Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Jun 2012 (Thursday) 00:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

New 7D firmware released - good upgrades!

 
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Aug 10, 2012 11:46 |  #946

Charliephoto wrote in post #14840497 (external link)
PLacebo
:lol:

I thought that you believed that the mere idea of any noise difference being a placebo effect was 'comical'.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Magnus3D
Goldmember
Avatar
1,401 posts
Gallery: 162 photos
Likes: 788
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
     
Aug 10, 2012 11:49 |  #947

Peter: Hehe, i would appreciate it if you didn't wear a mankini or a short skirt, or similar revealing clothes. No high heels please, it ruins the paintjob on my timemachine. :)

/ Magnus


| Lots of cheap camera gear |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 285
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Aug 10, 2012 12:17 |  #948

hollis_f wrote in post #14840360 (external link)
Here's a before/after comparison of an ISO6400 shot in LR. NR is set to zero. 100% crop.

They look virtually identical to me (the colors in the sample on the right look very slightly more saturated, but I don't see any significant difference in noise, a few "dots" different here or there but basically the same) - is that how you see them? In any event, thanks for posting.


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,358 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 88
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Aug 10, 2012 12:41 as a reply to  @ post 14840131 |  #949

They've included an artificial intelligence self-confidence algorithm in the update to counteract some hesitancy about being designated the flagship APS-C camera by Canon.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,029 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 110
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Aug 10, 2012 12:46 |  #950

Thorrulz wrote in post #14836482 (external link)
Thanks and I do take that as it was meant.:lol:

On a side note I did just win a photo contest where you could submit photo's taken during a "Race for a Cure" Childrens Miracle Network run. When I arrived I saw several 5DMII's and a few 1D's so I really didn't expect to much other than some personal shots. Here's the real kicker though, out of the Canon 70-200's, 24-105's and even a 300mm lens on those aforementioned bodies my little Sigma 50 f/1.4 got what was judged the best photo so I am happy as punch. Granted I had it stopped down to f/3.5 I believe for the winning pic but a win is a win nonetheless.:D

Congratulations, would you like to share the winning pic with us. I would very much like to see what you shot :)


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 / XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Box ­ Brownie
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,186 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Surrey
     
Aug 10, 2012 12:54 |  #951

hollis_f wrote in post #14840360 (external link)
Here's a before/after comparison of an ISO6400 shot in LR. NR is set to zero. 100% crop.

QUOTED IMAGE

Well to my eye on this laptop too bright monitor (note ~ this is not my editing kit ;) ) the granularity in both seems very similar but the chroma noise especially in the reds does look a tad different, not better just different. But the standout thing for me is the text on the whiter surface ~ in the RHS image it looks that bit crisper/sharper defined, do look especially at the "4a" :D

Just my 2p's worth of input based on your side by side test under controlled conditions.


That was a great meal ~ you must have a good set of pans :p
Images for a photographic memory (external link) | Flickr (external link) | >>>My 500px<<< (external link)
credit line is vanity, payment is sanity

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thorrulz
Goldmember
Avatar
3,772 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 364
Joined Jan 2009
Location: The Land of the "Go Big Red!"
     
Aug 10, 2012 13:00 |  #952

h14nha wrote in post #14840768 (external link)
Congratulations, would you like to share the winning pic with us. I would very much like to see what you shot :)

I would love to as soon as I find out when the rules permit. I do know that the company/foundation does have the right to publish or air the photo first and I want to stay within the rules.


Flickr (external link)
D800 I Nikon 200 f2 VR 1 I Nikon 200 f2 ED AI-S I Nikon 135 f2 DC I Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 I Nikon 50 f/1.4G I Nikon 85 f/1.8G I Pentax 645D I SMC FA 645 75 F2.8 I SMC FA 645 45-85 F4.5 I SMC FA 645 200 F4
My sister, the professional baker and cake decorator once told me that my camera takes great pics. My reply was that I thought her oven baked great cakes.:lol:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Calicajun
Goldmember
Avatar
2,929 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 98
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
     
Aug 10, 2012 13:02 |  #953

Thorrulz wrote in post #14840821 (external link)
I would love to as soon as I find out when the rules permit. I do know that the company/foundation does have the right to publish or air the photo first and I want to stay within the rules.

Look forward to seeing the picture or a link to the site showing your picture real soon.:D


Remember, Stressed spelled backward is Desserts.:)
Suggestions welcome.
5DIII, EF 50 1.4, EF 40 f2.8, EF 24-105L IS , EF 70-200 f4L IS, 580EX ll

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thallikar
Senior Member
323 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Aug 10, 2012 14:39 |  #954

Excellent. I do see lesser noise in the RHS image. Nice.

Box Brownie wrote in post #14840802 (external link)
Well to my eye on this laptop too bright monitor (note ~ this is not my editing kit ;) ) the granularity in both seems very similar but the chroma noise especially in the reds does look a tad different, not better just different. But the standout thing for me is the text on the whiter surface ~ in the RHS image it looks that bit crisper/sharper defined, do look especially at the "4a" :D

Just my 2p's worth of input based on your side by side test under controlled conditions.


http://500px.com/thall​ikar (external link)
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/64724969@N06/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,752 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 10, 2012 14:48 |  #955

stsva wrote in post #14840078 (external link)
I think it's still an open question, but so far we don't have the before-after comparisons under controlled conditions to make a definite decision. I can say that when I compared the noise in an old 12800 shot to a test shot I did after updating the firmware, at 100% view the "character" of the noise looked identical between the two; whether there was "less" noise in the new shot is impossible to say, since they weren't shot under the same conditions. :cool:

I took shots before and after my upgrade at ISOs 100 and 6400 with the lens cap on.

The RAW read noise quantity and character are *exactly* the same on both sides of the upgrade. In fact, the fixed pattern vertical banding noise at base ISO is exactly the same in both, which is the same as in the first shot I took with the 7D with the lens cap on when I bought it almost 3 years ago.

IOW, most of the vertical banding noise is can be known as it is the same in every shot, and could be removed, if not in camera, by a utility, after capture. Canon doesn't care that this vertical banding is there, and can be easily eradicated before conversion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,752 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 10, 2012 14:51 |  #956

hollis_f wrote in post #14840498 (external link)
If it's real then it should be obvious. If it is a placebo effect then I hope some people have some nice hot sauce for their humble pie.

The difference on screen is real, but the difference is due to changed conversion parameters; not improved RAW noise.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charliephoto
Member
87 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Ont.,Canada
     
Aug 10, 2012 14:54 |  #957

hollis_f wrote in post #14840537 (external link)
I thought that you believed that the mere idea of any noise difference being a placebo effect was 'comical'.

It`s your insistence that i find comical :)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,358 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 88
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Aug 10, 2012 15:26 |  #958

John Sheehy wrote in post #14841154 (external link)
... Canon doesn't care that this vertical banding is there, and can be easily eradicated before conversion.

I agree that there is no change in noise.

However, I do not agree with your quoted statement (the part about eradicating noise in the raw data. The part about Canon is your opinion). Raw data is supposed to be just that and any sort of NR filtering changes the data. All processing is done post raw. BTW, what you and many others are calling banding is not the correct term. The characteristic that you are referring to is fixed pattern noise that comes from variation in gains on the individual read lines to the ADC when the sensor is being read. This characteristic is obviously going to show up at some point and that is one of the factors that determines the maximum usable ISO gain. There is another component to fixed pattern noise that is noticeable at high ISO and on long exposures at low ISO which is variation in the gins of the isolation transistor collocated at each individual photodiode, but has a more random appearance.

Earlier CCD sensors didn't have this issue because they were read asynchronously line at a time. The big disadvantageous of the CCD was its comparative slowness as well as the problem of correctly binning asynchronous data. Timing was extremely critical.

The term banding refers to abrupt color or tone transitions on an image of a subject that has a smooth gradient. In earlier cameras this was more of an issue because the raw image data was saved in 10 or 12 bit format. Converting that to 8 bit JPG format could much more easily result in banding than starting with 14 or 16 bit format to create 8 bit JPG images. It can still happen, especially with large tonal adjustments to 8 bit images or deep compression when saving JPG images.

Since the corruption of terminology has gone viral it is probably pointless for me to continue tilting windmills. ;)


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,752 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 10, 2012 16:14 |  #959

Bill Boehme wrote in post #14841269 (external link)
I agree that there is no change in noise.

However, I do not agree with your quoted statement (the part about eradicating noise in the raw data. The part about Canon is your opinion). Raw data is supposed to be just that and any sort of NR filtering changes the data.

I didn't say anything about filtering. I said that there is a vertical banding noise component that is fixed and known. Therefore, it can be subtracted from each RAW with zero negative consequence. That is nothing like filtering; filtering is destructive, and subtracting know fixed pattern noise is non-destructive (no detail is lost in the process).

All processing is done post raw. BTW, what you and many others are calling banding is not the correct term.

I didn't start calling it banding, but that is what people call it, so I call it that. I also use terms like "one-dimensional noise", which, while far more accurate a description, means nothing to many people.

The characteristic that you are referring to is fixed pattern noise that comes from variation in gains on the individual read lines to the ADC when the sensor is being read.

Not the one-dimensional noise that I am talking about. You're talking about the kind of noise that shows up horizontally at high ISOs, more predominant in the 5D and 5D2 than in the 7D. The vertical lines at low ISOs on the 7D are gain-independent, which is precisely why it is only visible at lowest ISOs with the least random 2-D noise. There are faint, wider, sparser non-chromatic bands that are different in different frames, but the edgy vertical line noise has a strong component at the highest (Nyquist) frequency, and is more chromatic in nature. Part of it is periodic, and part is not periodic, but both are fixed, and are exactly the same intensity from the top of the frame to the bottom, and in the same line in every frame. This is an embarrassingly simple problem, which is why I say that Canon does not care.

This characteristic is obviously going to show up at some point and that is one of the factors that determines the maximum usable ISO gain.

I don't think so. There is no reason that gain-related banding noise is necessarily strong enough to stand out from the 2D noise, both of which should be in the same proportion. Gain simply serves no purpose beyond a certain level, because there is nothing really to gain upon. There are many cameras which show no visible banding noises at all. Take a look at the high-ISO RAWs from the Olympus EM5; the noise looks so docile that it looks like someone added it with software. A FF camera with 4 of those sensors would drop the D4 and 1Dx down a notch on the totem pole.

The term banding refers to abrupt color or tone transitions on an image of a subject that has a smooth gradient.

I always called that "contour banding". I call it "posterization" these days. "Banding" is a regular english word, not a technical term, and needs to be interpreted in context.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Aug 10, 2012 17:12 |  #960

thallikar wrote in post #14841128 (external link)
Excellent. I do see lesser noise in the RHS image. Nice.

OK, so that's one vote for the RHS being better and one for the LHS - and three 'no difference'. Strong evidence for placebo.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

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

235,801 views & 0 likes for this thread
New 7D firmware released - good upgrades!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 7DMalinois
902 guests, 211 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.