NOISE

[Guest]

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.
-----------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Patrick Boch" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
newszvPd.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.

 

[Paul]

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.

 

[Stacey]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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
newszvPd.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.
> -----------------------------------------------
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

 

[Stacey]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

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.jpg

Scott

 

[Guest]

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.jpg
> >
> >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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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).

 

[Marvin]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.jpg
>
>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

 

[Paul]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Stacey]

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