Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] New E-1 (noise reduction)

Subject: Re: [OM] New E-1 (noise reduction)
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:35:56 -0400
At 3:31 AM +0000 9/23/03, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:31:31 -0700
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] New E-1 (noise reduction)
>
>Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> >One can always apply this kind of test.  If the camera uses aggressive 
> >sharpening, the test will show lots of noise (because sharpening emphasizes 
> >high frequencies, such as white noise), but this is correct, as one will see 
> >that same increased noise in one's photos.  So, even if the DC test site 
> >tests are not quite right, there are tests that do work.
> >  
> >
>In practice, the DC testers are not fools (nor, oddly enough, are the 
>people who design the camera hardware and software), and carefully 
>choose and document which levels of sharpening are in use in their noise 
>tests. Take a look, for example, at the tests of the Can*n 10D and 300D, 
>which use the same sensor and what appears to be a feature crippled 
>version of the same processing. One of the first things discussed in the 
>test of the 300D is the different default settings for sharpening and 
>other processing controls.

Agree.


>Of coure, I undersand that it's my fault if I use 'de faults. (Ugh!)

Defaults are convenient, and I most often use them, unless the subject merits 
the effort.


>BTW, I share C.H.'s surprise that you don't read the DC reviews. This is 
>where theory meets practice with test resources I don't even want to 
>have. There is a great deal to learn there about how all the theory 
>interacts with the rather complex and not fully understood human vision 
>system. If a black box comparison says A is better than B, but I find B 
>to look better than A, the test is at fault, not my eyes (positing that 
>my eyes, for the purposes of this, are perfect avatars of those of all 
>careful photographers). Remember that all this stuff is only useful for 
>photography to the extent that it accords with the human vision system, 
>and even the tastes of the humans receiving the images.

I read DP Reviews from time to time, but as I wasn't in the immediate market 
for a digital camera, the reviews of this or that camera held little interest 
for me.

What I have been reading is the scientific literature on how such sensors work, 
and what the issues are.  The astronomy community in particular has been 
pushing CCD technology to the limits, and they publish everything they know 
(unlike camera manufacturers), allowing one to get to the bottom of it fairly 
quickly, albeit with a heavy dose of jargon.


Joe Gwinn


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz