Noise issues - Dimage 7i

[maflu]

I tried Lurawave compression of a JPEG image but it did not work. Could you please explain what you did? Thank you
Maflu

Dominique

Just had my camera for a week or so, and I am a little concerned at
the noise in my pictures. I had read on this site about a slight
noise problem but from my early experience, it seems over the top.
I have "graduated" from a Canon G2, mainly for the feature set of
the 7i and the zoom, but my images with the G2 are crisper and less
noisy. I have bracketed some shots to see if this made a
difference, but to no avail. Does anybody set the 100 ISO setting
manually or leave it on auto ? Does this make a ddifference ?
Thanks.

 

[Blake]

Dave,

Yes, Neat Image is highly CPU intensive. On my 866Mhz Pentium III, it takes maybe 5 minutes to filter a fine JPG full resolution image. Depending upon your volume, this could be a real problem. I've heard that there is a program available that "wraps" Neat Image and allows you to batch process images.

I use Neat Image just on my "keepers"--and even then only on photos where I feel the noise reduction is a benefit. So for me the amount of time it takes to run is more of an annoyance than any real problem.

Blake

Tony,

I've had my D7i for about 2 weeks. Before the camera even arrived,
I downloaded and purchased Neat Image. Please check out this
program. It's simply amazing. This program can eliminate all
noise while maintaining the image's full sharpness.

http://www.neatimage.com

I downloaded the Neat Image Demo and find it painfully slow. I
understand that the registered version is faster, but I've read
posts on this forum which complain about the speed of the
registered version also. I have a 500 MHz AMD Athlon processor and
a 7200 rpm Western Digital drive. The computer is running Windows
XP with 256 MB of RAM. I realize it's not exactly state of the
art, but I would expect it to be okay. I didn't use a stop watch,
but a full resolution 'fine' JPEG image from the 7i takes over 5
minutes to process. I would consider anything over 30 seconds to
be far too slow. That's because I usually edit around 20 or 30
images at a sitting. Waiting 5 minutes per image would not be
practical. So, if you run all your images through Neat Image, how
long does it take?

Dave

 

[Blake]

Malflu,

I find the Gaussian blur kills sharpness. I've really only used it on clear blue skys. Maybe there is a technique to get around this problem?

There are noise reducing Photoshop actions available that run quite fast. I haven't tried them out on D7i images yet.

Blake

I've had my D7i for about 2 weeks. Before the camera even arrived,
I downloaded and purchased Neat Image. Please check out this
program. It's simply amazing. This program can eliminate all
noise while maintaining the image's full sharpness.

http://www.neatimage.com

Something I've discovered: When using Neat Image on human subjects,
I apply my noise profiles at only 40%. This eliminates most noise
while still making skin look real (not too smooth).

If you consider Neat Image to be part of your overall imaging
system (D7i, Neat Image, Qimage, Photoshop, printer, etc...), then
there is simply no noise issue at all. The only drawback is that
Neat Image introduces an additional step to your post processing.

Blake

Just had my camera for a week or so, and I am a little concerned at
the noise in my pictures. I had read on this site about a slight
noise problem but from my early experience, it seems over the top.
I have "graduated" from a Canon G2, mainly for the feature set of
the 7i and the zoom, but my images with the G2 are crisper and less
noisy. I have bracketed some shots to see if this made a
difference, but to no avail. Does anybody set the 100 ISO setting
manually or leave it on auto ? Does this make a ddifference ?
Thanks.

 

[*isteve]

I look at it this way...

I spent $1200 on a camera (I live in the UK, ok?)

It does a lot of stuff well, great colour, sharp images, low chroma, great lens etc. but has a bit of noise in some images, especially at certain luminosity values (in all colours). Its OK, even nice sometimes, but sometimes I need to remove it.

I bought a $30 peice of software that does the job. It takes lots of practice and a lot of processing. However the end result still has low chroma, low distortion, sharp edges, great colour and (hey) low noise too!!!

So - I spent $1230 and got a combination that can't be beat by anything under $4000 (lenses included). Now thats what I call a REAL bargain and hang the waiting.

Steve (still compiling a decent album!!)

And I'm surprised when I read that a lot of people tell that noise
is not an issue... just use neat-image! If it's not an issue, I
don't have to use neat-image. If it is, why not having D7i produce
lesser noisy images?

Because when the choice is between plastic looking, "smeared"
images and noise, some people prefer one, others the other.

Until we have CCD's that give no noise, or are fast enough that
they can do tricks like the current CMOS CCD's, there are tradeoffs.

Not perfection, but something average... or,
add an option somewhere (low, normal, high noise reduction)

As an option perhaps, yes. But there are perfectly acceptable third
party solutions that do the same thing.

Besides, I never know until afterwards if the noise is something I
can live with or not. Post processing makes me have less to worry
about when taking my picture.

So far I have felt noise has had a bad impact on me once. And at
that point I would not have had the chance to fiddle with a noise
reduction setting, even if I had known it would be a problem.

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=165013

In this image the noise comes from post processing to push detail
out of the shadows - much heavier post processing than I normally
ever have to do. With a noise reduction algorithm applied the
detail may not even have been there for me to salvage.

But as always, to each his own. Noise reduction is not like CD's.
It's like Dolby B noise reduction - a band-aid with its own set of
artefacts.

--
Jesper

 

[J A K]

Steve - on top of all your good news, it should be pointed out that there are no front/rear focusing issues (confirmed on two 7i cameras).

Joe Kurkjian

I spent $1200 on a camera (I live in the UK, ok?)

It does a lot of stuff well, great colour, sharp images, low
chroma, great lens etc. but has a bit of noise in some images,
especially at certain luminosity values (in all colours). Its OK,
even nice sometimes, but sometimes I need to remove it.

I bought a $30 peice of software that does the job. It takes lots
of practice and a lot of processing. However the end result still
has low chroma, low distortion, sharp edges, great colour and (hey)
low noise too!!!

So - I spent $1230 and got a combination that can't be beat by
anything under $4000 (lenses included). Now thats what I call a
REAL bargain and hang the waiting.

Steve (still compiling a decent album!!)

And I'm surprised when I read that a lot of people tell that noise
is not an issue... just use neat-image! If it's not an issue, I
don't have to use neat-image. If it is, why not having D7i produce
lesser noisy images?

Because when the choice is between plastic looking, "smeared"
images and noise, some people prefer one, others the other.

Until we have CCD's that give no noise, or are fast enough that
they can do tricks like the current CMOS CCD's, there are tradeoffs.

Not perfection, but something average... or,
add an option somewhere (low, normal, high noise reduction)

As an option perhaps, yes. But there are perfectly acceptable third
party solutions that do the same thing.

Besides, I never know until afterwards if the noise is something I
can live with or not. Post processing makes me have less to worry
about when taking my picture.

So far I have felt noise has had a bad impact on me once. And at
that point I would not have had the chance to fiddle with a noise
reduction setting, even if I had known it would be a problem.

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=165013

In this image the noise comes from post processing to push detail
out of the shadows - much heavier post processing than I normally
ever have to do. With a noise reduction algorithm applied the
detail may not even have been there for me to salvage.

But as always, to each his own. Noise reduction is not like CD's.
It's like Dolby B noise reduction - a band-aid with its own set of
artefacts.

--
Jesper

 

[maflu]

Malflu,

I find the Gaussian blur kills sharpness. I've really only used it
on clear blue skys. Maybe there is a technique to get around this
problem?

You should carefully select the area that contains noise with PS Magic Wand, apply the minimum level of gaussian blur and apply sharpness. This simple processing flow gives acceptable results for me (mush less noise while keeping sharpness). With Neat Image you can really remove the noise but the image loses its sharpness completely and looks unreal.
Maflu

 

[rillh]

I just save the file in photoshop with the JPEG 2000 driver with the compression on Lossly between 50 and 100. That's all. I will post examples !

Dominque

Dominique

Just had my camera for a week or so, and I am a little concerned at
the noise in my pictures. I had read on this site about a slight
noise problem but from my early experience, it seems over the top.
I have "graduated" from a Canon G2, mainly for the feature set of
the 7i and the zoom, but my images with the G2 are crisper and less
noisy. I have bracketed some shots to see if this made a
difference, but to no avail. Does anybody set the 100 ISO setting
manually or leave it on auto ? Does this make a ddifference ?
Thanks.

 

[Dietmar Fichter]

Dominque

Dominique

Just had my camera for a week or so, and I am a little concerned at
the noise in my pictures. I had read on this site about a slight
noise problem but from my early experience, it seems over the top.
I have "graduated" from a Canon G2, mainly for the feature set of
the 7i and the zoom, but my images with the G2 are crisper and less
noisy. I have bracketed some shots to see if this made a
difference, but to no avail. Does anybody set the 100 ISO setting
manually or leave it on auto ? Does this make a ddifference ?
Thanks.

If my memory serves me correct and please correct me if I am wrong, somewhere on this site one of the threads states that the D7i uses the same image sensor as the Sony 707. It does not appear that there is a noise issue with the 707. Why are there numerous reports from D7i owners (this thread for example) having to run their images through an external software package in order to reduce the noise from their images?. Is it possible that Minolta's image capture method is inferior to the 707?.

I have been considering the 7i as my first digital camera but have grave reservations due to the noise issue. I can not tolerate noise - in the lab where I work we go to great lengths to reduce the noise of our digitral cameras by cooling the CCD to liquid nitrogen temperature (-180 degrees Celcius) brining the noise level down to a minimum - an impractical solution of course for consumer digital cameras.

I know I know, I will be jumped on and recieve a severe tongue lashing stating there is "NO" noise problem with the D7i - also see Phill's review. Why then all the noise reports and the testimonials on how to reduce the noise - which isn't there according to some.

Dietmar

 

[Steven Mera]

If my memory serves me correct and please correct me if I am wrong,
somewhere on this site one of the threads states that the D7i uses
the same image sensor as the Sony 707. It does not appear that
there is a noise issue with the 707. Why are there numerous
reports from D7i owners (this thread for example) having to run
their images through an external software package in order to
reduce the noise from their images?. Is it possible that Minolta's
image capture method is inferior to the 707?.

I have been considering the 7i as my first digital camera but have
grave reservations due to the noise issue. I can not tolerate noise

• in the lab where I work we go to great lengths to reduce the

noise of our digitral cameras by cooling the CCD to liquid nitrogen
temperature (-180 degrees Celcius) brining the noise level down to
a minimum - an impractical solution of course for consumer digital
cameras.

I know I know, I will be jumped on and recieve a severe tongue
lashing stating there is "NO" noise problem with the D7i - also see
Phill's review. Why then all the noise reports and the testimonials
on how to reduce the noise - which isn't there according to some.

Dietmar

As I understand it some cameras like the sony 707 carry out noise reduction in-camera, whereas we Minolta owners are left to do post-processing ourselves if we feel the need. I have had a few tries with Neat Image but I feel for 10x8 prints there is no need.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album07&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

 

[Dietmar Fichter]

If my memory serves me correct and please correct me if I am wrong,
somewhere on this site one of the threads states that the D7i uses
the same image sensor as the Sony 707. It does not appear that
there is a noise issue with the 707. Why are there numerous
reports from D7i owners (this thread for example) having to run
their images through an external software package in order to
reduce the noise from their images?. Is it possible that Minolta's
image capture method is inferior to the 707?.

I have been considering the 7i as my first digital camera but have
grave reservations due to the noise issue. I can not tolerate noise

• in the lab where I work we go to great lengths to reduce the

noise of our digitral cameras by cooling the CCD to liquid nitrogen
temperature (-180 degrees Celcius) brining the noise level down to
a minimum - an impractical solution of course for consumer digital
cameras.

I know I know, I will be jumped on and recieve a severe tongue
lashing stating there is "NO" noise problem with the D7i - also see
Phill's review. Why then all the noise reports and the testimonials
on how to reduce the noise - which isn't there according to some.

Dietmar

As I understand it some cameras like the sony 707 carry out noise
reduction in-camera, whereas we Minolta owners are left to do
post-processing ourselves if we feel the need. I have had a few
tries with Neat Image but I feel for 10x8 prints there is no need.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album07&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

It would be nice if Minolta up-dated the 7i software to include the in-camera noise reduction like the 707 thereby eliminating an extra step making digital photography more user friendly. The 7i noise issue would then be on par with the 707 and the rest of the field - makes sense to me and Minolta would get my money.

Dietmar

 

[theswede #100093]

It would be nice if Minolta up-dated the 7i software to include the
in-camera noise reduction like the 707 thereby eliminating an extra
step making digital photography more user friendly. The 7i noise
issue would then be on par with the 707 and the rest of the field -
makes sense to me and Minolta would get my money.

If they did that they wouldn't get mine - I prefer the film grain like noise of the D7i to the plasticy "smear" the 707 applies to fine detail. In the worst cases it turns pictures into watercolor imitations.

The 707 has lower noise because it is less sensitive (the actual ISO of the 707 is lower than of the D7i) and because it "smears" pictures to reduce noise. Some people prefer this, personally I prefer having the detail untouched and handling noise as I see fit - which is not at all.

--
Jesper

 

[alexandre leneveu]

NOise ! Enought !

I bought my camera with all the fears possible! (but put my faith into my past experience with Minolta) And guess what my pictures are more than what i expected reading all the thread on this site

go check http://www.pbase.com/alphaomega

had my cam for a week now and those pics are not retouch, except for some cropping!
Few are from my wife Dimage X, just read Exif

An happy 7i user!

Alexandre Leneveu

It would be nice if Minolta up-dated the 7i software to include the
in-camera noise reduction like the 707 thereby eliminating an extra
step making digital photography more user friendly. The 7i noise
issue would then be on par with the 707 and the rest of the field -
makes sense to me and Minolta would get my money.

If they did that they wouldn't get mine - I prefer the film grain
like noise of the D7i to the plasticy "smear" the 707 applies to
fine detail. In the worst cases it turns pictures into watercolor
imitations.

The 707 has lower noise because it is less sensitive (the actual
ISO of the 707 is lower than of the D7i) and because it "smears"
pictures to reduce noise. Some people prefer this, personally I
prefer having the detail untouched and handling noise as I see fit

• which is not at all.

--
Jesper

 

[MikeTTF]

I've seen that "smear" you mentioned and would be VERY disappointed if Minolta chose to thrust it on me.

My eyes/brain see slight noise as indistinguishable from film grain in an 8X10.

Mike TTF

If they did that they wouldn't get mine - I prefer the film grain
like noise of the D7i to the plasticy "smear" the 707 applies to
fine detail. In the worst cases it turns pictures into watercolor
imitations.

The 707 has lower noise because it is less sensitive (the actual
ISO of the 707 is lower than of the D7i) and because it "smears"
pictures to reduce noise. Some people prefer this, personally I
prefer having the detail untouched and handling noise as I see fit

• which is not at all.

--
Jesper

 

[misha]

I've seen that "smear" you mentioned and would be VERY disappointed
if Minolta chose to thrust it on me.

My eyes/brain see slight noise as indistinguishable from film grain
in an 8X10.

Why is film grain such a good thing? You don't see "grain" in real-life images.
--
Misha

 

[theswede #100093]

Why is film grain such a good thing? You don't see "grain" in
real-life images.

Nor do you see with one eye, statically, with limited dynamics and a fixed color range, or limited to a CRT screen, 4x6, 5x6, 8x10 or even poster size.

Film grain can be a good thing in that it brings out texture better. It can also be a bad thing in that it looks "noisy". It's another inherent trait in film to be used as all others.

In this case the choice is between noise that is similar to film grain, or other artefacts. This choice is completely subjective. Some people feel that a film grain effect is good, others prefer smoothness and are not bothered by the artefacts induced by the algorithms used to achieve it.

In a few generations of digicams it will be a non-issue, and I'm sure adding noise in using third party tools such as Photoshop, or specialized circuitry, will find a substantial niche of users.

--
Jesper

 

[Blake]

Malflu,

I haven't had any problem with Neat Image killing sharpness. The only thing I've noticed is that (as I posted before), skin can become too smooth. This problem is easily fixed by applying the profile at a reduced strenght. 40% has worked well for me.

Have you read the Neat Image manual? It's very detailed and gives a lot of information on how to improve Neat Image's results.

Blake

Malflu,

I find the Gaussian blur kills sharpness. I've really only used it
on clear blue skys. Maybe there is a technique to get around this
problem?

You should carefully select the area that contains noise with PS
Magic Wand, apply the minimum level of gaussian blur and apply
sharpness. This simple processing flow gives acceptable results
for me (mush less noise while keeping sharpness). With Neat Image
you can really remove the noise but the image loses its sharpness
completely and looks unreal.
Maflu

 

[Philip Persio]

I've seen that "smear" you mentioned and would be VERY disappointed
if Minolta chose to thrust it on me.

My eyes/brain see slight noise as indistinguishable from film grain
in an 8X10.

Why is film grain such a good thing? You don't see "grain" in
real-life images.
--
Misha

--
Good question!

Why photo with grain or noise is good?

Maybe I should use the word "picture", then everything will be obvious.

Persio

 

[Larry Cunningham]

Please don't wish for that!! Many of us dislike the loss of detail caused by the noise reduction algorithm used by cameras like the 707. As I posted previously, I would rather deal with the occasional noise in an image than lose detail in-camera that can never, ever be retrieved.

--Larry

It would be nice if Minolta up-dated the 7i software to include the
in-camera noise reduction like the 707 thereby eliminating an extra
step making digital photography more user friendly. The 7i noise
issue would then be on par with the 707 and the rest of the field -
makes sense to me and Minolta would get my money.

Dietmar

 

[MikeTTF]

Grain. In most cases it's NOT desirable.

But -

1. 1) I DON'T want the camera or software I use to try and smear noise away. "Grain" (up to a reasonable limit, of course) is real and expected by me. Fingerpainting "smear" is not real and is something I wouldn't want.

1. 2) I have NOT seen a noise/grain problem in my D7i 8 X 10's - I have many pro-shot 35mm and medium format photos enlargements that don't make my 7i prints run and hide.

I believe the Internet is doing what it does best. Transforming molehills. [grin]

Mike

I've seen that "smear" you mentioned and would be VERY disappointed
if Minolta chose to thrust it on me.

My eyes/brain see slight noise as indistinguishable from film grain
in an 8X10.

Why is film grain such a good thing? You don't see "grain" in
real-life images.
--
Misha

 

[Dietmar Fichter]

I've seen that "smear" you mentioned and would be VERY disappointed
if Minolta chose to thrust it on me.

My eyes/brain see slight noise as indistinguishable from film grain
in an 8X10.

Why is film grain such a good thing? You don't see "grain" in
real-life images.
--
Misha

--

Good question!

Why photo with grain or noise is good?

Maybe I should use the word "picture", then everything will be
obvious.

Persio

There is a posting (32 min ago) by Lary Kahn on the 7i noise issue. Can someone comment on his statment that there appears to be sigificant less noise when shooting in RAW mode.

Dietmar