LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


7D RAW vs mRAW ISO Comparison

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 05 Oct 2009 (Monday) 23:42   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
nicksan's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
24,585 posts
NYC
[MORE/SHARE]

Ran some tests comparing RAW vs mRAW (10MP) in terms of ISO noise.

I used DPP, zeroed out what I could (Noise, Sharpening) and exported it to PS CS4.

Left side is RAW. Right side is mRAW. I downsized the RAW to mRAW size of 3888 x 2952. I am not sure if that invalidates this test. You guys tell me.

All are 100% crops.

ISO3200

IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p165209010.jpg

ISO3200
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p335302702.jpg

ISO6400
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p210841979.jpg

ISO6400
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p117985596.jpg

I decided to dust off Noiseware instead of dFine. Did a nice job removing the noise...

ISO3200 Noiseware Applied
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p477270270.jpg

ISO3200 Noiseware applied
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p407448729.jpg

ISO6400 Noiseware applied
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p533103154.jpg

ISO6400 Noiseware applied
IMAGE: http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p3662719.jpg

IMO, the RAW resized to mRAW looks better because the grain becomes much finer which is conducive to better NR. However depending on where in the frame you are looking at, mRAW seems to look "smoother"...but perhaps with the expense of losing detail? Not really sure.
I also ran into some strange DPP 3.7 behaviour with mRAW. The letters in the frame appear jagged. When I up the color NR to 1, the jaggies are gone. This does not happen for RAW files.

Obviously, I could not open the mRAW files in ACR, even with the 5.5 beta update.

Comments/contributions are welcomed!

Post #1, Oct 05, 2009 23:42:24


NYC Wedding Photographerexternal link | Blogexternal link | facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
stax
Senior Member
stax's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
731 posts
Oakland
[MORE/SHARE]

D'Addario strings

:cool:

Post #2, Oct 05, 2009 23:49:08


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/staxnet/external link

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=865770

LOG IN TO REPLY
M3Rocket
Senior Member
M3Rocket's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
580 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Darn it--all my pixel-bining hopes are dashed! :( Maybe on the new 1D/1Ds Mk IV?

Post #3, Oct 06, 2009 02:13:10


iLUKphotographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
djvkool
Senior Member
djvkool's Avatar
Joined Aug 2009
461 posts
Wild Wild West of OZ
[MORE/SHARE]

M3Rocket wrote in post #8769322external link
Darn it--all my pixel-bining hopes are dashed! :( Maybe on the new 1D/1Ds Mk IV?

whatchu talkin bout Willis..?? 100% crop - ISO6400 - that isn't too shabby at all...not too shabby at all...

Post #4, Oct 06, 2009 02:54:48


7D | 100 2.8L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS | 24-70 2.8L | 50 1.4 | Tam 18-270mm | Tam 17-50 2.8 | Sig 30 1.4 |

LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
3,498 posts
California
[MORE/SHARE]

mRAW just looks like RAW with less detail. Not a big deal, but for anyone who cares, it's there.

Post #5, Oct 06, 2009 03:16:27




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
laychengjin
Member
Joined Apr 2009
76 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Seems that with 7D RAW is better than mRaw. While on 50D RAW1 is better than RAW in term of noise :D

Post #6, Oct 06, 2009 03:21:55


Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
M3Rocket
Senior Member
M3Rocket's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
580 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

For a good, short discussion of "pixel-binning," try this: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/68475​9external link

I don't need or want the very large RAW files all the time for a whole bunch of reasons. The idea is to get better noise performance with mRAW or sRAW using a sophisticated algorithm to combine raw pixels. I was hoping Canon would start making some big breakthroughs in this area rather than just increasing the MP. I'd rather have 10 fantastic MPs than 21 good MPs.

Post #7, Oct 06, 2009 03:43:48


iLUKphotographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
BugEyes
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2005
577 posts
Sweden
[MORE/SHARE]

The mRAW seem to loose some detail, I don't understand why as I think a resized raw would be equal to an mRAW. But there must be some difference in the resizing algoritm.

RAW/mRAW comparision disregarded these images show how well the camera handles high ISO and how well it will clean up with a noise reduction program.

I tried mine out at ISO 3200 yesterday for a hockey game and I'm impressed with the result. This camera can be used at 3200 without hesitation and that is better than I dared hope for, better than the 5D classic.

Post #8, Oct 06, 2009 05:48:14


Kameras, lenses and other stuff
http://www.sorkin.seexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Man I Like to Fart
nicksan's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
24,585 posts
NYC
[MORE/SHARE]

I read on FM that shooting in mRAW yields better results noise wise so I wanted to see for myself. I just don't see it.

That said, I would not hesitate to shoot mRAW if needed.

I am not sure if the conversion software has anything to do with the inconsistent results I am getting. ACR 5.5 and DPP 3.7 both...

DPP is having some issues rendering sRAW. I see a lot of jaggies and only when I set color NR to 1 do they go away.

Post #9, Oct 06, 2009 08:16:45


NYC Wedding Photographerexternal link | Blogexternal link | facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
Juan ­ Zas
Goldmember
Juan Zas's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
1,511 posts
Madrid - ESP
[MORE/SHARE]

Here are the original RAW & mRAW files (JPEG converted) downloadable from Rapidshare of another comparation test shots done at ISO 100, ISO 1600 & ISO 3200 ... yield at DPR:

http://forums.dpreview​.com ...rum=1019&message=33​219388external link

and this is stright comparation between ISO 3200 of a 100% crop put together:

http://img23.imageshac​k.us/img23/4630/comp32​00copy.jpgexternal link


Watch by yourself ....

Post #10, Oct 06, 2009 08:51:36


Cheers
Juan
_______________
My Gear
My Photo Galleryexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Man I Like to Fart
nicksan's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
24,585 posts
NYC
[MORE/SHARE]

Looks like the RAW wasn't resized to mRAW size.

I'll be the first to tell you I have no idea what the proper test is, whether it's to compare 100% from these files untouched, or to resize the RAW to 10MP.

I purposely resized the RAW to mRAW then compared b/c that's what I wanted to see , namely the difference at 10MP. Doing that, I find that they are pretty close, with the slight edge going to the RAW resized to 10MP...I find the finer grain pattern much more pleasing than the slight blotching that I see in the mRAW. You'll also notice that it cleans up nicer when applying NR.

Post #11, Oct 06, 2009 09:08:48


NYC Wedding Photographerexternal link | Blogexternal link | facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
thw
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2005
155 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Juan Zas wrote in post #8770450external link
Here are the original RAW & mRAW files (JPEG converted) downloadable from Rapidshare of another comparation test shots done at ISO 100, ISO 1600 & ISO 3200 ... yield at DPR:

http://forums.dpreview​.com ...rum=1019&message=33​219388external link

and this is stright comparation between ISO 3200 of a 100% crop put together

Watch by yourself ....

This is totally consistent with what I got. 100% view of mRAW files at ISO 3200 is VERY impressive. Better than anything one can get from those 10 or 12 MP DSLRs at those high ISO settings.

Of course, for those highly prejudiced skeptics out there, even if I show you an ISO 100 shot and claim it's ISO 3200, you'll still say the noise is excessive.

Post #12, Oct 06, 2009 09:12:21


thw.smugmug.com

LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Man I Like to Fart
nicksan's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
24,585 posts
NYC
[MORE/SHARE]

thw wrote in post #8770580external link
This is totally consistent with what I got. 100% view of mRAW files at ISO 3200 is VERY impressive. Better than anything one can get from those 10 or 12 MP DSLRs at those high ISO settings.

Of course, for those highly prejudiced skeptics out there, even if I show you an ISO 100 shot and claim it's ISO 3200, you'll still say the noise is excessive.

Interesting that my tests don't look anything like that. It almost seems like they were oversharpened resulting in white specs within the grain, etc.

Post #13, Oct 06, 2009 09:14:47


NYC Wedding Photographerexternal link | Blogexternal link | facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
bacchanal
Cream of the Crop
bacchanal's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
5,161 posts
Fort Wayne, IN
[MORE/SHARE]

nicksan wrote in post #8770557external link
Looks like the RAW wasn't resized to mRAW size.

I'll be the first to tell you I have no idea what the proper test is, whether it's to compare 100% from these files untouched, or to resize the RAW to 10MP.

I purposely resized the RAW to mRAW then compared b/c that's what I wanted to see , namely the difference at 10MP. Doing that, I find that they are pretty close, with the slight edge going to the RAW resized to 10MP...I find the finer grain pattern much more pleasing than the slight blotching that I see in the mRAW. You'll also notice that it cleans up nicer when applying NR.

I don't think there is really a correct way to test. After using the 5D2, and seeing just how irrelevant 100% crops are when dealing with 21mp, I definitely have more of a results based view point. How you treat noise, how you process the image will vary from shot to shot and it will also vary depending on output. My NR process (if I use NR at all) would probably be quite different for a 10mp file vs. an 18mp file. Full raw is going to give you more options in the NR department.

Post #14, Oct 06, 2009 09:52:59


Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
3,498 posts
California
[MORE/SHARE]

nicksan wrote in post #8770557external link
I'll be the first to tell you I have no idea what the proper test is, whether it's to compare 100% from these files untouched, or to resize the RAW to 10MP.

The better test is with the same size image, not both at 100%. Why would you compare a 20x30 print to an 8x12?

Post #15, Oct 06, 2009 15:44:23




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
15,926 views & 0 likes for this thread
7D RAW vs mRAW ISO Comparison
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00232 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
1047 guests, 756 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is modular747

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.