On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/17/2014 7:25 AM, DZDub wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Moose de Worm <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> All digital cameras I've used have little pixel level artifacts I call
>>> worms. Hardly ever noticeable in contemporary bodies at base ISO, they
>>> increase in number/size/intensity as the ISO goes up. It's easy to miss
>>> them in noisy files, then they show up after NR. It's also easy to think
>>> they are artifacts of the NR. However, when flipping the NR layer off and
>>> on, it becomes apparent that they were there all along, simply masked by
>>> the noise.
>>>
>>> The GX7 has considerably less of this problem at any given ISO than the
>>> E-M5. Otherwise, the image IQ seems the same to me.
>>>
>>> Do I assume correctly that the artifact is a permanent and irreparable
>> feature of increased ISO sensitivity?
>>
>
> If you mean can it be corrected once it has occurred, no. If you mean will
> it always be a feature of sensor systems, I don't know. I haven't used one
> yet without it, from awful on some early compacts to relatively subtle. But
> that's not to say all cameras have it.
>
> I took a series of shots of a fixed target, using a tripod and macro lens,
> to compare noise and artifacts of E-M5 and GX7. I didn't take notes, and
> the EXIF doesn't list a lens. I think it was the OM 80/4 Auto, but can't
> swear to it.
>
> Here are 100% samples of the ISO 3200 shots. <http://www.moosemystic.net/
> Gallery/tech/GX7/GX7vsE-M5_noise.htm>
>
> With noise, the artifacts are far from obvious. Remove the noise, and lots
> of thin little lines appear. They look sorta like scratches in the green,
> and more like marked lines in the red.
>
> Flip back and forth, and you will see that they were there all the time.
> Go to the GX7 image, and they aren't there.
>
> I'm not sure anyone aside from a compulsive pixel peeper would notice
> them, especially at ISO 800 or below. They certainly won't show up in any
> size print anyone here is likely to make. But they've always bugged me.
>
> One might conclude, from this one sample, that the overall image detail is
> slightly better in the GX7. I'm not sure of that, though, as very slight
> differences in focus, NR, etc. could also be a factor. I treat them as
> equivalent, other than the 'worms'.
>
> Interesting differences in color.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/GX7/GX7vsE-M5_noise.htm>
>
I guess I just never go there. So many other ways to make myself unhappy.
When I think of the difference between scanned film and digital capture, it
helps with my equilibrium in this sort of comparison.
Have you reported this to the police yet?
Joel (now make them go away) W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|