FZ1000 moon yikes! n salvaged

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

Finally got around to looking a some test shots I did of the 1/2 moon week or so back.

Dang.. IIRC it wasn't fully dark and at orig size the sky has so many jpg artifacts looks like crumpled paper.

and since it's been awile, don't know why.

First white balance looks off, well prob should have shot in mono anyway

but those pesky artifacts.. guessing it was in vivid mode, exif says contrast +1 sharpness+2 doesn't show the NR setting. might have been in the -, well prob was in the neg.

Any idea what went wrong?? or did I just dumb luck into a dark exposure of the not quite black sky that these cameras don't deal with all that well??

this is as shot:

SOOC jpg

I don't know if this any clues or not. Trying to salvage it. First I tried PPing the exposure, that didn't help, then the contrast, that didn't help. Last ditch effort to take the Black Level adj from 0 to about 75%, and convert to mono, n cropped. resulting in almost a fairly decent shot IMO. but would still like to figure out why it was so full of artifacts in the first place to avoid it in the future.

salvaged moon in mono by adding +75% black level

sherman_levine · Mar 4, 2015

Seems to me that the major source of artifacts is that you have a 20mpx image with a FocalLengthIn35mmFormat of 689mm, which is considerably higher than the maximum optical zoom of 400mm.

That means that more than 60% of your image pixels are synthesized by the camera based on the "real" sensor pixels. (i.e. the camera started with a cropped sensor and upsampled the output to about 20mpx image)

Actually doesn't look bad at all given where it started from.

-
Sherm

SHERMANLEVINE’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

sherman_levine said:
Seems to me that the major source of artifacts is that you have a 20mpx image with a FocalLengthIn35mmFormat of 689mm, which is considerably higher than the maximum optical zoom of 400mm.

That means that more than 60% of your image pixels are synthesized by the camera based on the "real" sensor pixels. (i.e. the camera started with a cropped sensor and upsampled the output to about 20mpx image)

Actually doesn't look bad at all given where it started from.

-
Sherm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/sets/

That would be nice if that's the case. I've had this happen with the 200 a few times and it was either too much NR applied or too much sharpness, just can't remember why or how I addressed it.

Here is another one, this time where I was shooting jpg and raw and at 400mm. but it seems actually worse as far as the purple bobbies go.

I'm not much good at developing from raw but guess I need to see if the same shows up in the raw files too

sherman_levine · Mar 4, 2015

What are the "purple bobbies" you're referring to? Are you saying the black sky is a bit mottled? something else?

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

sherman_levine said:
What are the "purple bobbies" you're referring to? Are you saying the black sky is a bit mottled? something else?

sherman_levine · Mar 4, 2015

RandTx said:
sherman_levine said:

What are the "purple bobbies" you're referring to? Are you saying the black sky is a bit mottled? something else?

Click to expand...

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

OK here are the raw files. I can see it would correct easier, but I'm not doing that to get a fairer comparison

First one as it opens with silky. I do notice it says color: PhotoStyle: camera setting (don't think that appears on a camera jpg

Jpg from raw 21,358KB

then changing that from color

hotstyle.camera.setting. to Standard, considerably better

jpg from raw std color 19,545KB

And at this moment got to say OH MY GOD.. don't know why but it's producing Jpg from Raw that are 20mb per jpg, about 3x bigger than in camera jpgs. that take for ever to upload. how do I fix that?

trog100 · Mar 4, 2015

you moon shots are not actually that bad.. by the way its not called salvaging its called post processing.. he he

trog

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

sherman_levine said:
RandTx said:

sherman_levine said:

What are the "purple bobbies" you're referring to? Are you saying the black sky is a bit mottled? something else?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

trog100 said:
you moon shots are not bad.. its not called salvaging its called post processing.. he he

trog

oh this is pure salvage lol. usually I can PP the moon with some tweaks and and some unsharp mask and really end up with something better than the camera can really do. but if they start out with artifacts can't do much of any of that.

basically in the end I "should" be able to obtain better better results than I've had with the fz200.. once I get over my new camera and settings stumbles lol, but I'm not there on capturing the moon yet

edit.. OK looked at my salvage again full screen and agree it's not a bad photo. I did certainly made as dramatic as as I could trying to get it to really pop without fully exploding with contrast noise. So maybe I just got lucky on that one lol. guess I might could paint the black back deep dark blue...

sherman_levine · Mar 4, 2015

RandTx said:
OK here are the raw files. I can see it would correct easier, but I'm not doing that to get a fairer comparison

First one as it opens with silky. I do notice it says color: PhotoStyle: camera setting (don't think that appears on a camera jpg

then changing that from color hotstyle.camera.setting. to Standard, considerably better

And at this moment got to say OH MY GOD.. don't know why but it's producing Jpg from Raw that are 20mb per jpg, about 3x bigger than in camera jpgs. that take for ever to upload. how do I fix that?

In the "development" dialog (This is the one for batch development, but there should be something similar for "one scene development", you can change the JPG quality (i.e. compression)

Keep in mind that the camera has just one shot at creating the JPG, and smooth dark areas are particularly vulnerable to blotchies because there are only 256 levels for each RGB color, and a change from say 5 to 6 is 20% whereas a change from 200 to 201 is much smaller.

--
Sherm

SHERMANLEVINE’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

sherman_levine said:
RandTx said:

OK here are the raw files. I can see it would correct easier, but I'm not doing that to get a fairer comparison

First one as it opens with silky. I do notice it says color: PhotoStyle: camera setting (don't think that appears on a camera jpg

then changing that from color hotstyle.camera.setting. to Standard, considerably better

And at this moment got to say OH MY GOD.. don't know why but it's producing Jpg from Raw that are 20mb per jpg, about 3x bigger than in camera jpgs. that take for ever to upload. how do I fix that?

Click to expand...

In the "development" dialog (This is the one for batch development, but there should be something similar for "one scene development", you can change the JPG quality (i.e. compression)

Keep in mind that the camera has just one shot at creating the JPG, and smooth dark areas are particularly vulnerable to blotchies because there are only 256 levels for each RGB color, and a change from say 5 to 6 is 20% whereas a change from 200 to 201 is much smaller.

--
Sherm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32989985@N07/sets/

Thanks that worked .

What I'd been doing is using the non conforming !00% highest qualty because I normally do jpg in jpg out. then from there do about the same in a watermarking program

but on these raw files using the high quality dropped the file size from raw to 5,7xxKB whcih is actually smaller than the in camera jpg which is 7,2xxKB

kkardster · Mar 4, 2015

RandTx said:
doesn't show the NR setting. might have been in the -, well prob was in the neg.

It's there: [MakerNotes] NoiseReduction = 65534

This particular field uses 16 binary bits to store the values, which can then range from

0000000000000000 to 1111111111111111

Or, if converted to unsigned decimal: 0 to 65535

The first half of those values (those where the first bit is a 0) denote positive numbers (0-32767) while the rest denote negative numbers (those where the first bit is a 1.) The positive numbers are easy, but the negative binary numbers are inverted, so using the decimal representation you have the following. Note that it's not that difficult - digital computers and cameras use base 2 math instead of the base 10 math we're used to. In either case, we carry the one whenever adding 1 more results in the base value: for base 10, we're used to 9+1=10. But in base 2, we carry the one when we add one to one: 1+1=2.

Binary = Decimal = Real

0000000000000000 = 00000 = 0

0000000000000001 = 00001 = 1

0000000000000010 = 00002 = 2

0000000000000011 = 00003 = 3

:

0111111111111101 = 32765 = 32765

0111111111111110 = 32766 = 32766

0111111111111111 = 32767 = 32767

1000000000000000 = 32768 = -32768

1000000000000001 = 32769 = -32767

1000000000000010 = 32770 = -32765

:

1111111111111100 = 65533 = -3

1111111111111101 = 65534 = -2

1111111111111111 = 65535 = -1

So it looks like your FZ1000 NR was set to -2. You can confirm it by taking test shots at -1, -2, and -3 to see which one matches 65534.

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

kkardster said:
RandTx said:

doesn't show the NR setting. might have been in the -, well prob was in the neg.

Click to expand...

It's there: [MakerNotes] NoiseReduction = 65534

This particular field uses 16 binary bits to store the values, which can then range from

0000000000000000 to 1111111111111111

Or, if converted to unsigned decimal: 0 to 65535

The first half of those values (those where the first bit is a 0) denote positive numbers (0-32767) while the rest denote negative numbers (those where the first bit is a 1.) The positive numbers are easy, but the negative binary numbers are inverted, so using the decimal representation you have the following. Note that it's not that difficult - digital computers and cameras use base 2 math instead of the base 10 math we're used to. In either case, we carry the one whenever adding 1 more results in the base value: for base 10, we're used to 9+1=10. But in base 2, we carry the one when we add one to one: 1+1=2.

Binary = Decimal = Real

0000000000000000 = 00000 = 0

0000000000000001 = 00001 = 1

0000000000000010 = 00002 = 2

0000000000000011 = 00003 = 3

:

0111111111111101 = 32765 = 32765

0111111111111110 = 32766 = 32766

0111111111111111 = 32767 = 32767

1000000000000000 = 32768 = -32768

1000000000000001 = 32769 = -32767

1000000000000010 = 32770 = -32765

:

1111111111111100 = 65533 = -3

1111111111111101 = 65534 = -2

1111111111111111 = 65535 = -1

So it looks like your FZ1000 NR was set to -2. You can confirm it by taking test shots at -1, -2, and -3 to see which one matches 65534.

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

whaaaaat?? lol

but it would not surprise me if ND was set to -2

that's a setting I've been know to use shooting the car videos with the 200.

I'll check that to verify right after dinner.

Thanks

BTW I've used exifgui for long time long enough to forget how to customize

but isn't there a way to assign exif data so that it would return +/- 1 2 3 4 in a config file or some such.

think I've done that before, but years ago,

trog100 · Mar 4, 2015

my FZ1000 is set to plus 2 sharpness and Minus 2 NR.. none of these settings make a huge difference.. they are my defaults setting though..

the fZ will aggressively try and get rid of noise.. a little noise is preferable to lost detail due to aggressive NR..

my last moon shots were at 1/160th of a second shutter speed ISO 125.. F5..

i cant quite figure your setting or your blue sky.. your settings seem a mile away from mine.. but your moon shots are not bad.. the FZ1000 isnt the best tool for the job.. why the blue sky i cant figure..

trog

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

kkardster said:
RandTx said:

doesn't show the NR setting. might have been in the -, well prob was in the neg.

Click to expand...

It's there: [MakerNotes] NoiseReduction = 65534

This particular field uses 16 binary bits to store the values, which can then range from

0000000000000000 to 1111111111111111

Or, if converted to unsigned decimal: 0 to 65535

The first half of those values (those where the first bit is a 0) denote positive numbers (0-32767) while the rest denote negative numbers (those where the first bit is a 1.) The positive numbers are easy, but the negative binary numbers are inverted, so using the decimal representation you have the following. Note that it's not that difficult - digital computers and cameras use base 2 math instead of the base 10 math we're used to. In either case, we carry the one whenever adding 1 more results in the base value: for base 10, we're used to 9+1=10. But in base 2, we carry the one when we add one to one: 1+1=2.

Binary = Decimal = Real

0000000000000000 = 00000 = 0

0000000000000001 = 00001 = 1

0000000000000010 = 00002 = 2

0000000000000011 = 00003 = 3

:

0111111111111101 = 32765 = 32765

0111111111111110 = 32766 = 32766

0111111111111111 = 32767 = 32767

1000000000000000 = 32768 = -32768

1000000000000001 = 32769 = -32767

1000000000000010 = 32770 = -32765

:

1111111111111100 = 65533 = -3

1111111111111101 = 65534 = -2

1111111111111111 = 65535 = -1

So it looks like your FZ1000 NR was set to -2. You can confirm it by taking test shots at -1, -2, and -3 to see which one matches 65534.

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

OK BAG OPEN... WORMS EVERYWHERE

Exif returns
for ND
+5 Unknown (5)
+4 Highest (+2)
+3 Lowest (-2)
+2 High (+1)
+1 Low (-1)
+0 Standard
-1 Unknown 65535
-2 Unknown 65534
-3 Unknown 65533
-4 Unknown 65532
-5 Unknown 65531

So yes 65534 is NR-2, but the whole exif thing is kind of a mess.

so I don't know if trust what its reporting for sharpeness, contrast etc now lol

edit

OK also found using Properties in PfS that it reports Photo Style as Vivid. (which is the style I suspected it was shot in)

Now why Photo Style wont come up in maker notes or exif.. IDK but I want it.

RandTx · Mar 4, 2015

trog100 said:
my FZ1000 is set to plus 2 sharpness and Minus 2 NR.. none of these settings make a huge difference.. they are my defaults setting though..

the fZ will aggressively try and get rid of noise.. a little noise is preferable to lost detail due to aggressive NR..

my last moon shots were at 1/160th of a second shutter speed ISO 125.. F5..

i cant quite figure your setting or your blue sky.. your settings seem a mile away from mine.. but your moon shots are not bad.. the FZ1000 isnt the best tool for the job.. why the blue sky i cant figure..

trog

Actually our settings are pretty close. the first one, the better exposure was what 1/250 F4 ISO125.

(if this forum is reporting it as 10/2500 as happens sometimes lol that just confusing)

the blue was sky color was actually there, these were shot not long after sunset

and the last ones 624 were 1/125 F4 ISO125 about one stop more exposed and

kkardster · Mar 4, 2015

RandTx said:
(if this forum is reporting it as 10/2500 as happens sometimes lol that just confusing)

Yeah, that happens here a lot. EXIF data stores shutter speeds as separate numerator and denominator values and I used to assume that DPR was simply showing both numbers with a slash between them. But I no longer believe that's true.

--
Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

Briansdad1 · Mar 4, 2015

Sorry, I didn't take the time to read all the replies. Probably mentioned there but, just in case, shoot RAW!

Bill

kkardster · Mar 4, 2015

RandTx said:
BTW I've used exifgui for long time long enough to forget how to customize

but isn't there a way to assign exif data so that it would return +/- 1 2 3 4 in a config file or some such.

think I've done that before, but years ago,

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

--

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

FZ1000 moon yikes! n salvaged

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts