What I learned from Gollywop -- and what I wonder

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Macx Senior Member • Posts: 1,433
Re: What I learned from Gollywop -- and what I wonder

Anders W wrote:

Macx wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Macx wrote:

olliess wrote:

Macx wrote:

Stacking images should give you at least as good noise performance in the shadows as bracketing.

If you only stack (instead of bracketing), won't your shadows potentially take multiple "hits" from pattern noise, black clipping (if your camera does it), etc.?

Yes, that is a good point, and it's worth testing how much this adding up of "per-shot noise" will mean for the final image. There might very well be a break-even point. For the E-M5 the sensor noise is fairly low, so I would suppose that the perceived noise (signal to noise ratio) in the end image would still be lower, even with multiple exposures, because the read noise is fairly small compared to the shot noise caused by (lack of) exposure.

No, I think stacking only, without any exposure bracketing, is perfectly fine and it is sometimes the best you can do. It is merely less efficient than stacking with exposure bracketing when that's possible.

The problem with the stacking-only strategy, is that you need a whole lot of exposures to get anywhere. With stacking only, without exposure bracketing, DR grows in proportion to the square root of the number of exposures. So to get one EV more of DR you need four, not two shots. To get two EV more DR, you need 16 shots, to get three EV you need 64, and so on.

Are you sure about this? I would have thought that doubling the exposure would allow for one more EV, and it would be four exposures for two EV and so on? And while the many exposures is definitely the impractical bit, both during capture and when processing, but beside that I think I think it's fairer to look at the total sum of exposure time from the two methods.

Perhaps I should add to what I already said that it would indeed be correct to just go by the total exposure time if only a single sensor read-out would be required. But since you need to do multiple reads, one per exposure, the circumstances are less favorable. See this post for a somewhat related case:


Thanks for setting me straight, and thanks for the links. I found a simple explanation at Wikipedia's article aboutSignal averaging, which I had in fact already read, but apparently forgotten again.

Let's look at some numbers though. Here are some data from sensorgen.info's info table on the E-M5: "ISO 400" gives us a read noise of 3.8 and a saturation level of 12661. Doesn't it then follow that two stacked captures at "ISO 400" would give us an averaged read noise of sqrt(2*3.8^2)=5.3 and a saturation level of 25322 (which translates into a DR=12.2). Compare that to the read noise of 6.5 and saturation level of 25041 for a single capture at "ISO 200" (DR=11.9). Even if we presume the same amount of exposure, the lower averaged noise would still give an advantage to multiple captures than the single one.

Or have I missed something again?

Another example: If we want to simulate an ISO 25 shot by stacking eight ISO 200, we'd end up with a read noise of sqrt(8*6.5^2)=18.4 and a saturation level of 200.328 which gives us a DR of 13.4.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow