Hi Ho! Hi ISO!

I'd like to say that I've been bagging PSPX lately for some shortcomings that I feel should not be there; however, I have to give credit where credit is due.

PSPX does have some nice features, once you start using 8 bit TIFF files. The B&W coversion facility isn't bad and when you can use some good plug-ins, it works quite well.

It also has quite a good noise reduction capability, which I found out while testing out high ISO shots. This facility is perhaps even better than Neat Image, which can be a bit confusing regarding what settings to use.

I'm not usually a high ISO shooter, but it's good to know that you can use the E1 for high ISO work and get quite good results. Others have shown some examples already, but I thought it might be of interest to those contemplating the various tools you use to do this.

The following shots have been taken in RAW, converted to 8 bit TIFF in Capture One and then PSPX Digital Camera Noise Removal (not auto mode) applied. Some experimentation was used with the settings and there is possibly a bit more refinement available.

I used fairly mild noise reduction, as there's a balance needed between getting noise reduction and retaining detail. If these were slated for print, I would have applied even milder noise reduction.

The images were then reduced in size, USM applied and saved as a JPG.

The first shot is taken in a fairly dark room with ambient light and the second in bright shade. I guess what other brands can do in-camera, we can emulate fairly closely out of camera. ;-)

14-54mm @ 19mm, 1/100 sec @f2.9, ISO3200:



14-54mm @ 54mm, 1/2500 sec @ f4.5, ISO3200:



Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

Did you use PSP9 noise reduction, and is PSPX better?

Cheers, Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
http://www.wallygoots.com

I use PSPX and, in this regard, it's a lot better than PSP9. There do appear to be some hidden gems within PSPX, so I haven't completely given up on it just yet.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

The iso on the E-1 is criticized unfairly. The only negative at 3200 is the banding. The noise is totally reasonable. Just because Olympus chose not to use heavy noise control in the camera, does not mean the high iso is unusable. I have taken many shots at 1600 and 3200. 1600 is usable with virtually no work. 3200 may require a little more care, I have not decided. The E-1 gets trashed in so many reviews, when in reality it is completely competitive with many other DSLR's.

I believe that it's more than just competitive, especially when you consider other factors like build, weatherproofing, ergonomics, dust cleaner, image quality etc and what it costs.

Slowly, people are discovering what many here have known for some time.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

Ray,

Thx for posting those. Perhaps it's just me, but I still see a lot of chroma noise in the darker areas of the first shot (e.g., against the dark brown parts of the luggage).

Cheers,
Dylan

It is truly ridiculous some of the reviews I have read regarding the E-1. I can safely say it is one of the nicest DSLR's I have ever used. The only ones that can compete with it are the Canon and Nikon pro series. Is the E-1 technically outdated? Yes, but who cares? It was a great camera when it came out and still is today! If I needed to shoot for billboards or something I might care.

I think the issue is this. Reviewers are composed of two types. Photographers took the Olympus out in the rain or snow and photographed something that only a handful of cameras could be in a position to do without falling apart. The other type consists of the guys who photograph nothing but res charts and realized that the E-1 exhibits slightly more noise or less res than some competitors.

While I may have less res and higher noise in my photos than someone else. I can go out in a snowstorm and have a blast taking pictures. Most of them are stuck inside. I think the E-1 is about the joy of shooting. Much of the competition is simply about results only. The potential performance differences between the E-1 and the bigger names are not nearly enough to lure me away from what I see as a great camera. Now if my lcd would stop worrying me things would be perfect.

On the darker parts there is some. As I don't shoot high ISO as a norm, it's an area that I have to investigate to get the optimum solution.

PSPX has some fairly good controls, but I haven't really looked at what they all do. Either way, it's a very quick process to make an image more than acceptable.

Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

I agree with you that PSPX has an excellent noise reduction process--much better than the one in PSP9. Overall, I like the upgrade, although I find it has a couple of annoying features that are definitely not an improvement over earlier versions. By the way, I use ISO 1600 fairly frequently in low light situations with my E1 & have stopped using Neat Image/Noise Image to clean it up; PSPX makes the process simple and it's nice to use the same application that I use for the rest of my image editingl, too.

Cheers,
HS

Seeing how far one can go with high ISO, I followed up by taking some under-exposed shots to see what the results would be like with similar treatment. I guess one could live with these in an emergency:

14-54mm @ 20mm, manual mode 1/160 sec (correct indicated exposure 1/100 sec) @ f3.2, ISO 3200



14-54mm @ 54mm, manual mode 1/2500 sec (correct indicated exposure 1/800 sec) @ f3.5, ISO 3200



Cheers

Ray

--
http://www.australianimage.com.au

Your images are impressive. But I am very sorry not to know what means PSPX or PSP9! Is that a Photoshop tool? Thank you for your support.
Regards.
André

Paint Shop Pro is a Windows only photo editing software, with features that challenge the Photoshop featureset, but for a much lower price.

Many thanks. I'm an Apple user.... not for me!
Regards
André

Hi Ray

Your thread came in the nick of time.

I have just bought myself a new computer and I have been considering what PP software to update to.

I have been shooting RAW lately and only have the Oly Master software and PS 7 with the plug in on the old computer.

PSC2 is out of my league at this stage so I was considering buying PSE 4. But your thread prompted me to consider PSPX.

Has it a built in RAW converter or do you still need a plug in or a seperate RAW converter.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Dennis

Hey OzRay;

Could you do a similar test with a person as the subject? I would love to see what happens to skin tones when doing the filtering you are talking about.
--
Chris
Apex, NC

Denjw said:

But your thread prompted me to consider PSPX.

Has it a built in RAW converter or do you still need a plug in or a
seperate RAW converter.

Click to expand...

PSPX has a link to RSE, I think; at least when I upgraded, I also downloaded something from RSE. The PSPX RAW converter is useful only for an emergency. I use OLY VIEWER for the ORF files, then finish PP with PSPX. I've never had PS; started with PSP when it was a free program and have stuck with it ever since. It may not have quite all the features of PS, but it has most of them (including ability to work in 16-bit images) and costs $500 less.

Cheers,
HS

Though these pictures are useful in terms of noise level, I have to say noise IS a issue with E-1 compared with DSLRs from other companies.

If you look at the bottom-left part of the first picture, I guess you can imagine what the noise look like on the full-scale image.

--
E-1,14-54,50-200,FL-36, G1227 + G1376M
http://dragonpool.zoto.com/
http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/postgrad/x.zheng/

witzgall said:

Hey OzRay;

Could you do a similar test with a person as the subject? I would
love to see what happens to skin tones when doing the filtering you
are talking about.
--

Click to expand...

Chris,

Here are two examples. I took these last Aug at a luau at Wakiki in Hawaii. E1 with OM 135mm 2.8 lens at ISO 1600; no flash. Here's the PP: converted with Viewer (bumped exposure by +.3) to high quality JPG, without using any NR. I cropped the JPG a bit, then downsized the image to 800 pixels on the long side. I made a copy of this image, and then used PSPX NR process to clean up the copy. Final step to both images was PSPX USM (radius 1.0). Be sure to click on the images to expand them. This was a very quick go at these, but I think you can see the difference.

I didn't use Viewer's NR process in conversion, but normally, I would do this and then take the coverted image and run it through PSPX NR, too.

HS

Dennis

PSPX comes with a full version of RSE. It does have it's own RAW converter, but it produces woeful results. Many are happy with RSE, others aren't. I'd suggest that you simply give it a go, as it costs nothing.

Cheers

Ray
--
http://www.australianimage.com.au