S3 at ISO 1600 (bandwidth warning)

Hi all,

I'm pretty busy at the moment, but I thought I'd try to post a few thoughts while I have a spare couple of moments. Can't take too much time right now, but I thought a few people might be interested.

A couple of days ago, about an hour after getting my S3, I took the camera to a local pool hall owned by a couple of friends of mine. It was just a place to take some high ISO shots after hours.

As most of you know, I had some trouble with the Hyper Utility software and couldn't process the 15 or so shots I quickly took that evening. But, now that I'm all set with that, I'm starting to check out my ISO 1600 shots to see how the S3 does compared to the S2.

Anyway, my capsule conclusion is that the S3 has pretty much the same noise characteristics as the S2, but far more aggressive noise reduction. In fact, high ISO shots (and even ISO 400 shots) processed with the Fuji RAW Converter display noise reduction characteristics/artifacts very similar to the 'watercolor' effect seen with the Kodak DSLR.

I thought this noise reduction might be software-based, but, interestingly enough, a RAW conversion through Capture One shows exactly the same artifact/watercolor effect. Which, of course, suggests that the noise reduction and its resulting effects are done in-camera.

Even stranger, though, is that ACR seems to somehow bypass the noise reduction. ACR produces far noisier files, but its files have none of the watercolor effect. The good news (to me) is that the Luminance Smoothing in ACR can be used to easily control the noise reduction. By setting the Luminance Smoothing to around 50%, I can get files with decent noise characteristics that are much more natural than the files with the unnatural watercolor look.

So, frankly, it seems like I'll be using ACR as my RAW converter after all, since it allows so much control over the amount of noise reduction and its visual characteristic.

Another bad thing about the watercolor effect is that sharpening is almost a total no-no. The artificial qualities of the noise reduction are really heightened by sharpening.

Granted, these effects are all the more noticeable when viewed 100% on screen, but, frankly, they are even quite noticeable on an onscreen shot that has been considerably reduced in size (which was fairly surprising).

Anyway, I'm running out of time here, but here are a few quick examples to illustrate what I'm talking about.

This was a shot taken in the old factory building that houses the pool hall I mentioned. It's a shot of the darkly painted rafters plus an old fan and pipes and such. It was taken with the 17-55 at f/2.8 at 1/20 sec handheld, ISO 1600, Wide 2. Not a real attempt at art or sharpness, just an attempt to push the S3 to its handheld limits. The shot was over-exposed a bit just to see what detail could be seen in all the shadows.

Anyway, this is the whole photo, without any manipulation...



This is a 100% crop of the Fuji RAW Converter version. Not a really in-focus portion of the image, but that wasn't the point. Besides, noise is more visible in the out-of-focus spots anyway...



This is a 100% crop of the same area done with ACR and no Luminance Smoothing...



This is a 100% crop done with ACR with Luminance Smoothing set to 50%...



And, just for the heck of it, here's a final image of the shot after a few minutes work in PS. Just an unextraordinary shot of a fan, but pleasantly grungy the way I like it...



These were just some quick observations. But I do indeed think that I'll be sticking with ACR and it greater ability to control noise reduction. Which is fine, considering that I much prefer that piece of software to Fuji's.

Anyway, though initially disappointed, I'm not at all unhappy now. ACR will allow me to control the amount of NR and limit any artifacting that is not to my taste. Unfortunately, the prospect of virtually noiseless ISO 1600 shots is really just an illusion, but I don't mind the look of ISO 1600 shots when adjusted to my taste with ACR. In fact, since I often like a slightly grungy, film-like, grainy look for handheld low-light shots, I'm pleased that I can control this look to my taste.

Just don't expect noise miracles. Even ISO 400 noise looks more artificial than S2 ISO 400 images when converted with the Fuji software, though that as well can be made to look pretty much exactly like S2 ISO 400 noise with ACR.

Anyway, have to run. Hope this was of interest to someone.

Sorry for any sloppiness due to my rushing. Also, these are not scientifically-controlled tests, and no attempt, for example, was made to match WB exactly, etc.

The results, however, are pretty consistent with what I'm seeing in multiple images. In fact the so-called watercolor effect is even more prominent in other spots in other images than the crop I offered. But this was the image I was playing with when I decided to do this post, and my time was limited.

Oops, time's up.

Kind Regards,

Mike

mike_botelho said:

Anyway, my capsule conclusion is that the S3 has pretty much the
same noise characteristics as the S2, but far more aggressive noise
reduction.

Click to expand...

To make the long story short, I fully agree.

I shot a lot in ISO 400 in the S2, and I liked the ISO 400 look quite a bit - totally useable, there was like a fine grid in the image, that became gradually visible (at 100% view) when tweaking the file strong. But in the end the S2 file (I shot almost exclusively JPEG) kept a certain crispness or a rough caracter. Whereas the S3 can look muddy quickly. Good to see that with ARC there are options. I will have to check this out.

I would prefer an option to switch NR off or at least switch between 3 settings: low - normal - strong.

regards, Bernie

I understand that the Fuji software has in preferences a choice between "high speed" and "high quality" conversions.

At least one happy S3 owner reported that the "high quality" actually performs heavy noise reduction (as you describe it) and the "high speed" does not.

Maybe the "high speed" setting will be closer to your taste.

Could you test and post your findings when you will have the appropriate time ?

Thank you,

Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Hi Mike-

Seems like I saw a thread here speaking of being able to "turn off" the extra aggressive noise reduction by not choosing one of the "high quality" settings. The disscussion centered around the fact that many people were selecting "high quality" by default not realizing that what the term really meant was more aggressive in camera NR....

Best regards-

Karbo

Hi Radu,

Thanks for that information. I have all the Hyper Utility settings at 'high quality', since I assumed that would produce the best results. I'll try the 'high speed' option when I have a chance and post my observations.

Kind Regards,

Mike

Radu Grozescu said:

I understand that the Fuji software has in preferences a choice
between "high speed" and "high quality" conversions.

At least one happy S3 owner reported that the "high quality"
actually performs heavy noise reduction (as you describe it) and
the "high speed" does not.

Maybe the "high speed" setting will be closer to your taste.

Could you test and post your findings when you will have the
appropriate time ?

Thank you,

Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Click to expand...

Hi Karbo,

I missed that thread. I'll give that a try and post the results when I next have some time.

Kind Regards,

Mike

karbo said:

Hi Mike-

Seems like I saw a thread here speaking of being able to "turn off"
the extra aggressive noise reduction by not choosing one of the
"high quality" settings. The disscussion centered around the fact
that many people were selecting "high quality" by default not
realizing that what the term really meant was more aggressive in
camera NR....

Best regards-

Karbo

Click to expand...

OK, I really should just be doing others things, but I'm trying to multi-task at the moment. Here's a 100% crop of the same portion of the image done with the Fuji RAW File Converter done at the 'High Speed' setting rather than the 'Super High Quality' setting. (There's also an in-between 'High Quality' setting which I assume provides an in-between amount of noise reduction.)



Obviously, the noise reduction has been avoided. I'm still not sure if I prefer the ACR conversion or the Fuji one, but at least things are far closer now. The ACR option, obviously, allows more opportunity for adjusting for personal taste, though it does seem to have some slightly different characteristics as well. I'll have to examine further.

Anyway, I just wish Fuji would give us a little more of a hint as to what it's software settings mean and do. It would be nice if they had labeled the options as noise-reduction options instead of as just quality settings.

Perhaps there's some info in the help section. But real photographers don't read no stinkin' manuals. ;-)

Kind Regards,

Mike

Bernie Ess said:

I shot a lot in ISO 400 in the S2, and I liked the ISO 400 look
quite a bit - totally useable, there was like a fine grid in the
image, that became gradually visible (at 100% view) when tweaking
the file strong. But in the end the S2 file (I shot almost
exclusively JPEG) kept a certain crispness or a rough caracter.
Whereas the S3 can look muddy quickly. Good to see that with ARC
there are options. I will have to check this out.

I would prefer an option to switch NR off or at least switch
between 3 settings: low - normal - strong.

regards, Bernie

Click to expand...

Bernie,
are you saying that the "muddy look" occurs as low as ISO 400 in jpegs ?

400 is my prefered setting for shooting events at night. Rarely do i need to do too much post pocessing, but I like having that option.

-MG
http://www.pbase.com/dudedelux

marc goldstein said:

Bernie,
are you saying that the "muddy look" occurs as low as ISO 400 in
jpegs ?
400 is my prefered setting for shooting events at night.

Click to expand...

Well I would have to check again more systematically, but while I would call the S2 sensational up to ISO 400, the S3 has a less crisp look at 100 view. Maybe smoother, but also less sharp/ detailed. I will maybe post some examples a bit later, when I have some time at my hand. The strange thing is that it varies from capture to capture. I have seen files with strong shadow noise next to ISO 1600 files that are amazingly smooth. I dont understand the S3 well enough yet.

What is better with S3 is the general impression/ DR which looks much more like the "real scene" or more like the eyes see it.

regards, Bernie