Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Digital Noise

Subject: Re: [OM] Digital Noise
From: "Wayne Harridge" <wayne.harridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:04:06 +1000
Yeah, I found the article somewhat interesting but not really clear and not
giving a conclusive answer.

Given the same sensor technology the main factor will be the actual area of
an individual pixel not the overall sensor area though they are linked by
the resolution, so 16Mp on a full frame sensor will be better than 16Mp on a
4/3 sensor because each pixel of FF will be ~4x the area.

...Wayne



-----Original Message-----
From: olympus
[mailto:olympus-bounces+wayne.harridge=structuregraphs.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Ken Norton
Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2015 6:23 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Digital Noise

> Read this, then tell us. :-)
> <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-sheddin
> g-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise>
>
> Oh So Quiet Moose

First of all, that is one horribly written article. (both of them, including
part 2). Secondly, the author continues to buy into the old saw about sensor
size.

I'm not going to go screaming like I have in the past, but this author is
under the same misguided thinking that says that a sheet of Tri-X in 4x5 is
going to be less grainy than Tri-X in 35mm roll film. The SIZE DOES NOT
MATTER!!!! ENLARGEMENT RATIO IS WHAT MATTERS!!!!

Sorry, I screamed.

Secondly, the flow-through diagrams are hokey, at best. It took me a while
to interpret that amplification stage and while it is effectively correct,
it is unlike anything I've ever seen before.
Honestly, there is absolutely nothing new here, it's just Ansel Adams'
Zone System for the digital age. But unlike Ansel Adams, this guy has no
clue what he's mumbling on about. He stumbled into the right answer but
through incorrect steps getting there.

To paraphrase the article, there are just a couple points worth knowing:

1. To keep noise down in ANY type of amplified "system", always have your
source as loud or bright as possible without clipping. This means that you
expose up to the maximum point where you won't clip the important
highlights. The goal here is to always keep system gain to a minimum. An old
adage I learned 35 years ago in sound system engineering is to maximize your
outputs, minimize your inputs.

2. Boosting the ISO settings in almost all cameras results in reduced
dynamic range. Keep the boost as low as possible and combined with maximum
exposure will give you the most dynamic range. The author spent 500 words
trying to say this but never quite got there.

A third point, which I would suggest is that noise and dynamic range are not
synonymous. You can have noise in your images that don't affect the maximum
dynamic range of the subject. It will affect how the roll-off occurs in the
shadows, but doesn't clip the shadows.
Boosting your ISO settings will clip part of the maximum range of the image.
A lower ISO will keep the maximum range of the image, but will induce a
greater amount of noise across the image. If you have the means of cleaning
the noise out of the image, you'll end up with a greater dynamic range in
the final image than if you achieved a cleaner in-camera image.

--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz