Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (
More info?)
On 10 Apr 2004 18:55:09 GMT, listener <listener@nospam.net> vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
It appears that if I post my usual ramblings, I get the piss taken,
but here we go again. I hope I am not condescending. You are looking
at a fair bit of money and appear to have had a bit of a shock.
As Rick said, it can be improved.
However, several things:
- AFAICS, noise and other problems get worse as you try to pack more
and more pixels into an area on a sensor. Makers are doing this to
keep lens sizes down for a given Zoom power.
- Rick mentioned chromatic aberation. This usually shows as "blue
fringing". It's not what I refer to as noise, but I see certainly that
it can be, because noise is "unwanted information". Is this what you
mean? If so, then post-processing can remove the blue cast, and if you
really, really want the picture, you can maybe recolour the affected
areas (which are often left grey). I am still working on doing this
last bit. At present on shots that I really care about, I actually
cover the fringe with a clone of a nearby area, zoomed right in to the
fringing. This can be very tedious. Difficulty depends on the photo,
and whether you want a presentable, "rescued" picture or are really
after "that shot".
- if you mean speckling, then it _can_ be a software/firmware issue.
* Many cameras have built-in noise reduction algorithms. Some only
apply them at your behest. Others apply them automatically, probably
on longer exposures.
* No software is going to "fix" the problem without affecting the
picture's sharpness to greater or lesser extent. You may find that the
camera then adds "sharpness" to the picture, tereby in essence
corrupting it even more.
** In a much lower field, I have an Oly 750 (apart from a funds
shortage, I wanted to be sure that digital cameras were going to
revive my photography). It has noise reduction for exposures longer
then 1/2 second (1 sec?). This is pretty clever at removing noise, but
does remove a tiny amount of sharpness. The post-processing way is to:
*** have shots of your lens cap, and arithmetically sibtract
these from the picture. This works quite well, but in the end you have
to still get rid of some of thw worst spots. Can again be tedious.
*** use a programme like Noise Ninja. Again this will affect
the final picture's detail. However, you can set the level of
smoothing, and the sharpness and contrast of the final result, and
preview it, unlike a camera, which will probably be very "generic".
* It's very difficult to compare "noise" between cameras without
having a standard shot. It annoys me a bit that this has never been
done by the reviewers AFAIHS. Grey background, ISo various, exposure
various. Show results. Noise is affected by many things. For instance;
exposure time (longer = worse), ISO speed (higher = worse), amount of
feature in parts of the shot (less = more noticeable). I started to
look at the pictures shown for the cameras you mentioned, but at my
piddly little 26400 dl speed, I could be here all day. Can you name
any of those pictures that were particularly troubling to you? I would
be interested enough to have a look, see what I think may have caused
the differences, and run Noise Ninja over them to see if I can get a
result. I may not even be set up to get the best results (you need a
noise chart for the camera itself to do that) but I have seen some
amazing improvements.
BTW, I use Noise Ninja. I have no affilation otherwise. I think it's a
bloody great little programme though.
>I've been looking at three new 8mp cameras:
>
>Nikon 8700
>Olympus 8080
>Konica Minolta Dimage A2
>
>
>I looked at all three a few days ago and was impressed with some of the
>Minolta's features (high res EVF, Anti-shake, auto EVF-LCD mode, manual
>focus, 5 user configs, overall form-factor...)
>
>Then I looked at some shots at steves-digicams. What a difference a photo
>makes!
>
>Apparently, they all use the Sony CCD yet, for example, the noise exhibited
>on the Minolta at higher iso's (>200) is *much* worse than the others. So
>it's a software issue? If so, could it be corrected or improved through an
>update?
>
>
>L.
****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram