Noise problem on 1DSMKII

[HKFEVER]

Did anyone have noise problem on 1DSMKII?

Please comment.

[HKFEVER]

Please check this files out and comment::cry:

- All JPG are 100% corp

- All the JPG with NR on is save as web, 62% quality in PScs

- All the JPG with NR off is save as web, 56% quality in PScs

[HKFEVER]

Please check this JPG in iso=1600 out and comment::cry:

- All JPG are 100% corp

- All the JPG with NR on is save as web, 62% quality in PScs

- All the JPG with NR off is save as web, 56% quality in PScs

[HKFEVER]

Please check this jpg is0=800 out and comment::cry:

- All JPG are 100% corp

- All the JPG with NR on is save as web, 62% quality in PScs

- All the JPG with NR off is save as web, 56% quality in PScs

[HKFEVER]

Please check this jpg iso=400 out and comment::cry:

- All JPG are 100% corp

- All the JPG with NR on is save as web, 62% quality in PScs

- All the JPG with NR off is save as web, 56% quality in PScs

[HKFEVER]

Please check this jpg iso=100 out and comment::cry:

- All JPG are 100% corp

- All the JPG with NR on is save as web, 62% quality in PScs

- All the JPG with NR off is save as web, 56% quality in PScs

[HKFEVER]

Sorry for all the trouble, but the noise just look really bad.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Looks OK to me..

[pierrot]

I don't understand your problem. Didn't you sell this camera today or yesterday? :mrgreen:

[Planet-Ed]

I think he had two of them .. One he bought and one his wife got him .

[Redbird_xo]

Looks OK to me..

times 2

[perfectpixel]

your shots look underexposed to me. as I understand it all digital will give yuo noise inthe shadows if underexposed regardless of ISO setting.Hope this helps

[Radtech1]

Looks great to me. I would be shooting at 3200 without any hesitation at all. Keep this in mind. If you are indeed posting 100% crops here, what we are looking at would be about 2 square inches on an 8x10. I would suspect the "noise" demonstrated here would be unreproducable on all but the highest end printers. And even if it did come through the printer, it would be beyond the resolving power of most eyes.

Additionally, I would switch to Kleenex brand facial tissue. Scottes is just too rough.

Rad

[Jon]

. . . and could you put a "Warning - file size" on here? Individually, they aren't too bad, but they add up.

[Alex_Doidge]

Only if you have a slow connection Jon ;) J/k

Looks good to me. But what can i say, I only have a 20D. pfft. ;)

[ssim]

What I am seeing here would appear to be within the normal spectrum of acceptable noise levels.

I have done a little 3200 and 1600 ISO work with my 1DMKII and they are vastly improved over the 10D that I was using.

Given that you are posting these, you obviously have issues with them. I'd be curious to know where you think the 3200 noise levels should be.

As was stated by someone else, if these are 100% crops then it is not going to be as noticeable at normal sized prints.

[Simon Spiers]

Nothing wrong with that:confused:
Are you post processing the image to turn up saturation and contrast?
Coz i looks like that to me. That will make it look worse................

[CyberDyneSystems]

Underexposed and white balance is waaaaay off...

You have a live TV set in the background (backlighting) which is going a long way towards making the Cameras' autoexposure fail on you...


At this point HK you seem to be flogging this subject like a dead horse,.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55303

If you will not take the time to apply some of the comments you received from the first few threads on this same subject,. ..... ?

Then what is the point in asking again?

[phili1]

WE neef to know exactly what you did, and how you took the picture.

Example, if you took a picture at ISO 3200 and blew it up to 8 x 10 you would not see the noise on the print, but if you did reduced the size of your file to go on the web and then cropped it. doing it this way will produce grain, not noise.

You are viewing it on a screen that is only capable of viewing at 72 DPI so 100 % will in most cases cause what you see.

Bring it into Photoshop and hit the zoom button three times and you will start to see n noise even at 800.

noise at the higher ISO can be caused caused by underexposure, check to see if it is that.

I get almost no noise with my 20D at 1600 unless I underexpose, then I see it.

But if are going to help we need to knoow the spicifics

[HKFEVER]

I don't understand your problem. Didn't you sell this camera today or yesterday? :mrgreen:
I have 2 of them, I sold one in Frankfurt:lol: , and I still have one in HK.

[HKFEVER]

Looks great to me. I would be shooting at 3200 without any hesitation at all. Keep this in mind. If you are indeed posting 100% crops here, what we are looking at would be about 2 square inches on an 8x10. I would suspect the "noise" demonstrated here would be unreproducable on all but the highest end printers. And even if it did come through the printer, it would be beyond the resolving power of most eyes.

Additionally, I would switch to Kleenex brand facial tissue. Scottes is just too rough.

Rad

The 100% corp is 800 X 533 pixels, 72pixels/inch. The 350pixels/inch file is toobig to upload here.

Kleenex cost too much in HK.

[phili1]

Ok here is an example.

With Film for years we only had ASA 64 or 100 depending on the film to give us grain free sharp pictures. If we use ASA 400 we would have these little spots called grain that would be all over. The larger you blew it up hte larger the grain would get. Back then we called them Golf balls. AS years went on ASA became ISO nad the 400 film acted like the ASA 100 but 800 & 1000 had the grain.

With sensors, the begining cameras over ISO 400 exibited noise ( Grain?), the larger you bow it up the larger the grain. NOw CAnon & NIkon have almost eliminated it but at ISO 3200 your no matter what you do are going to see some. If you have some and you 100% crop it you will see it and that is when noise reducers are used and that is what they are for.

Now several things effect ISO 3200 and 1 is exposure. If it is off you exagerte the noise

JUst read all the comments made and try them. This one hits a home run,

CyberDyneSystems Underexposed and white balance is waaaaay off...

[HKFEVER]

I know the light is low and the TV at the back ground has affect on the exposure.

But the picture colour looks similar to what I see in the real life ( I shot these in mid night with celling light not more than 10 40W light ball.

This come to a question that if I increase the exposure value or have enough light then I don't need to use high ISO.

Also, I never use film more than ISO400 so no idea how it look like after ISO400.

From I see, noise is different from grain:
- Grain is small tiny dots in consitance colour.
- But noise is not just tiny tiny dots but also different colours between dots.

By the way I also sold my 2nd 1DSMKII will ship it out tomorrow. And my third one is arriving HK on Feb-6-2005. In fact I make a small fortune to sell my 2 1DSMKII to Europe.:lol:

[HKFEVER]

WE neef to know exactly what you did, and how you took the picture.

I get almost no noise with my 20D at 1600 unless I underexpose, then I see it.

But if are going to help we need to knoow the spicifics

This is the spec. of one of the shoots:

Shooting Mode
Program AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/30
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8
Metering Mode
Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
800
Lens
16.0 - 35.0 mm
Focal Length
24.0 mm
Image Size
4992x3328
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance Mode
Auto
AF Mode
AI Servo AF
Parameters Settings
Tone Curve Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast +1
Color Matrix
4Adobe RGB
Color Space Adobe RGB
Color saturation Standard
Color tone 0
Noise Reduction
Off
File Size
15193 KB
Custom Function
C.Fn:00-1
C.Fn:01-0
C.Fn:02-0
C.Fn:04-1
C.Fn:05-0
C.Fn:06-0
C.Fn:07-0
C.Fn:08-0
C.Fn:09-0
C.Fn:10-0
C.Fn:11-0
C.Fn:12-0
C.Fn:13-0
C.Fn:14-0
C.Fn:15-1
C.Fn:16-0
C.Fn:17-1
C.Fn:18-0
C.Fn:19-0
C.Fn:20-0
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting

Can you post one or two of your 20D ISO1600 jpgs with 100% crop with 800 X 533 pixels 72pixel/inch?:oops:

[phili1]

Ok Here is a shot at ISO 1600. in the normal picture ther noise level is at a minimum and the picture is acceptable. I had problems with adobe when asking for 100% crop at 72 so I had to do it different. Now the cropped image shows a little noise but not as much as yours and this in my opinion is acceptable.

[HKFEVER]

Ok Here is a shot at ISO 1600. in the normal picture ther noise level is at a minimum and the picture is acceptable. I had problems with adobe when asking for 100% crop at 72 so I had to do it different. Now the cropped image shows a little noise but not as much as yours and this in my opinion is acceptable.

Thank you fo r the picture, but i have the following questions:
- Your picture contains mainly bright colour objects, so it don't show noise that much.
- your 2nd picture, please advise the size (pixel X pixel) and the resolution (pixel/inch)
- which mode, AV valus, TV value.
- Which problem you have with PS?

[phili1]

When you use the crop tool you can desinate your pixels and resolution and when I put both in it freezes.

Anyway the original size Exif data was this

ISO 1600
Mode AV( shutter priority)
White balanc e Daylight
1/800 of sec at F 5.6
size 983 x 655
Resolution 72

The second PIcture the crop
Mode Av ( shutter priority)
White balance DAylight
1/88 of sec F 5.6
size 800 x 584
Resolution 72

As far as the dark area look at the driveway it is black and the tree in the forground and the tree in the background. I did this to show you light and dark areas.

Now if you use a noise filtering program you end up with a nice picture.

I do know the difference between noiser and grain but the example was to show we had grain as a problem with film and with digital we have noise and we did not have anything to reduce the grain. We are lucky.

[ssim]

I'll ask again what I did in an earlier post in this thread.


At which ISO in the spectrum of choices available to you do find it acceptable. This really is a personal and subjective matter.

What I am seeing here is that just about everyone is finding the noise levels in the images that you posted acceptable. Perhaps your expectations of the camera are higher than the capabilities of the hardware.

I've done some (not a great deal) at 1600 and 3200. Fully expecting to see noise I wasn't disappointed in this respect and the end result were acceptable to me.

[HKFEVER]

When you use the crop tool you can desinate your pixels and resolution and when I put both in it freezes.
.

What I did to crop is use Canon's Digital Professional to trim the raw file into 800X533pixel and convert to JPG.
Then but it into PS and save as web to under 100K.
Can you do this with the car's left tail light and the background?

[HKFEVER]

I'll ask again what I did in an earlier post in this thread.


At which ISO in the spectrum of choices available to you do find it acceptable. This really is a personal and subjective matter.

What I am seeing here is that just about everyone is finding the noise levels in the images that you posted acceptable. Perhaps your expectations of the camera are higher than the capabilities of the hardware.

I've done some (not a great deal) at 1600 and 3200. Fully expecting to see noise I wasn't disappointed in this respect and the end result were acceptable to me.

If most of the people is OK for the picture that I posted then may be it is my over expectation.

Grains on the film is OK for me because they are consitance tiny dot in similar colour. Is the digital's noise that I can't really accept (they are grains + different colour change between grains):evil: .

[drisley]

WE neef to know exactly what you did, and how you took the picture.

Example, if you took a picture at ISO 3200 and blew it up to 8 x 10 you would not see the noise on the print, but if you did reduced the size of your file to go on the web and then cropped it. doing it this way will produce grain, not noise.

You are viewing it on a screen that is only capable of viewing at 72 DPI so 100 % will in most cases cause what you see.

Bring it into Photoshop and hit the zoom button three times and you will start to see n noise even at 800.

noise at the higher ISO can be caused caused by underexposure, check to see if it is that.

I get almost no noise with my 20D at 1600 unless I underexpose, then I see it.

But if are going to help we need to knoow the spicifics

What he said :)

[phili1]

You want me to crop to the tail light, wow you are sking this Camera to do wonderous things. there is no way you can get the results you want even from ISO 100. going to the tail light will bring up pixels.

Listen you have a right with an 8 mega pixels image to be able to crop it in half with reasonable results but any more then that will deteriate the best picture.

You want to take a picture of an Eagle 800 yards away and expect to see detail in the face,by cropping an image the size of a pen head, it just wont happen.

What you can expect from ISO 1600 & 3200 is to take a shot in side a theater of a performance and get a shutter speed of 1/125 of a sec for a resonable picture, not great but acceptable.

You have taken a picture under the most drastic conditions at a shuttedr speed of 1/15 of a sec at F2.8 wide open and expected perfection, and there is not a Cmera made that can give that to you. the Canon 20 D and MK II are the best cameras for noise above ISO 800.

Good Luck.

[phili1]

Drisley I am not sure what your saying but I know he posted info, I was asking for more. anyway see my other posts, he wants this Camera to create miracles. I showed him a picture of a shot at ISO 1600 full and cropped in half, that has almost no noise and he wants me to isolate the headlight of the car. Hey maybe it is me but that is asking allot.

[HKFEVER]

You want me to crop to the tail light, wow you are sking this Camera to do wonderous things. there is no way you can get the results you want even from ISO 100. going to the tail light will bring up pixels.
.

Sorry, I forgot the len and distance is far different from I use.

My pictures is only 3 feets away. Your car is way far away.

[adamsti]

Maybe I'm way off base here, but aren't most buyers of the 1DsmkII using these for landscapes and such. I can see no reason on this earth why you would use ISO3200 in such a case. Now indoors may be a different. I just can't see dropping almost $8K on a camera and worrying about ISO3200 performance. Maybe that's because I don't have $8K to spend on a camera though.

[MarkH]

To me the noise levels up to ISO 800 look fine. At ISO 1600 there is noticable noise, but I suspect that if the full image was printed at 8x12 then most people would have no problem with the noise. At ISO 3200 the noise is much more noticable and may even be apparent on a print at 8x12, at 4x6 it would be barely noticable though.

What do you really expect though? ISO 3200 will produce very noticable noise on any camera, on film the grain would look dreadful too. If you don't find it acceptable then avoid using ISO 3200 and stay with 800 or below whenever possible.

[phili1]

OK what I did was to take a shot indoors

ISO 1600
1/60 F9

hand held
Original Picture
72 resolution
841 x 560

Cropped
72
800x646
My findings very little noise.

I do not know what you did but I do not find it a problem.