Inductively reason that camera A has a bit more noise than camera B : ergo camera B is better , non sense , I am not inferring that you are making a determination based solely on this axiom , but there are so many that do.
I know mark enjoys the fuji , however I Hated that camera and took it back , can we infer anything from my experience, NO we cannot , except that Mark gets great results and lives with the limitaions that I found objectionable , and perhaps the truth that he is a better photographer than I am
I've resorted to making high-quality prints to compare RAW renders, different techniques, sharpening, etc.
Indeed viewing files at 100% tells very little. The Kodak 14n had its problems, but one thing was for sure, at 100%, on screen, the files looked sharp. In print however the same image looked less compelling. I can't explain why. Anyhow viewing on the web makes noise go away, and viewing at 100% doesn't show anything. I agree, it is what the print looks like that ultimately matters the most.
Mark
jmcfadden wrote:
Also Gigo , prints and not 100% crops are the test , all this hub-ub is nonsense if looked at on a monitor at 72 dpi, this is one reason the Kodak SLR/n RAW files are available along with free PhotoDesk or ACR so that people can make a PRINT from the files , all these cameras are winners in nearly all areas , Noise shall not be the final arbitor for me , it is only 1 aspect of a fine image or imaging system , it is silly to Inductively reason that camera A has a bit more noise than camera B : ergo camera B is better , non sense , I am not inferring that you are making a determination based solely on this axiom , but there are so many that do.
I know mark enjoys the fuji , however I Hated that camera and took it back , can we infer anything from my experience, NO we cannot , except that Mark gets great results and lives with the limitaions that I found objectionable , and perhaps the truth that he is a better photographer than I am
gigo wrote:
mark - thanks for posting the s2 samples - they are indeed cleaner if they haven't been touched
I rendered RAW images in ACR (Adobe Camer RAW), with noise reduction and sharpening turned off, default contrast and saturation. I exposed for the highlights, shooting next to a window in pure, diffuse sunlight. I gray balanced the images with a "click" gray balance, using the gray patches in the image.
Any camera's image will start to fall apart if underexposed. When shooting high ISO it is vitally important to have proper exposure. I am very imkpressed with the Fuji's perofrmance though, and I've used it with high ISO several times on photo shoots.
I have the D2H and the D1H and the newer camera is very good. Not perfect. But the DH2 is much improved all around. The difference I see is it's not as forgiving if the white balance is off the mark. But, the new Capture 4 is real good. This new improved software helps make up for this. I shoot more raw now than JPG. I shoot JPG with the D1H. I continue to use both. I have an early DH2 and the noise is noticeable at 600 and above but not too bad.
I've followed everyone's comments with great interest. I apologize again for bringing up the noise issue. But, it's an issue that is high on my concern list.
I still don't understand the split on reviews when it comes to noise. I think that there may be too many factors affecting this issue. Some factors are over exaggerated... while some factors are valid.
In my opinion, and for my personal situation, I believe that the "wait and see" approach for now is best. After pondering some recent information and advice I received, I feel the D2H would be a wrong choice for me right now (unless I get a bonus and have the cash to buy one and still be ready for the D2X).
But, I also realize that the D2H is an awesome camera for a lot of photographers.
Edited by Bill De on Mar 20, 2004 at 02:41 PM GMT (Reason: Spelling.)
Do we agonize over cameras and lenses! I do not have or will have a D2H nor the D2X, so I cannot talk much about them except to comment from what others have experienced on using the camera. Read Versace and Moose, both working for Nikon and they have tested "a most amazing camera" and obviously, nothing wrong with it. Talk to Mr. Morris and he will tell you the best cameras he has used are the 10D and the EOS 1Ds. Who do you believe?
I have and use a D100 which I bought used. I am delighted with it. Am I concerned with noise? No because I do not use it at ISO 1600 very often and when I do I use software to help me with the noise. I almost invariably vary my ISO between 200 (which I use most) and 400 and on occasions I go to 800.
Try a conventional camera with 800 and 1600 ISO films and just tell me.
A nice thing you did not sell the D100, you could have made a mistake if your plans were to get something like the D2H, a camera you just said you do not necessarily need. The D1H is an excellent camera, we all know that.
I wonder if anyone is making the dream camera you want. I cannot agree with you that 8 megapixels will give you "more". There is more to resolution than pixels alone. Look at the D30, amazing resolution for a 3.2 megapixels camera.
I could be different to everybody else but looks to me you should be doing very well with what you have. No reasons to continue to brake your bank!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Sectarian wrote:
...I rendered RAW images in ACR (Adobe Camer RAW), with noise reduction and sharpening turned off, default contrast and saturation. I exposed for the highlights, shooting next to a window in pure, diffuse sunlight. I gray balanced the images with a "click" gray balance, using the gray patches in the image....
Mark
I don't know if the same phenomenon applies to all camera's RAW files,. but with Canon RAW files the consensus,. (and my own side by side comparisons) seems to indicate that Adobe ACR's RAW conversion process seems to introduced noise that would otherwise not be visible. (sometimes in interesteing patterns)
This introduced noise can be minimalised by turning off the ACR sharpening.. but it is still there.
I don't know if the same phenomenon applies to all camera's RAW files,. but with Canon RAW files the consensus,. (and my own side by side comparisons) seems to indicate that Adobe ACR's RAW conversion process seems to introduced noise that would otherwise not be visible. (sometimes in interesteing patterns)
This introduced noise can be minimalised by turning off the ACR sharpening.. but it is still there.
Just FYI
Thanks. I've used quite a few RAW converters, to be specific I've rendered Canon (10D, 300D, 1Ds), Nikon (D100, D1x, D2h), Fuji S2, and Kodak 14n files in a number of converters including: Canon RAW utility, Capture One, Nikon Capture, Fuji RAW EX, Kodak PhotoDesk, Bibble, Qimage, S7RAW, SharpRAW, and of course Adobe Camera RAW (ACR).
ACR handles cameras differently. Believe it or not, the Canon "Silky Smooth" look epitomized by the 10D output is the result of advanced noise reduction...all CMOS sensors produce a fair amount of pattern noise that needs to be neutralized. Since it is a job that needs to be done anyway, Canon goes all-out. The resulting "look" had become their trademark. Adobe doesn't have access to Canons proprietary algorithms, so 10D files rendered in PS ACR show the underlying noise, which is in fact created by the camera.
Not everyone likes the Canon CMOS look though. I can spot a 1D image vs. a 10D image (of the same subject), even at web size. I deliberately stayed away from the Canon 10D as a result, choosing instead to shoot a Fuji S2, a camera with files that ACR handles quite well. Nikon D1x, D100 and D2h files are also handled quite well by ACR. There is always a trade-off between rendering detail and supressing noise however, and one needs to match up their camera with the RAW converter that best suits their needs, and tastes...and produces the best results for their camera.
