Then I wish I had your particular camera. I can see a bit of noise in
the blue sky at 25% and it's very obvious at 50%.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/26/2011 2:19 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 3/16/2011 9:10 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Just this morning I took a couple of shots of a flight of storks that
>> was circling overhead. Since I had just walked outside the scene was
>> unexpected and I had no camera with me except the Samsung WB650 on my
>> belt. The storks obligingly circled a few times such that I was able to
>> get off a couple of shots but, after downloading them to the computer, I
>> was dismayed by the amount of noise in the clear blue sky at ISO 80.
>> But that's what you get with a 12 MP P&S.
>
> Hmmm. That isn't what I experience. Here's a blue sky image I took in
> December.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/WB650/SAM_0287.htm>
> I thought I could see noise in the 100% sample, but if so, it sure isn't
> much. About all the NeatImage does for it is to
> sharpen it up a little.
>
> In an image with shadows, absolutely, there's noise there. This was a very
> difficult exposure situation. I shot to hold
> the highlights, leaving most of it in
> shadow.<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/WB650/SAM_0068.htm>
>
> The original is very dark, but I did nail the highlights - just touching the
> top of the histogram. Opening it in ACR, it
> adjusted quite nicely to a more normal looking exposure. Reduced to web size,
> there's a little visible noise, if you
> look for it, but I don't think it's a problem. NeatImage nicely cleans it up,
> so further processing won't enhance the
> graininess.
>
> 100% is a different story before NI, with lots of visible noise, especially
> after it's had the shadows raised. NI does a
> nice job here.
>
> On 3/17/2011 4:19 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Yes, by a lot!
>>
>> On 3/16/2011 1:31 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>>> Would an increase in the ISO rating from 80 to say 200 on your [mere 12MP
>>> !?] p&s have generated even more noise ?
>
> It's not THAT bad at ISO 200! It has been raining a lot. I thought when I
> didn't have time Sunday that I would miss this
> volunteer waterfall. It wasn't quite as impressive yesterday, but still worth
> shooting.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/WB650/SAM_0320.htm>
>
> As you can see, the noise isn't visible in a web size image. At 100%, it
> still isn't obtrusive even in darker areas, and
> NI takes care of it.
>
> Even at ISO 400, things aren't that
> bad.<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/WB650/SAM_0280.htm>
>
> Now shadow noise is easy to see at web size. but I'll bet most
> non-photographers wouldn't notice it. NI makes it
> disappear at that size.
>
> At 100%, the noise is really ugly, but NI does a good job on it. By ISO 400,
> loss of fine detail and pixel level
> artifacts become a greater problem for overall IQ than noise.
>
> On 3/17/2011 8:32 AM, John Hudson wrote:
>> Noise at ISO 200 ...if you enlarge to 24" x 36" perhaps.....but surely not
>> for 8" x 10" or less or for web page viewing.
>
> I hope you can judge for yourself from the above. The web size images are
> just fine at ISO 80 and 200. They do need NR
> to look good above that. Printed @ 300 dpi, these images would be 10x13",
> 12x16 @ 240 dpi.
>
> You should certainly get an excellent 8x10, 11x14, etc. of a bright scene at
> ISO 80 and a dim scene up to 200 with some
> post processing.
>
>> . . . At least in this particular case, although CS3 did reduce
>> the noise somewhat, CS5 essentially eliminated it . . .
>
> At your suggestion, I tried NR in CS5. It is indeed much better than last
> time I had tried it on some earlier version.
> On the other hand, some testing showed me that it's still not up to
> NeatImage. NI's ability to tune by frequency is more
> flexible and powerful.
>
> NI's ability to resharpen by frequency also beats later sharpening after NR
> in CS5.
>
>> I don't know how it will work with other images but for this one it was
>> excellent. Incidentally, the WB650 doesn't support raw so I was working
>> with a JPEG image. Impressive!
>
> Yup. Sometimes, I get a little frustrated at the limitations of images from
> it. But really, for a tiny sensor camera
> that's JPEG only, it's darn good. It certainly gets those image I would
> otherwise miss at good enough IQ.
>
> A. Windy Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|