I'm wrong? How to reduce RX10m4 noise (examples)

Hi,

as was already mentioned under the given lighting conditions you're reaching at the limits of what the 1" sensor is able to deliver. This is particulary true when a high ISO setting is combined with some underexposure AND when you're evaluating the resulting noise levels in full resolution / 100% views.

If we take as a given that you don't have equipment at hand that might be better suited for those low light action photography jobs, the challenge is how to get the best result out of your gear. And this advice from my POV was given already by several posters.

First off, what is the intended use? What are the resolution demands? Viewing and/or printing sizes? Because shooting RAW, adjusting the WB, then applying the converter's NR and finally creating a sensibly reduced output MP size (let's say from 20MP to 8MP output) should provide you pretty usable results. That's about the best what can be achieved and expected from that camera. Everything else, well then it's simply the wrong tool for the job - excessive optimistic expectations.

Michael Fritzen said:

Hi,

as was already mentioned under the given lighting conditions you're reaching at the limits of what the 1" sensor is able to deliver. This is particulary true when a high ISO setting is combined with some underexposure AND when you're evaluating the resulting noise levels in full resolution / 100% views.

If we take as a given that you don't have equipment at hand that might be better suited for those low light action photography jobs, the challenge is how to get the best result out of your gear. And this advice from my POV was given already by several posters.

First off, what is the intended use? What are the resolution demands? Viewing and/or printing sizes? Because shooting RAW, adjusting the WB, then applying the converter's NR and finally creating a sensibly reduced output MP size (let's say from 20MP to 8MP output) should provide you pretty usable results. That's about the best what can be achieved and expected from that camera. Everything else, well then it's simply the wrong tool for the job - excessive optimistic expectations.

Click to expand...

Every photos go to facebook and some website, so very big resolution is not required, but this can help me? )

Its good, that now I know, that its not Im noob, but its also my camera is better in outside shoots )

Fine so. So you don't need to "deliver" according for example to client's quality / MP requirements.

If you shoot for personal use and to show off to friends / social media then you can focus your work on "making it looking good". I'm hardly posting on social media anything bigger than 1,600 or 1,800px on the long side. This means for shots taken with a 20MP cam (or even with some crop applied) there's plenty of pixels left for downressing to a sensible output size and, if needed, some final re-sharpening.

YMMV but I'm showing off "impressions", sometimes some snaps - but never "pixels".

From common nice light outdoor photos it's easy to get at nice looking output. With lowlight / high ISO it needs a bit more work to get at a similar "nice look". BTW the nasty look that fluorescent lighting gives faces in high ISO indoor shots is one of the key points to work on in RAW conversion because when you're able to change the ill looking greenish cast of the skin into a more pleasing look, the overall look is likely to improve.

Michael Fritzen said:

as was already mentioned under the given lighting conditions you're reaching at the limits of what the 1" sensor is able to deliver. This is particulary true when a high ISO setting is combined with some underexposure AND when you're evaluating the resulting noise levels in full resolution / 100% views.

Click to expand...

None of that explains why his recently posted images look noiseless (because of obvious noise reduction being applied) while editing, but noisy after being saved:

Can you make a couple of the ARW files available so that we can have a go at them ourselves? You'll need to put them into Dropbox, or somewhere on a website and provide download links.

edform said:

Can you make a couple of the ARW files available so that we can have a go at them

Click to expand...

=====

Yes. An NR contest. app vs. app vs. app vs. app
side by side comparisons, same image, one indisputable winner

edform said:

Can you make a couple of the ARW files available so that we can have a go at them ourselves? You'll need to put them into Dropbox, or somewhere on a website and provide download links.

Click to expand...

Of course: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ej1z8jzbowkajri/AAB4ud0Hupo9aptcnaUv0QJYa?dl=0

I want you show, what I learned after I created this topic.

Here is photo before I created this topic:





Here is today:





Same RAW file. Its very hard for me to understand right white balance and right color. I watched a lot of youtube, but I feel, that everytime I can create and good photo and bad photo - its just lottery

OK the answer to your puzzle is very simple. ARW files, along with most RAW files, contain a small, embedded jpeg which is used for general on-screen viewing by most photo-viewer software. These embedded jpegs are very small indeed and very highly compressed, so they look super-smooth. I extracted these jpegs from each of the ARW files you provided...


Embedded jpeg extracted as a screen capture Windows Photo Viewer


Embedded jpeg extracted as a screen capture from Windows Photo Viewer


Embedded jpeg extracted as a screen capture Windows Photo Viewer


Embedded jpeg extracted as a screen capture Windows Photo Viewer

As you can see they are smooth and apparently noise-free, but that is simply because the resolution of the images is hugely reduced compared to the actual photographs.

It is these smoothed images that you see if you double-click one of your ARW files and view it onscreen in MS Photos or MS Windows Photo Viewer.

When you load the ARW files into a RAW developer however, you see the RAW file translated at full size by the internal facilities of the RAW developer software [Lightroom, PhotoLab etc.]. These programs do not smooth away the details. Here are the images as you see them in DxO PhotoLab...


ARW file viewed and screen captured in DxO PhotoLab


ARW file viewed and screen captured in DxO PhotoLab


ARW file viewed and screen captured in DxO PhotoLab


ARW file viewed and screen captured in DxO Photolab

As you can see, they are really noisy.

Next - here are your 4 images processed in PhotoLab and saved as large jpegs- in each case I applied a pre-set that I use a lot, which adds HDR and Prime noise reduction with one click. They are full size [5472x3648], not just screen captures...


Full size file processed in DxO PhotoLab with HDR and Prime NR


Full size file processed in DxO PhotoLab with HDR and Prime NR


Full size jpeg processed with HDR and Prime NR in DxO PhotoLab


Full size jpeg processed with HDR and Prime NR in DxO PhotoLab

You'll observe that the noise is much reduced, but not removed; there's just too much of it.

Finally, here are the same processed image, but reduced to 1920x1280, which is the biggest size you would ever need if you're broadcasting your work in social-media forums. This size reduction, which you can set in your standard export profile in any RAW developer, further supresses noise...


Reduced size jpeg [1920x1280] processed with HDR and Prime NR in DxO PhotoLab


Reduced size jpeg [1920x1280] processed with HDR and Prime NR in DxO PhotoLab


Reduced size jpeg [1920x1280] processed with HDR and Prime NR in DxO PhotoLab


Reduced size jpeg [1920x1280] processed with HDR and Prime NR in DxO PhotoLab

To summarise - these are very noisy files, just as you'd expect when shooting at ISO6400 on a 1-inch sensor - the fact that they are also under-exposed makes it worse. Native noise is also very granular at these settings and the images have a high proportion of false colour when viewed at 100%.

--
Ed Form

titasas said:

I want you show, what I learned after I created this topic.

Here is photo before I created this topic:



Here is today:



Same RAW file. Its very hard for me to understand right white balance and right color. I watched a lot of youtube, but I feel, that everytime I can create and good photo and bad photo - its just lottery

Click to expand...

No it's not a lottery. Processing skill, knowledge of the good tricks for presenting photos in the best format for the medium in which they are to be viewed, and understanding of the limits of your equipment, will come with experience. Keep right on trucking! :-D

--
Ed Form

So what advice for this situation? Shoot not more then 2000-ISO ? And try to balance with shutter speed?

titasas said:

So what advice for this situation? Shoot not more then 2000-ISO ? And try to balance with shutter speed?

Click to expand...

To minimise noise the images need to be correctly exposed. If that means you need ISO6400 then that is what you should use as if you use ISO2000 the images will be horribly underexposed & far more noisy when you bring the exposure back up when processing the file.

If there isn't sufficient light then you will just have to experiment to find what combination of ISO & shutter speed gives the most agreeable images when you have the aperture wide open. If you drop the shutter speed then you risk motion blur but a little blur in a sports photo may be better than a frozen image with no blur that is noisy & grainy.

titasas said:

So what advice for this situation? Shoot not more then 2000-ISO ? And try to balance with shutter speed?

Click to expand...

Basketball is a terrible sport to photograph - it's really fast and it's very random so you need to practice repeatedly until you are comfortable with the shutter speeds you can achieve, and the balance between fast shutter speed and high noise.

Your camera has the ability to limit maximum ISO and I suggest you drop it to ISO3200 and shoot at least a whole game to see if you can get results - but don't get carried away: if you always reduce image size a long way for the medium you display your images in, high ISO/high noise may not be so much of an issue.

Jeff Greenberg said:

Yes. An NR contest. app vs. app vs. app vs. app
side by side comparisons, same image, one indisputable winner

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps not entering that much into a challenge.

But it might show the OP what might be approaches to get to the desired "nicer look" - be it better WB, be it some more effective NR or simply a combination, including some downsizing to end up with a more pleasing look.

Edit:

Here go my attempts in C1Pro V11.2 creating JPG output with 1,800px on the longer side.

The histogram is a bit shifted to the left but not severe underexposure. However, if possible I'd suggest to expose about 0.7-1.0EV richer if you'd want lower noise levels - anyhow possible at the cost of some more subject movement blurs. This might reforce the action and look fine if you get the right moment with at least some important part of the body at a static moment of its move (a lea; parts of the body - while a swinging arm could be blurred)



















--
Cheers,
Michael Fritzen

Here is my new version:



Today i will took photo of ice hockey and I will show you whats happen after all advices

titasas said:

Here is my new version:



Today i will took photo of ice hockey and I will show you whats happen after all advices

Click to expand...

Well done - you're a quick student! :-D

--
Ed Form

How I'd normally process RAW in 2018 CC ACR.
ACR sliders only, no tools.
Would like to hear criticisms, don't hold back.
How would I clearly gain advantage via another RAW processor??
Side by side comparisons if possible.
Note: I don't know how to display RAW as a reduced image in thread...

Jeff Greenberg said:

http://photosphotos.net/EuroBasketball.DNG

How I'd normally process RAW in 2018 CC ACR.
ACR sliders only, no tools.
Would like to hear criticisms, don't hold back.
How would I clearly gain advantage via another RAW processor??
Side by side comparisons if possible.
Note: I don't know how to display RAW as a reduced image in thread...

Click to expand...

You can't. To do it I had to make screen grabs of the ARW files on a high resolution computer screen.

For comparisons, can you change your output to jpg as DNG files are a pain in the butt.

I opened your file in MS Photos and saved it again as a jpeg with no changes...


Jeff's version

Here is mine from PhotoLab 2...


Ed's version

--
Ed Form

Done & done:




note: my own max ISO = 3200, so this is above my processing experience...

--
shoot first, apologize as needed, smile...

Seems too blue. If you shot RAW you can adjust that. If JPEG you can change it before shooting by fine tuning the white balance while looking through the viewfinder.