Nikon DSLR forum

This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

Moderated by: chrisbet,

Page: 1 2 3 4

High iso noise "blind test" - Page 4

Rate Topic

Author	Post

Posted: Tue Jun 19th, 2012 13:52

31^st Post

Gert

Joined:	Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location:	Vejle, Denmark
Posts:	48
Status:	Offline

Robert wrote:
...
Thank you Gert, I see now. As I thought the random pixels are much finer and being combined by the Bibble software which I believe is very good at re-sizing/re-sampling, has effectively smoothed the somewhat harsh, gritty D800 noise to something much more acceptable. I like it!
...

Good point Robert, the result will vary depending on the software used.

Posted: Tue Jun 19th, 2012 14:49

32^nd Post

Robert

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	South Lakeland, UK
Posts:	4066
Status:	Offline

Gert wrote:
Robert wrote:
...
Thank you Gert, I see now. As I thought the random pixels are much finer and being combined by the Bibble software which I believe is very good at re-sizing/re-sampling, has effectively smoothed the somewhat harsh, gritty D800 noise to something much more acceptable. I like it!
...

Good point Robert, the result will vary depending on the software used.

Not just that, on some software there are various ways to re-sample, it might be worth experimenting? I think in a way this is a variation on Eric's method.

____________________
Robert.

Posted: Tue Jun 19th, 2012 15:34

33^rd Post

Robert

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	South Lakeland, UK
Posts:	4066
Status:	Offline

Hope you don't mind but I have just run that full resolution crop through five of the standard Photoshop Cs5 image reduction processes reduced from 602 to 200 pixels high.

Very interesting...

There is quite a difference between the levels of noise.

I think the forum software is reducing it again but they still seem to be very similar to what I saw before I uploaded.

My money is on the top image the default, Bi-Cubic.

Attachment: Group of 5.jpg (Downloaded 25 times)

____________________
Robert.

Posted: Tue Jun 19th, 2012 16:17

34^th Post

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts:	6995
Status:	Online

Well I'm happy with my D800 and D3 and D3S so the result doesnt worry me. The results A/B were close by the B ones did seem better to me.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted: Tue Jun 19th, 2012 22:12

35^th Post

richw

Joined:	Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location:	Melbourne, Australia
Posts:	525
Status:	Offline

That is very, very, interesting thanks for posting.

In Eric's method (Cambridge in color method?) you are averaging out three pixels by laying them on top of one another.

By downsampling you are effectively doing the same thing taking three pixels in a group and averaging them (I know the reality is more complicated but this seems roughly what is happening).

So this might make Eric tripod less????

Posted: Wed Jun 20th, 2012 01:21

36^th Post

Robert

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	South Lakeland, UK
Posts:	4066
Status:	Offline

With the fine spacing of the pixels involved with a D800 or D7000 I doubt Eric is hitting the exact same spot with each exposure (pixel for pixel), even bolted down to a solid tripod and using a remote.

____________________
Robert.

Posted: Wed Jun 20th, 2012 02:30

37^th Post

richw

Joined:	Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location:	Melbourne, Australia
Posts:	525
Status:	Offline

Robert wrote:
With the fine spacing of the pixels involved with a D800 or D7000 I doubt Eric is hitting the exact same spot with each exposure (pixel for pixel), even bolted down to a solid tripod and using a remote.

True, but the general principle is still true, and too much variation would be an unsharp shot.

Posted: Wed Jun 20th, 2012 06:35

38^th Post

Eric

Joined:	Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location:	United Kingdom
Posts:	4583
Status:	Offline

Gert wrote: Eric wrote:
...
At the moment if I need to use really high ISO with interior lighting, I still tripod mount and take 3 identical shots.

Place the 3 shots on seperate layers in PS and drop the opacity in the 2nd and 3rd layers to 25% and 40%. This gets rid of most noise. But of course you need to have a static subject!
...

Now I am curious, if the subject is static and you have a tripod, why not simply go for base iso and a long shutter time?
Are you up against some very low frequency vibrations?
Its very useful rethinking why we do things from time to time. You have made me do that.

I started the 3 layer averaging (for some work) some years ago when I changed from the D1X to the D2X... because I found two things 'wrong' with it.

The extra pixels (at that time ) brought more noise. But I also felt the extra pixels required greater precision in technique. Simply ...I had to half my shutter speeds to get the same IQ as the D1X. At that time I was shooting old hotel interiors and I found people walking about in adjacent rooms bounced the floor!!

So I used a tripod but tried to to keep more normal (hand held) shutter speeds. I also used flash, to avoid some mixed lighting WB issues, so getting nearer the sync speed was desireable also.

This meant with the high ISO noise of the D2X I had to do the Cambridge in Colour trick.

But things change and maybe this D800 feature you have discovered has changed the ground rules?

Very interesting.

____________________
Eric

1st new

This is topic ID = 224 Current time is 08:23	Page: 1 2 3 4
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > High iso noise "blind test"	Top
Users viewing this topic