Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
LTZ470
Forum ProPosts: 11,018Gear list
Like?
Re: Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

I always bracket shots like this to give me a choice of exposures...

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoR
Junior MemberPosts: 44
Like?
Re: There is a pattern....
In reply to Gravi, 11 months ago

Gravi wrote:

LaMesa wrote:

...which is very evenly distributed over the whole picture, bright or dark, contrasty or not - it is everywhere. This pattern is not or not only noise, but is very likely a characteristic of this RAW-conversion.

Herbert

-- hide signature --

Yes, its called over-sharpening

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Gravi

The second photo I posted that claimed to not have any sharpening did in fact have some as a part of my default work flow that I didn't realize. The Original image (straight form Raw) did not and the final image did not. (unchecked Sharpning in Aperture)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gianluca Grossi
Forum MemberPosts: 85Gear list
Like?
Re: I looked...
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

knickerhawk wrote:

Gianluca Grossi wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Gianluca Grossi wrote:

I use PN from one year and I can trusty say that it can do an unbelievable work in supressing luminance noise while maintaing a lots of detail, much much more of Aperture and LR that I own.
Until you use it (with the right setting), you can't understand what this program is capable of doing.

It uses the Noise Ninja noise reduction engine, which I've used. I understand perfectly well what you're talking about but even as good as Photo (Noise) Ninja might be at handling noise, it's never as good as starting with a properly exposed and noise-free file. The only time a better noise reduction strategy is the correct answer to give somebody who's got a problem with creating noisy images is when the exposure is optimized to begin with and the raw files produced by the camera still include unacceptable amounts of noise.

pls take a look at the pics I post...

I looked at your LR and PN comparison street shot. There are obvious problems with processing options selected with Photo Ninja, probably related in part to your more aggressive noise suppression and sharpening settings and in part to the demosaic algorithm utilized by PN. Look at the pavement to the left of the "Macelleria" sign. The more aggressive noise suppression in the PN has rubbed out texture in the pavement bricks and given them a plasticky look. Moreover, there is obvious maize moire in the pavement. It's quite clear as you look "up" the sidewalk. This moire is not present in the LR version, so it didn't "originate" in the raw file. Rather, it was introduced by some combination of the PN demosaic engine and/or your settings in PN and it's the sort of problem you sometimes see when aggressive demosaic/sharpening strategies are used. There are other tradeoff issues in the PN version as well, but these examples should suffice to reinforce the point that there are no magic bullets and no substitute for getting exposure right in the first place.

probably I used to much sharpening, but to me this conversion is way head the LR and the downside are really really minor to me(moire easily suppressed in LR) and the brick on the pavement are very underexpose and again PN does a great job to recover them and to my eyes doesn't look plastic at all. What I know for sure that no other program could have done it better...or you can contradict me?

By the way, in case you didn't know, Iliah Borg, who responded in this thread, has been involved in the development of raw processing tools for many years. You should pay attention to what he's trying to explain to you. Some of us who've been hanging around DPReview for a long time have learned a lot from him.

 Gianluca Grossi's gear list:Gianluca Grossi's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gianluca Grossi
Forum MemberPosts: 85Gear list
Like?
Re: Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.
In reply to RGiskard, 11 months ago

RGiskard wrote:

Gianluca Grossi wrote:

I suggest you Lightroom, (but you have to tweak the sharpness/noise default value )

Do you have any suggestions for adjustments to these defaults in LR? I'm new to the EM-1 and would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!

Try these setting from base iso and up to 1600

( you can always tweak them to your preference):

Sharpening

Amount:10

Radius:0,5

detail:25

Masking:0

N.Reduction

Luminance:13
L.Detail:50
L.contrast:0
Color:25
C.detail:50

 Gianluca Grossi's gear list:Gianluca Grossi's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,442
Like?
Re: I looked...
In reply to Gianluca Grossi, 11 months ago

Gianluca Grossi wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

I looked at your LR and PN comparison street shot. There are obvious problems with processing options selected with Photo Ninja, probably related in part to your more aggressive noise suppression and sharpening settings and in part to the demosaic algorithm utilized by PN. Look at the pavement to the left of the "Macelleria" sign. The more aggressive noise suppression in the PN has rubbed out texture in the pavement bricks and given them a plasticky look. Moreover, there is obvious maize moire in the pavement. It's quite clear as you look "up" the sidewalk. This moire is not present in the LR version, so it didn't "originate" in the raw file. Rather, it was introduced by some combination of the PN demosaic engine and/or your settings in PN and it's the sort of problem you sometimes see when aggressive demosaic/sharpening strategies are used. There are other tradeoff issues in the PN version as well, but these examples should suffice to reinforce the point that there are no magic bullets and no substitute for getting exposure right in the first place.

probably I used to much sharpening, but to me this conversion is way head the LR and the downside are really really minor to me(moire easily suppressed in LR) and the brick on the pavement are very underexpose and again PN does a great job to recover them and to my eyes doesn't look plastic at all. What I know for sure that no other program could have done it better...or you can contradict me?

Depends on what you mean by "better".  As already noted, the PN version suffers from visible moire that isn't present at all in the LN version.  That's certainly not better to me.  The more plastic look caused by stronger noise reduction in the PN version shows up in other places in the image as well as the pavement.  For instance, take a look at the concrete pole to the right of the bicycle rider.  Half way up, the pole looks like somebody smudged it with greasy fingers.  The LN version isn't perfect, but it's somewhat less obvious.  The downside of strong noise reduction tends not to show up as prominently in scenes dominated by man made stuff.  Nature shots and portraits are better tests of the effectiveness of noise reduction tools than a shot like this one.

Regarding other elements of "better," the PN rendering has turned the highlighted buildings on the right side a sickly yellow and has blown a lot more detail than the LN version.  Highlight rendering is important to me, and the PN fails compared to the LN version in that regard (at least for this one comparison). The clouds in the upper sky in the PN version look false to me.  They're too green and the tonal transition between cloud and sky is not handled as well in the PN version (the LN version is probably a bit too red though).  The color problems in each could probably be corrected.  The strong contrast between sky and tree branches shows more CA in the PN version.  Again, this is probably correctable.

Indeed, there is far less luminance noise in the PN version, but it clearly has not come cost-free.  If noise reduction is a higher priority to you than other things, then I can understand why you're so happy with PN.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gianluca Grossi
Forum MemberPosts: 85Gear list
Like?
Re: I looked...
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

knickerhawk wrote:

Gianluca Grossi wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

I looked at your LR and PN comparison street shot. There are obvious problems with processing options selected with Photo Ninja, probably related in part to your more aggressive noise suppression and sharpening settings and in part to the demosaic algorithm utilized by PN. Look at the pavement to the left of the "Macelleria" sign. The more aggressive noise suppression in the PN has rubbed out texture in the pavement bricks and given them a plasticky look. Moreover, there is obvious maize moire in the pavement. It's quite clear as you look "up" the sidewalk. This moire is not present in the LR version, so it didn't "originate" in the raw file. Rather, it was introduced by some combination of the PN demosaic engine and/or your settings in PN and it's the sort of problem you sometimes see when aggressive demosaic/sharpening strategies are used. There are other tradeoff issues in the PN version as well, but these examples should suffice to reinforce the point that there are no magic bullets and no substitute for getting exposure right in the first place.

probably I used to much sharpening, but to me this conversion is way head the LR and the downside are really really minor to me(moire easily suppressed in LR) and the brick on the pavement are very underexpose and again PN does a great job to recover them and to my eyes doesn't look plastic at all. What I know for sure that no other program could have done it better...or you can contradict me?

Depends on what you mean by "better". As already noted, the PN version suffers from visible moire that isn't present at all in the LN version. That's certainly not better to me. The more plastic look caused by stronger noise reduction in the PN version shows up in other places in the image as well as the pavement. For instance, take a look at the concrete pole to the right of the bicycle rider. Half way up, the pole looks like somebody smudged it with greasy fingers. The LN version isn't perfect, but it's somewhat less obvious. The downside of strong noise reduction tends not to show up as prominently in scenes dominated by man made stuff. Nature shots and portraits are better tests of the effectiveness of noise reduction tools than a shot like this one.

Regarding other elements of "better," the PN rendering has turned the highlighted buildings on the right side a sickly yellow and has blown a lot more detail than the LN version. Highlight rendering is important to me, and the PN fails compared to the LN version in that regard (at least for this one comparison). The clouds in the upper sky in the PN version look false to me. They're too green and the tonal transition between cloud and sky is not handled as well in the PN version (the LN version is probably a bit too red though). The color problems in each could probably be corrected. The strong contrast between sky and tree branches shows more CA in the PN version. Again, this is probably correctable.

My intent was to show how can PN can handle noise. I know that the Highlight are overexposed but IU just push the exposure by 2 stop without recover the highlight.
Probably we see things in different way but to my eyes PN easily win..
Here are the 2 version well exposed:
this is LR:

and this is the PN version:

Indeed, there is far less luminance noise in the PN version, but it clearly has not come cost-free. If noise reduction is a higher priority to you than other things, then I can understand why you're so happy with PN.

 Gianluca Grossi's gear list:Gianluca Grossi's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
oluv
Senior MemberPosts: 1,972Gear list
Like?
Great shot, but...
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

...i see another problem. The shot is not sharp at all. Not due to missing sharpening but I see a shutter-shock problem here. There is vertical blurring visible. Which lens did you use by the way?

 oluv's gear list:oluv's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jimkahnw
Forum MemberPosts: 63Gear list
Like?
Re: Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

Looks like JPG compression artifacts, not noise typical of high ISO or underexposure. It's unlikely the artifacts would be visible at normal viewing distance in any size print. And no problem at all in smaller sizes and for web.

If you insist on peeping the pixels, shoot RAW, or as stated elsewhere on this thread, use the Olympus Viewer 3, though it's hardly the production tool of Lightroom or similar RAW processors.

-- hide signature --

JimK

 jimkahnw's gear list:jimkahnw's gear list
Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,442
Like?
Re: I looked...
In reply to Gianluca Grossi, 11 months ago

Gianluca Grossi wrote:

My intent was to show how can PN can handle noise. I know that the Highlight are overexposed but IU just push the exposure by 2 stop without recover the highlight.
Probably we see things in different way but to my eyes PN easily win..

You pushed two stops to better show the strengths of PN with respect to noise handling. Fair enough...but only as long as you are willing to consider the other implications of a two-stop adjustment as well. Otherwise, the demonstration of purported improvements in noise is useless. Noise suppression, sharpening, moire, contrast, color, etc. all interact.  Change one and you're very likely to affect the others (and often in a detrimental way).

And just as you could have tweaked PN to reduce some of the problems I pointed out to you, I'm confident I could have tweaked the LR version to reduce the luminance noise it displayed. It cuts both ways and ultimately involves a careful balancing of trade-offs when selecting/using/adjusting raw processors and related tools.

I appreciate your efforts here. You've illustrated your argument with sample images. That's a lot more than most of us bother to do when we engage in our back-and-forth here!

Probably we see things in different way but to my eyes PN easily win..

Yes, I think that's a good way to wrap things up.  Unlikely either one of us is going to be swayed further.

Ciao

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Jardine
Senior MemberPosts: 1,255Gear list
Like?
Re: Good point
In reply to Sourze, 11 months ago

Sourze wrote:

I borrowed a D800 once.. It's got an amazing sensor and when viewing images at normal size (not 100 %) I see less noice than from my E-M5... too bad it's got the size and weight of a bowling ball though.

This is off-topic, but since you mentioned it, it's worth mentioning that the size difference is not all that big, when you get down to it.  For example, I bought a relatively small ThinkTank sling bag, the "Turnstyle 10", for my E-M1.  It holds the camera with 12-40 zoom, 75mm 1.8, and flash - all unobtrusively.  Guess what else fits in the same small sling? My D800 with 24-85 zoom, plus 16-35 f/4 zoom.

Still, since dipping my toes into the M43 water just a year ago, I haven't taken my D800 on one international trip and bout 80% of my photos are with M43...

-- hide signature --

Michael
www.Qamera.com
www.Qamera.Tumblr.com
www.Pinterest.com/Qamera

 Michael Jardine's gear list:Michael Jardine's gear list
Nikon D800 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoR
Junior MemberPosts: 44
Like?
Re: Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

So this thread is done. All my questions have been answered.

The take away is.

1. ETTR. Do not underexpose when there are darker areas. This will lead to the fine pattern noise.

2. This is not a bad thing.

3. People Seems to (for the life of me) prefer noise removal. I don't get it. Noise removal makes your photos look like iPhone 5 photos. Try shooting with no noise removal. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

4. NO there is no shutter shock(in my camera at least). That issue should be dead. and Please do not use My photos as an example of Shutter shock and no I will no repeat the photos with some setting.

Thanks Guys!

happy clicking.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gianluca Grossi
Forum MemberPosts: 85Gear list
Like?
Re: I looked...
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

Ciao!

 Gianluca Grossi's gear list:Gianluca Grossi's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lancespring
Senior MemberPosts: 2,506Gear list
Like?
You really did a terrible job with this exposure
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

The amount you underexposed was quite excessive, and certainly contributed to the amount of noise in the photo. You need to keep in mind that when photographing white subjects like clouds, one has to actually INCREASE exposure OVER what the camera's meter recommends. And that is because white subjects reflect more light than your average scene. And your camera's meter thus gets tricked into believing that there is much more light than there really is. It consequently becomes necessary to increase exposure ABOVE what your camera recommends, in order to get a good picture.

Secondly, all of the white clouds also threw off the camera for coming up with a correct color balance too. That needed to be adjusted as well. Your photo is way too cool in color temperature.

Since when have you ever seen blue colored fog? Your photo could hardly look more unnatural in color.

 lancespring's gear list:lancespring's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yslee1
Regular MemberPosts: 377
Like?
Re: Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

The one thing you should be taking away is that you have some rather unrealistic expectations. A D800 shot in similar conditions will exhibit similar noise pattern. It just looks finer when viewed because there's 36 megapixels of info to spread that same amount of noise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoR
Junior MemberPosts: 44
Like?
Re: You really did a terrible job with this exposure
In reply to lancespring, 11 months ago

lancespring wrote:

The amount you underexposed was quite excessive, and certainly contributed to the amount of noise in the photo. You need to keep in mind that when photographing white subjects like clouds, one has to actually INCREASE exposure OVER what the camera's meter recommends. And that is because white subjects reflect more light than your average scene. And your camera's meter thus gets tricked into believing that there is much more light than there really is. It consequently becomes necessary to increase exposure ABOVE what your camera recommends, in order to get a good picture.

Secondly, all of the white clouds also threw off the camera for coming up with a correct color balance too. That needed to be adjusted as well. Your photo is way too cool in color temperature.

Since when have you ever seen blue colored fog? Your photo could hardly look more unnatural in color.

Yea I see now I way underexposed. However the fog did have an almost blueish cast to it. The original is not processed in any way.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Jardine
Senior MemberPosts: 1,255Gear list
Like?
Re: Em-1 Noise in Low ISO, Low light shots.
In reply to yslee1, 11 months ago

yslee1 wrote:

The one thing you should be taking away is that you have some rather unrealistic expectations. A D800 shot in similar conditions will exhibit similar noise pattern. It just looks finer when viewed because there's 36 megapixels of info to spread that same amount of noise.

Agree.  Although I would say "to absorb" rather than "to spread around" the noise  

-- hide signature --

Michael
www.Qamera.com

 Michael Jardine's gear list:Michael Jardine's gear list
Nikon D800 Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SaltLakeGuy
Forum ProPosts: 10,666Gear list
Like?
Yeah I think these shutter shock fanatics
In reply to TangoR, 11 months ago

need to get their eyes fixed. I'm so dang sick and tired of hearing the excuses for their inabilities to stabilize their cameras and lenses.

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Epson Stylus Pro 3880
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TangoR
Junior MemberPosts: 44
Like?
Re: Yeah I think these shutter shock fanatics
In reply to SaltLakeGuy, 11 months ago

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

need to get their eyes fixed. I'm so dang sick and tired of hearing the excuses for their inabilities to stabilize their cameras and lenses.

I infact have the BEST example of NO shutter shock. People seem to be looking at my photo and seeing some "ghosting" on the top of the bridge and yelling "Shutter shock".

Wanna know the truth :-D.

What you see are actually thin guide lines on top of the bridge. They run the length of the Bridge and are hard to make out even when you are close to the bridge. So unless EM-1 has a selective "Only bridge and not Buildings" type of Shutter shock. I think My photo is an example of the detail you can get from the EM-1 sans the AA filter and should lay to read any Shutter shock fears.

Im attaching My photo at 100% crop and a stock photo of what you see. I seriously cannot believe my little EM-1 resolved those things!!! Im still in awe.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JF69
Regular MemberPosts: 422
Like?
Thanks Iliah
In reply to Iliah Borg, 10 months ago

much more readig to catch up!
Usually I'm wary & skeptic of anyone selling seminars, advice, actions & all that stuff; as a working pro in a small economy I'm more interested in what really, really works (= produces tangible differences in the client's end product, differences that the client can indeed appreciate)  in the least amount of time;
but Dan seems to be on another level altogether.

I've installed his actions (the PPW Panel won't install for some reason) & catching up on some tutorials.

Thanks once again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,336
Like?
Re: Thanks Iliah
In reply to JF69, 10 months ago

Usually I'm wary & skeptic of anyone selling seminars, advice, actions & all that stuff

Right. Dan is one of the very few exceptions. He teaches to observe and understand the image to be corrected. It is quite unique.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads