Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 17 Sep 2008 (Wednesday) 07:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Pixel binning: a myth?

 
wem
Senior Member
783 posts
Joined Aug 2008
     
Sep 17, 2008 07:46 |  #1

Hello everyone,

I have been looking all over the internet to find an answer to the question below, but I get contradictory results. Could someone please explain to me the following:

In order to reduce observable noise in a picture, one could use pixel binning. I am told on other sites (and contradicted as many times) that this is merely lowering the resolution of the picture. So, for example, when one shoots a 21MP picture and then later on lowers it to about 10MP, the amount of observable noise should drastically improve.

My first question: is this correct?

My second question: if I immediately shoot in sRAW and have a 10MP output of the 21MP sensor, is this also considered pixel binning? Does this reduce the noise as much as in the method above?

Thank you very much, I am really looking forward to your answers!


-
My gear list
My flickr (external link) page
wimvangestel.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Sep 17, 2008 09:33 |  #2

I'd say yes and yes.


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pete
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
38,607 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2006
     
Sep 17, 2008 09:35 |  #3

First Question:
Yes. It's true. I've noticed quite a few times that simply resizing your shots to a dimension suitable for the end use cuts down noise a great deal more effectively than running noise reduction first.

It doesn't take that long to resize and re-assess before you start working on noise reduction. I've always stated that too much noise reduction will ruin a shot (makes it look all nasty and plastic).

Second question:
No. Stick at the highest resolution your camera can output. There's no real sense in throwing away valuable data. What would happen if someone wanted a high resolution version of something you've shot (say for a big poster). You'll lose out if your capture doesn't have enough resolution. Downsizing from 21Mp to web-size won't be much different than downsizing from 10Mp to web-size.

Storage is cheap these days. If you handicap yourself at capture time, you don't get that resolution back.


Pete
UK SE Catch of the Day

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wem
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
783 posts
Joined Aug 2008
     
Sep 17, 2008 10:26 |  #4

Ok, thanks a lot!


-
My gear list
My flickr (external link) page
wimvangestel.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Sep 17, 2008 11:44 |  #5

Pete wrote in post #6324759 (external link)
Second question:
No. Stick at the highest resolution your camera can output. There's no real sense in throwing away valuable data. What would happen if someone wanted a high resolution version of something you've shot (say for a big poster). You'll lose out if your capture doesn't have enough resolution.


While I agree (in theory) with what you are saying here, it doesn't answer the question I think :p. (emphasis mine)

wem wrote in post #6324050 (external link)
My second question: if I immediately shoot in sRAW and have a 10MP output of the 21MP sensor, is this also considered pixel binning? Does this reduce the noise as much as in the method above?

If the answer to that question is "yes" (and I think it is), this statement

Pete wrote in post #6324759 (external link)
Downsizing from 21Mp to web-size won't be much different than downsizing from 10Mp to web-size.

implies the answer is yes (you say "not much different", and IMO the resulting noise probably will be low to notice anyway, but in theory it is different ;))


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lowcrust
Senior Member
Avatar
948 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Scandinavia
     
Sep 18, 2008 05:14 |  #6

So sRAW still use the whole sensor?

If in fact this would reduce noise, and you wanted to get as clean as possible web-sized images, would it be more efficient to shoot 21MP or sRAW? Both would have to be resized.

Let's throw another example out there; if I were to print native 10MP sized images, would I benefit, in terms of noise, from a 10MP sRAW? Or would a 21MP re-sized to 10MP in Lightroom yield as good, or better, results?


~ BORN FREE - TAXED TO DEATH! ~

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Damo77
Goldmember
Avatar
4,567 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Sep 18, 2008 05:20 |  #7

I would say easily as good, with the added bonus of being able to print large if ever required. No contest, for mine.


Damien
Website (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cvt01
Senior Member
466 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 11
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 07, 2008 09:20 |  #8

Let me warm up this thread. I'm confused with this pixel binning stuff a little. I'm not even sure what it means. Here is what I understood so far based on what I've read: Resizing is certainly not pixel binning as it throws away pixels based on a very simple mathematic formula. Pixel binning on the other hand would compare neightboring pixels and average them out while eliminating the peaks. I imagine this method would get rid of chroma noise (hot pixels) very effectively. I'm not sure on the luminance noise though.
Pixel binning sounds like a software feature because it involves computing only. I imagine that if it was "built in" in any camera's sRaw capture process it would work like this: the camera takes a full resolution raw image and the processor do the math of comparing the neightboring pixels in it and downsizing to the new resolution using those averaged out pixels.

Some people is really interested if the new 5DII has this "technology" implemented in the body when using sRaw. I don't think it has. If the aboves are true (which I'm not sure), I think the pixel binning would arrive in raw converters like DPP, lightroom/ACR etc. first. It wont effect the speed of the camera and we have all the time we need for processing. I look at it as sharpnening, yes there is a way to dial in sharpening in-camera, but the ultimate way to do it in three steps in Photoshop.

Am I way off here?

Is there any word about this in PS CS4?


Peter
flickr (external link)
1Ds I, 1Ds II, Rokinon 14, Canon 135L,
Sony A7, Zeiss 35 1.4 ZA, Minolta MD 35 f2.8, Konica 40 f1.8, Konica 50 f1.7, Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.1, Takumar 55 f1.8, Helios 44-2, Minolta MD 135 f3.5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,129 views & 0 likes for this thread
Pixel binning: a myth?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is insurfr
805 guests, 437 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.