Unbiased noise test.

Started Feb 28, 2009 | Discussions
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,841
Re: not very accurate

Rcihardc wrote:

care to provide your experimental data,

Care to provide data supporting your claim "That is Sony's problem."?

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Please don't change the subject

You have no proof for your claim.

My claim is already proven, LR and Sony's own converter can not deliver a good image out of Sony files. LR can deliver relatively good image quality for any other camera other than Sony at high ISO.

Iliah Borg wrote:

Rcihardc wrote:

care to provide your experimental data,

Care to provide data supporting your claim "That is Sony's problem."?

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: not very accurate

Rcihardc wrote:

care to provide your experimental data, or link to a technical
journal article or conference preceding?
Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

-- hide signature --

Your signature/tag line is a riot, considering you just recommended ACR/LR for RAW conversion tests.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Re: not very accurate

ACR is a great choice, you don't like because it will reveal that D3X has more noise, if it was the other way round you would not complain would you?

headofdestiny wrote:

Rcihardc wrote:

care to provide your experimental data, or link to a technical
journal article or conference preceding?
Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,841
Re: Please don't change the subject

Exactly. Your claim that poor LR/ACR results with Sony are in fact Sony's problem was before I posted, and you are to prove it or take it back. I'll be patiently waiting

-- hide signature --
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,841
Please do not kill the thread /nt
-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 873
You have no proof for what you said

Maybe you fell for a900 and wasted $3K so now you want to justify it, I understand. no need to make baseless claims, yah Sony is best camera on planet and there is a conspiracy theory that LR screws up the files to damage Sony's sales. What about Sony's own converter? How come they can't deliver a good output?

Iliah Borg wrote:

Exactly. Your claim that poor LR/ACR results with Sony are in fact
Sony's problem was before I posted, and you are to prove it or take
it back. I'll be patiently waiting

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,841
Re: You have no proof for what you said

Exactly. And where is your proof? You have none.

But here are some hints for you. How does ACR/LR set and apply the white balance? Does the level of noise depend on the white balance in LR/ACR?

When you will get the answers, feel free to post them or to e-mail me. Until then...

-- hide signature --
OP maluminas Regular Member • Posts: 178
Added D90 and D700, plus detailed crops.

Hi again. I slaved away to add two cameras. I added the D700 as per request, and the D90 out of curiosity.

Yes i'm aware my camera choices are slightly biased toward the yellow camp

I also added a crop of the magenta-ish yarn, to assess detail retention. I chose magenta because it has the lowest green component, thus it is the hardest color to keep detailed as the sensitivity is increased (save for reds and blues of course). I believe it is logical, but then again i believed this test was a smart thing to do Correct me if i'm wrong

I didn't change any of the fundamental method i started with, because it would be too much work and i will not risk screwing up again with knowledge i don't master.

But since some people liked the first batch and asked for more, here it is:

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 873
So funny

Looks like you have trouble seeing/reading the reviews
Here is the proof that a900 shots are super noisy in ACR.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page23.asp

Now maybe could enlighten us by showing us your proof...

Iliah Borg wrote:

Exactly. And where is your proof? You have none.

But here are some hints for you. How does ACR/LR set and apply the
white balance? Does the level of noise depend on the white balance in
LR/ACR?

When you will get the answers, feel free to post them or to e-mail
me. Until then...

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 873
simple...

Even in your crops 5DII has the lowest noise compared to D3X, 1DSIII and a900. at the same print size, 5DII has the lowest noise of any DSLR available today. There has been at 10 different posts that have confirmed this and yours is the last one. Nikon D3X is close to older Canon 1DSIII with Sony being far behind from either one.

maluminas wrote:

Hi again. I slaved away to add two cameras. I added the D700 as per
request, and the D90 out of curiosity.

Yes i'm aware my camera choices are slightly biased toward the yellow
camp

I also added a crop of the magenta-ish yarn, to assess detail
retention. I chose magenta because it has the lowest green component,
thus it is the hardest color to keep detailed as the sensitivity is
increased (save for reds and blues of course). I believe it is
logical, but then again i believed this test was a smart thing to do
Correct me if i'm wrong

I didn't change any of the fundamental method i started with, because
it would be too much work and i will not risk screwing up again with
knowledge i don't master.

But since some people liked the first batch and asked for more, here
it is:

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

OP maluminas Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: simple...

I agree but only for ISOs over 800. Under 800 the D3x actually has the edge by a very small margin, DxO found the same thing also.

The 5D2 doesnt have a "one stop advantage" as some people claim...

headofdestiny Veteran Member • Posts: 9,226
Re: simple...
-- hide signature --

Also, color filter is better in 1dsiii, compared to 5dii. It's a trade off.

Taikonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,513
Re: simple...

maluminas wrote:

I agree but only for ISOs over 800. Under 800 the D3x actually has
the edge by a very small margin, DxO found the same thing also.

The 5D2 doesnt have a "one stop advantage" as some people claim...
--

Pity there is no sRAW1 samples to compare with.

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 873
Re: simple...

To my eyes actually 5DII has an edge for lower ISOs as well, look at the right edge of ISO 800 crop for example. Also when I convert D3X files using NX2 the grain pattern is coarse and intrusive, while 5DII grain pattern is very tight and it doesn't show up in prints or when you resize it.

The point here is that Nikon is charging about price(D3x)-price(D3)=~$4000 for D3X sensor only, while Canon is giving you a better sensor plus a 5DII body and goodies like full HD video for $2700, they deserve credit for this.

maluminas wrote:

I agree but only for ISOs over 800. Under 800 the D3x actually has
the edge by a very small margin, DxO found the same thing also.

The 5D2 doesnt have a "one stop advantage" as some people claim...
--

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

Taikonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,513
Re: simple...

Rcihardc wrote:

To my eyes actually 5DII has an edge for lower ISOs as well, look at
the right edge of ISO 800 crop for example. Also when I convert D3X
files using NX2 the grain pattern is coarse and intrusive, while 5DII
grain pattern is very tight and it doesn't show up in prints or when
you resize it.

The point here is that Nikon is charging about
price(D3x)-price(D3)=~$4000 for D3X sensor only, while Canon is
giving you a better sensor plus a 5DII body and goodies like full HD
video for $2700, they deserve credit for this.

Yes but dpreview still only gave a score of 9.0 for value the same as for D700.
If it was the other round I am sure they would give 9.5 for D700 and Canon 8.5.

I dont know what dpreview is playing at because their tests particularly high ISO tests they seems to avoid side by side comparison when it disadvantaged Nikon such as the 5DMk2 vs D3x or sRAW1 vs D700. Their critcism of Canon in their pros and cons even trivial matters is more eager yet similar shortcommings from Nikon barely gets a mention.

maluminas wrote:

I agree but only for ISOs over 800. Under 800 the D3x actually has
the edge by a very small margin, DxO found the same thing also.

The 5D2 doesnt have a "one stop advantage" as some people claim...
--

-- hide signature --

Richard, NC
Never comment on something you don't know about

El Diablo Regular Member • Posts: 335
Just my humble opinion
-- hide signature --

Hi,

First of all, trhanks foor all your work.
I know that this takes a lot of work.
A few years ago i have done the same thing with d2x, d2h, fuji s2, fijs3 and d50
Soe appceciated the work i did.
A lot always knew better.
You should do it that way, you should do it this way, but it was always wrong.

Don't worry about that. You did a great job

regards

alex ( from Holland)

Gear : Just two eyes ..........................
Homepage : http://www.pbase.com/alex28

sidelight Senior Member • Posts: 1,013
Re: simple...

Rcihardc wrote:

Even in your crops 5DII has the lowest noise compared to D3X, 1DSIII
and a900. at the same print size, 5DII has the lowest noise of any
DSLR available today. There has been at 10 different posts that have
confirmed this and yours is the last one. Nikon D3X is close to older
Canon 1DSIII with Sony being far behind from either one.

I posted this in an earlier thread about the D3X and the 5DII sensor. If you can accept DxO's testing, then their results show the 5DII to have similar noise performance at base ISO to the D3X but not in the deepest shadows. Their test protocols are described on their site. I think Iliah has said color temp influences noise as well and this is not varied. The data below is just one aspect of performance of course.

"I pulled this sensor data from DxOMark using the Full SNR tabs and the log plots. The table below compares the signal to noise vs very low gray levels at base ISO. Essentially it shows that the D3X has about half the noise as the 5DII and A900 at 0.1% gray. At 1% and 10% gray, the D3X and 5DII are equal, but about one stop better (3dB) than the A900. The improvement of the D3X over the similar Sony sensor at base ISO indicates significant, if small, design differences.

The second table shows the lowest gray level for each camera at a signal to noise of 5dB (Rose's criterion - defined below). The D3X is able to show recognizable detail (distinguishable from noise) at a deeper black level. Given that this performance also beats the medium format backs recently tested, I think it shows the D3X meets it's design goals of best in class low ISO performance for 35mm format. Differences are obviously getting pretty small now when looking at overall performance.

Signal to Noise (dB) vs Gray Level

0.1% 1% 10% Gray

D3X_ 14_ 26 37

5DII_ 7 25 37

A900_ 7_ 22 33

Leaf75S_ 8_ 25 37 (ISO50)

3dB = 1 stop and +6dB is equivalent to doubling the noise.

Lowest Gray Level Above Rose Criterion *

@S/N=5dB

D3X_ 0.027%

5DII_ 0.078%

A900_ 0.078%

Leaf75S_0.08% (ISO50)

The Rose criterion (named after Albert Rose) states that an SNR of at least 5 is needed to be able to distinguish image features at 100% certainty. An SNR less than 5 means less than 100% certainty in identifying image details.[2]

[2]^ Bushberg, J. T., et al., The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, (2e). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p.280"
--
David

OP maluminas Regular Member • Posts: 178
Re: Just my humble opinion

Thanks! Much appreciated

lovEU Veteran Member • Posts: 3,135
like this you're contributing to...misinformation...

maluminas wrote:

I didn't change any of the fundamental method i started with, because
it would be too much work and i will not risk screwing up again with
knowledge i don't master.

in ealier posts some photographer explained to you why your test procedure is not correct. You here admit you don't master the knowledge needed. Why not put your energy in understanding how to get it right? Instead of spreading even more misinformation. You're right it will be some work to understand but guys here are wiillnig to help you understand.

But since some people liked the first batch and asked for more, here it is:

What is your first batch worth if it is based on wrong exposure? Getting a second batch and doing it right would be helpful - sorry to say but like that you're just tricking yourself and worse, others as well. Even if your starting point was an interesting one.
--
regards, eric

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads