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 03 Feb 2009 (Tuesday) 01:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

40D - Noise reduction - very impressed

 
David ­ Ransley
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 01:05 |  #1

Hi, I have noticed a few disgruntled 40D users and decided to test the camera. I enabled high-ISO noise reduction and zipped out to take a photo of one of my resident frogs. With firmware version 1.1.1, it seemed that the low light focus capability is also better. The results show that the RAW file has acceptable levels of noise and with a little tweaking; it is possible to remove this and maintain sharpness.

Luminance was a bit more than chrominance noise and in DPP setting both RAW reduction values to 2, and one pass in Noise Ninja 2 with the resulting JPEG, gave an impressive result, see headshot\100% crop below.

The picture below is an attempt to show the RAW as is (no corrections), but obviously the JPG conversion and size reduction will alter the results. It is however a good example of what the RAW looked like. The JPEG files were more gritty/noisy when DPP converted it into JPEG without trying the RAW options first.

The headshot is a 100 crop with me trying a few things to clear the noise. Shot taken ISO 1600, built-in flash, F3.5 at 1/60. As close as possible to frog which waited patiently outside below a floresant light.

At least, I am impressed and improving my noise reduction techniques will yield better results.


DRH

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Feb 03, 2009 01:16 |  #2

Is the in camera noise reduction even applied when you shoot raw? I thought it was a post-processing procedure done in camera.

I'm not sure I understand your exercise. Is this just a test? Because if not, it's not necessary to shoot at iso1600 when using the flash.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JBaz
Goldmember
Avatar
1,672 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Apex, NC
     
Feb 03, 2009 01:51 |  #3

^noise reduction is applied by the image processor in the camera. Your raw file is the data saved after your image processor since it attempts to "understands" the information from the sensor. This is my understanding though.

And who say's you don't need to use flash with high ISO? I do it all the time to balance my flash with ambient and still maintain a high shutter speed so the ambient doesn't get lost with camera shake in certain incidents.


Camera Gear

"Besides the military, photography is the only profession of where you can be proud of shooting people..."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Ransley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 01:57 |  #4

mrkgoo wrote in post #7243268 (external link)
Is the in camera noise reduction even applied when you shoot raw? I thought it was a post-processing procedure done in camera.

I'm not sure I understand your exercise. Is this just a test? Because if not, it's not necessary to shoot at iso1600 when using the flash.

Yes, I do understand that a flash negates the requirement to use ISO 1600, I just wanted to see the noise caused by 1600. Hence the bumping of the ISO rating. The idea was to see the noise as a result of ISO and ahve sufficient light. The light available was just too little, but I will do some testing without the flash as well.

People complain about the 40D's noise at 1600 and I jsut wanted to see this for myself.


DRH

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Ransley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:03 |  #5

JBaz wrote in post #7243374 (external link)
^noise reduction is applied by the image processor in the camera. Your raw file is the data saved after your image processor since it attempts to "understands" the information from the sensor. This is my understanding though.

And who say's you don't need to use flash with high ISO? I do it all the time to balance my flash with ambient and still maintain a high shutter speed so the ambient doesn't get lost with camera shake in certain incidents.

I read the manual before enabling the noise reduction and it warns about a reduction in speed, due to the processing requirement. There is a marked reduction in loading the shot to the flash disk, and the camera says "busy". I only shoot in RAW, but still noticed this reduction in speed.

In situations where I need to capture the ambient light and maintain high shutter speeds, example 1/125, I also use flash. I normally stay at or below 400, but for this I shot up all the way to 1600 - wanted to see the noise.


DRH

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:03 |  #6

JBaz wrote in post #7243374 (external link)
^noise reduction is applied by the image processor in the camera. Your raw file is the data saved after your image processor since it attempts to "understands" the information from the sensor. This is my understanding though.

And who say's you don't need to use flash with high ISO? I do it all the time to balance my flash with ambient and still maintain a high shutter speed so the ambient doesn't get lost with camera shake in certain incidents.

MY understanding was that RAW data was just that - the data BEFORE the image processor got hold of it. Noise reduction in camera reduces chroma noise before anything else - something that isn't such an issue in RAW, since it's the data before processing from the bayer filter. Well, to MY understanding anyway.

I realise the uses of a high shutter in flash photography, my point was why it was necessary in this particular shot. It's not like the background is all that flattering.

Yes, I do understand that a flash negates the requirement to use ISO 1600, I just wanted to see the noise caused by 1600. Hence the bumping of the ISO rating. The idea was to see the noise as a result of ISO and ahve sufficient light. The light available was just too little, but I will do some testing without the flash as well.

People complain about the 40D's noise at 1600 and I jsut wanted to see this for myself.

I see. I never had a problem shooting at 1600. When I first started out in all of this nonsense, I insisted on using iso100 to keep noise down. I would sacrifice everything, only bumping it when needed. But I realised that I rarely ever do anything with my images apart from share online. I could probably get away with shooting 2MP the whole time. And in this case, iso1600 is very useable, because noone ever sees the 100% crop.

Actually, come to think about it, I shoot JPEG, maybe I should switch to sRAW?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,760 posts
Gallery: 1685 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4971
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:09 |  #7

Personally, I would rather do the noise reduction myself, via software & PP. Gives me the opportunity to choose how aggressive a treatment I want. :)


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Ransley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:16 as a reply to  @ mrkgoo's post |  #8

Actually, come to think about it, I shoot JPEG, maybe I should switch to sRAW?

One thing I did notice and maybe it is a tip, is the reduced amount of visible noise in the RAW format. Even at 200% it looked as if one could remove it without too much effort.

The JPEG format produced by DPP, without any size reduction, had a noticeable increase in noise levels. To the extent, that I reduced the levels in RAW first. Converting the result to JPEG yielded good results. The alternative is to do the RAW conversion and then go into something like Noise Ninja.

Don’t know which will be better as a rule. Maybe someone out there can suggest a good approach.


DRH

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Ransley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:20 |  #9

jwcdds wrote in post #7243420 (external link)
Personally, I would rather do the noise reduction myself, via software & PP. Gives me the opportunity to choose how aggressive a treatment I want. :)

That is what I normally do and possibly will go back to that approach in the future. Just had a bee under the bonnet and wanted to see what all the Ho-Ha was about.

The camera is fine, but the speed reduction is a bit of a nuisance. It is very easy to wait for the processing before you continue.


DRH

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:38 |  #10

David Ransley wrote in post #7243405 (external link)
I read the manual before enabling the noise reduction and it warns about a reduction in speed, due to the processing requirement. There is a marked reduction in loading the shot to the flash disk, and the camera says "busy". I only shoot in RAW, but still noticed this reduction in speed.

In situations where I need to capture the ambient light and maintain high shutter speeds, example 1/125, I also use flash. I normally stay at or below 400, but for this I shot up all the way to 1600 - wanted to see the noise.

Really? I only shoot JPEG, so I never see a 'busy', even with noise reduction on. The 6.5 fps for the 40D IS reduced, however.

Good point about sRAW. I still shoot JPEG for the convenience, and because I'm indecisive without having to worry about post-processing decisions.

Here is my iso1600 shot from 40D:

(straight out of camera no post, can't remember if I used noise reduction or not)

IMAGE: http://i44.tinypic.com/2qw20oy.jpg

100% :
IMAGE: http://i43.tinypic.com/o94yns.jpg

I'm more than happy



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,760 posts
Gallery: 1685 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4971
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:41 |  #11

^ looks like NR was used. But looks great to me.


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:50 |  #12

I'm sorry David but your ISO 1600 looks really smeared, yet also noisy in the background. Keep on experimenting, you'll see the 40D can do even better


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Ransley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 02:55 |  #13

Impressive results for -

Shooting Date/Time, 2008/03/27 21:11:36
Tv(Shutter Speed), 1/80Sec.
Av(Aperture Value), F1.8
Metering Modes, Split metering
ISO Speed, 1600
Focal Length, 50.0 mm

No reason to compain :-)


DRH

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Feb 03, 2009 03:09 |  #14

jwcdds wrote in post #7243499 (external link)
^ looks like NR was used. But looks great to me.

Here're some images I just took:

Iso1600, Noise reduction off (100% crop):

IMAGE: http://i43.tinypic.com/333ln3k.jpg

Iso1600, Noise reduction on (100% crop):
IMAGE: http://i43.tinypic.com/a3cmfk.jpg

And just for the record, Iso3200, Noise reduction on (100%crop):
IMAGE: http://i43.tinypic.com/jtmihx.jpg

And what the full images look like:

IMAGE: http://i44.tinypic.com/qq68t1.jpg

IMAGE: http://i44.tinypic.com/2ymhkp5.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Ransley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
673 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 14
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
     
Feb 03, 2009 03:14 |  #15

smorter wrote in post #7243520 (external link)
I'm sorry David but your ISO 1600 looks really smeared, yet also noisy in the background. Keep on experimenting, you'll see the 40D can do even better

Yes, the noise levels increase when shooting in dark environments. As you have noticed the background is noisy. The smeared effect pops in as soon as you try to remove the little T-bars (luminance) and at 200% view they are clearly visible in the RAW file. Are you referring to the 100%-crop view?

Before jumping, I had to go to that level of magnification to see them clearly, at 100% the chromanince noise is the one that shows up more.


DRH

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

3,099 views & 0 likes for this thread
40D - Noise reduction - very impressed
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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
903 guests, 316 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.