Is this noise pattern normal? (5D II)

omg -_- another pixel peeper.

sheik*yerbouti wrote in post #9043872
You used fill at 100 and are complaining it looks like crap. WTF seriously people.

Yeah, I thought I'd push the fill up just a hair to get whatever detail is in the exposure back into the blacks. Then I notice a pattern. Then I ask a question about the pattern .

I expected noise. I didn't expect the pattern in the noise. I was asking "is this normal"and could do without comments such as yours which have nothing to offer the discussion.

-K

kurt765 wrote in post #9044125
I was asking "is this normal"

It's normal.

Your camera is fine. I don't think this is an issue of pixel-peeping so much as a legitimate question about how to reduce shadow noise.

If you expose to the right(of the histogram)...overexpos​e just a bit, you'll avoid noise in the shadows and will be able to reduce the exposure to normal in Photoshop or Lightroom. Because of the nature of digital images, there is much more detail in the highlights than the shadows, and those details can be extracted by the method above (essentially PP'ing to the left,) while getting more exposure in the shadows and hence less noise.

If you want to test it, bracket the exposure and watch the noise in the shadows in the underexposed shot compared to the overexposed shot once both of them are brought to the same levels in PP. There should be less shadow noise without loss of detail in the highlights of the overexposed shot.

Thanks tvphotog. I wanted to make sure it wasn't especially bad on my camera while I still had the opportunity to easily return it. Time to cut off the UPC to send in for B&H's rebate.

-K

You might find this thread to be fun.

Regular noise is normal according to the manual iirc. This kind of regular noise is probably readout noise, caused by the camera reading the image data.

weeatmice wrote in post #9045993
Regular noise is normal according to the manual iirc. This kind of regular noise is probably readout noise, caused by the camera reading the image data.

Can you explain this further?

-K

Ooh cirque de soleil... which show did you see?

kurt765 wrote in post #9046015
Can you explain this further?

-K

Not really. I'm just repeating what I've read elsewhere, but have a look here.

http://users.libero.it​/mnico/glossary/readno​ise.htm
http://www.cyanogen.co​m …ias_Frame_Calib​ration.htm

You can find information on this stuff googling for "readout noise", or "bias frames". Bias frames are near zero length exposures that should show this noise (as apposed to ISO noise), these are used to subtract out noise when stacking images for astrophotograpy.

Good news is that noise removal software should be pretty good at removing it.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #9046029
Ooh cirque de soleil... which show did you see?

"Kooza" by the Santa Monica Pier.

kurt765 wrote in post #9046038
"Kooza" by the Santa Monica Pier.

cool never seen that one

It is normal to the 5DII and some other Canon cameras. It is not necessarily normal to digital. Read Daniel Browning's thread, which has been linked to a few times already. Note that it's full of the same crap you're getting here.

tvphotog wrote in post #9045933
You might find this thread to be fun.

Breed more HAMSTTRs!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #9043968
The bigger issue here really is the pattern noise more than anything. There is no need for the pattern noise, that is not common to other manufacturers. Canon improved this issue dramatically on the 7D, and that bodes well for the next generation bodies.

This my take on this as well.

The D700 doesn't exhibit this type of pattern noise as far as I'm aware.