Grummbeerbauer
Well-known member
I used manual exposure, somewhere around 1/10sec I think. So this is not (should not be...) the usual long exposure hot pixel effect.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is that amount of "snow-like" noise normal for 7D? Sample images inside
- Thread starter Grummbeerbauer
- Start date
Grummbeerbauer
Well-known member
I recently got a colorimeter, but I didn't have the time to use it. If the calibration significantly changes the way the noise comes out on screen, I will report back on the issue.
Grummbeerbauer
Well-known member
Does ACR perform some standard noise reduction that might reduce the visibility, or is DPP really that messy when it comes to handling noise? In virtually every DPreview review involving Canon cameras, DPP is lauded for having superior (or at least equal) sharpess over ACR. Well, it seems sharpness isn't everything. At least not for ISO> 800.
I hope I will find the time over the holidays to
a) finally use the colorimeter I got almost three weeks ago
b) play around with Lightroom Beta 3
c) test drive a number of noise reduction tools
Grummbeerbauer
Well-known member
The gamma bar doesn't seem to work for my monitor at the office. And you are right, I can see the the A bar well below 1.9, almost down to 1.7.
runningJeff
Member
Using raw file, my experience is the snow-like noise is caused by DPP software. I did comparison side by side using DPP and photoshop. Photoshop showed no white snow noise even at highest sharpening setting.
I don't want to "pollute" my flickr account with testshots, otherwise I can post my comparison examples. But it is very easy to do. Shoot raw at 1600 iso having some dark areas, set to view by 100%, try both DPP and photoshop to sharpen the raw image, you can see the snow poping up.
By the way, I believe this has been brought up before.
I don't want to "pollute" my flickr account with testshots, otherwise I can post my comparison examples. But it is very easy to do. Shoot raw at 1600 iso having some dark areas, set to view by 100%, try both DPP and photoshop to sharpen the raw image, you can see the snow poping up.
By the way, I believe this has been brought up before.
E
Eugene Powers
Guest
I went here, again
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
and my monitor is in top shape.
--
Eugene
The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.
Lee Jay
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gammachart
and my monitor is in top shape.
--
Eugene
The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.
Lee Jay
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I found the EXIF data in your image when I was copying your settings - it's 0.3 sec.
Grummbeerbauer
Well-known member
Oh, okay. Still not exactly an exposure where the usual long exposure effects should creep in, right?
BTW: The results on the 7D in the electronics store looked essentially the same, I used 1/10sec there.
BTW: The results on the 7D in the electronics store looked essentially the same, I used 1/10sec there.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I'm not reading this as a long exposure effect, but as a high ISO effect. Easy to test of course but I'm not able to do it at the moment.
Hendrik123
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 8
well i can understand your concern about a pricy camera ..but why not just taking real world photos day time and indoors at night and see if you like the images ( quality and noise etc) i think its better than this dark frame test
Positive, those are the correct images. On both my monitors at home and at work the look a lot more like "starry night" (with lots of red dwarfs and some red supergiants) then "inside of lens cap".
However, I meanwhile made a comparison with my 450D (which only goes to ISO 1600 anyway) and it looks pretty much the same here, with a minor advantage for the 450D over the 7D at 1600. In particular the red blobs on the 7D appear to be quite a bit bigger on average than those produced by the 450D when both are viewed at 100%. Given the higher res of the 7D, I think they end up roughly on par.
I also went ahead and tried out the 7D sample in my local electronics retail, and the result looked pretty much the same, so at least its not an issue with my specific sample.
Since I really really LOVE the 7D with respect to virtually any other aspect (mine also seems to focus properly, unlike the one I checked out in the electronics store which would have a hard time locking focus on anything, but this could also have been due to the 18-135 lens), I guess the 7D will be a keeper for me.
I admit to being paranoid and over-picky when it comes to purchasing pricey electronics.
Well the effect was also quite apparent on some high ISO images I took on a larger christmas market in my region.
However, I meanwhile made some attempts to process these images. DPP, which I used to (IMO....) good effect with my 450D, seems to have trouble with getting rid of the noise while keeping a reasonable amount of image detail. In particular its RAW sharpening feature emphasizes the white noise dots a lot. I then tried Noiseware Community edition, and I really liked the results, as it produced a good balance between retaining detail and eliminating the most disturbing noise.
Since I might have to invest in some RAW image processing software anyway, I would like to have your input on which one you use, in particular for handling high ISO images. Since I don't need the full scale of features of Photoshop (I use The Gimp for the occasional retouching job, which was more than adequate for my non-professional needs, where 8-bit output color depth were enough), I would also prefer a noise reduction software that does not come exclusively as a PS plugin, although AFAIK Adobe's Lightroom can accept many PS plugins, correct?
Is Lightroom still the weapon of choice for any more serious (non-retouching) postprocessing? Or are there better (and perhaps cheaper) alternatives available?
Regards
G
Both.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. DPP is the worst of the bunch.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
That's why you can see it, and those with calibrated monitors cannot. For me, that bar is gone at 2.0 and just barely visible at 2.2.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
dsjtecserv
Senior Member
I can see it with my calibrated monitor, as well as my uncalibrated laptop screen. Both are around 2.2 gamma. The noise is faint, certainly at the lower end of the visible shadow tones, but it's there.
Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv
CameraCarl
Veteran Member
Do you see this noise when you photograph something outside at night? Or in a dim room?
SelNZ
Senior Member
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I honestly do not understand what it is about some people - quite a few in this thread - which makes them want to stand up and declare that because they can't see something, it isn't there. Like some weird parallel with Schrodinger, if you can't see it then it hasn't happened.
This has absolutely nothing to do with monitor calibration, except perhaps that a very badly adjusted monitor could, maybe, make the noise invisible, and bad viewing conditions could certainly disguise what is there.
Here is a tiny crop from my image, enlarged to 2000% so everyone can see it:
This is the exact same image as shown in my original response, converted in DPP using default settings for exposure, contrast etc and no noise reduction. There is no truly "correct" conversion but I have been as neutral as it is possible to be. The image is not intentionally enhanced in any way.
I've chosen an area with a selection 'white' specks but I haven't selected especially bright ones, they are pretty typical and not the brightest. They are mostly single pixels; the middle one measures 18% grey (as HSB), the next brightest is 13%; this is against a background of 0/1/2%. The ability to see an 18% grey feature is NOT dependent on (to quote Lee Jay) a "black point set horribly improperly " or any other kind of calibration issue as several people have claimed. It depends only your monitor's ability to show single pixels (some CRTs might not but any decent LCD monitor will) and, crucially, on the viewer's eyesight. Detail can easily be obscured by bad viewing conditions of course - it doesn't matter how well calibrated your monitor is, if there is early morning sun streaming across the desk as I had this morning.
The red specks are different, they are more diffuse but some are actually brighter:
-- that one is 27% and it is by no means the brightest.
For crying out loud, people. Zoom in, see the 18% (and up to 22% at least) pixels and the 27% red spots, zoom out to 1:1 and if you can no longer see them then your eyes or your equipment or your viewing conditions are at fault . Please stop these posts claiming that because you can't see them, those who can must be doing something wrong. We're not.
Erik Johansen
Senior Member
You guys who don't see noise in both pics; believe you have a unbelievable good 7D :O
All others have a very good one.
O.c. i see the white specs i #1 plus some colored (mostly red) in #2.
Nec Mulitisync WGX properly calibrated.
Have a nice weekend!
--
Canon since 1959 (and a Finepix F10 just in case)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fujicanon_photo/
All others have a very good one.
O.c. i see the white specs i #1 plus some colored (mostly red) in #2.
Nec Mulitisync WGX properly calibrated.
Have a nice weekend!
--
Canon since 1959 (and a Finepix F10 just in case)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fujicanon_photo/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum