How Do I Measure Noise Using Photoshop? And What Is A Significant Change?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
57even Forum Pro • Posts: 14,134
Re: Off-topic Nerdy Dark Current Discussion
3

decaf14 wrote:

I think that dark current still varies with time but I'm getting outside my expertise here. Please correct me if my understanding is mistaken as I'd like to learn more.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dark-current-noise

"Dark current noise is the constant current that exists when no light is incident on the photodiode. This is the reason it is called dark current. As shown in Eq. (4.2.8), this dark current is the same thing as the reverse saturation current Is because the photodiode is always reversely biased. Because of the statistical nature of the carrier generation process similar to that has been discussed for the shot noise, the dark current noise can also be treated as a white noise with the power spectral density."

Dark current increases with time and temperature in exactly the same way that a normal photonic signal increases with time and illuminance. It is not noise.

Dark current noise is also similar - there is a random quantum component and a fixed pattern component caused by physical differences between pixel sensitivity.

As Bill said, dark current is an offset. If you know what it is, you can just set the black point to the dark current signal and eliminate it.

-- hide signature --

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 57even's gear list:57even's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2
MrBrightSide
OP MrBrightSide Contributing Member • Posts: 770
Re: How Do I Measure Noise Using Photoshop? And What Is A Significant Change?

I'm just sorry I wasn't born 40 or 50 years earlier so I could have been around when moviemakers used real lights.

Video-vs-photo wrote:

So randomness could cause missing signal which is not exactly noise :). But distort original image.
To be able to get enough light you need to have enough light so the sensor will be saturated to produce useful picture. And if sensor is not saturated enough you will see pattern like grain.
But then we apply amplification to get more use of small portion of the light that we captured and this produce much more signal which does not exist in the image - noise.
So no way to cheat with missing light, we just could add more light. Or we can get bigger glass to catch more light.
We could make our equipment better so at the end we will have small amount of added noise.
In this case shooting with cap on and shooting of gray uniform object will provide you of all possible information.

-- hide signature --

Sit!

Video-vs-photo New Member • Posts: 18
Re: How Do I Measure Noise Using Photoshop? And What Is A Significant Change?

Let me do it like you

FingerPainter wrote:

Video-vs-photo wrote:

So randomness could cause missing signal which is not exactly noise :). But distort original image.

No. Noise is variation in pixel values. How visible noise is depends on the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) - the higher the SNR, the less noisy an image looks.

Most of the noise in a typical digital photograph is variation in pixel values due to the variation that was present in the light itself even before the light was captured by the camera. When light is created, the timing of the release of individual photons, and the colour of each photon are both random. The camera adds additional variation. In most parts of a typical photo, the amount of noise added by the camera is small relative to the amount of noise in the captured light.

NO!
Noise are different things not just SNR of the sensor!
About shot noise:
"Originally, it was interpreted as arising from the random occurrence of photon absorption events in a photodetector, i.e. not as noise in the light field itself. Intensity noise at the shot noise level is obtained when the probability for an absorption event per unit time is constant and not correlated with former events. However, the existence of amplitude-squeezed light, which exhibits intensity noise below the shot noise level (sub-Poissonian intensity noise), proves that shot noise must be interpreted as a property of the light field itself, rather than as an issue of photodetection only – although a photodetector may be blamed for shot noise if it requires optical attenuation, which raises the shot noise level of the relative intensity (→ relative intensity noise)."
So it was but now is different and tomorrow could be different again. Usual for science.

To be able to get enough light you need to have enough light so the sensor will be saturated to produce useful picture.

No. Saturation is the maximum capacity of the sensor. If you reach saturation on all pixels you will not have a usable picture. you will have a white picture.

I am non native English speaker and English is known for many different meanings of the words. So in this example I do not talk about FULL saturation of the sensor when get just white dot. But I am talking about lowest level that could be sensed/measured from the sensor. Because you can not sense or measure infinite small portions of electrons or photons. So sorry for my bad English!

And if sensor is not saturated enough you will see pattern like grain.

All photos that have not reached saturation on all pixels will have noise because of the (variation) noise naturally occurring in light.

Yes but noise is negligible if we have enough light. All kind of noises will stay below useful information.

But then we apply amplification to get more use of small portion of the light that we captured and this produce much more signal which does not exist in the image - noise.

No. When you apply amplification (which is only one of several ways of implementing an ISO increase), you don't get more light, and you don't degrade the SNR. Either the SNR remains the same or it is increased. Which of these two occurs depends on whether the camera adds any noise after the gain stage. Most cameras add some noise after the gain stage to so on most cameras that use amplification to implement an ISO increase, increasing the ISO reduces the noisiness (increases the SNR). On many modern digital cameras, the amount of noise added after the gain stage is small, so the improvement in SNR is not readily noticeable.

Yes!
You don't get more light! This is why of you need low noise pictures you need to have enough light!!!
Fast lens also does not add more light, but capture big portion from already available light. But It add more light to the sensor though but not to the object.

NO!
When you amplify does not matter analogue or digital you amplify everything including the noise ( all kinds of it). And because you bring the minimum level of the signal UP but you could not bring the maximum level of signal level/saturation UP your SNR go down and your dynamic range go down.
Or where before you have dark tones now you have noise.

So no way to cheat with missing light, we just could add more light. Or we can get bigger glass to catch more light.

The effect of adding more light is to add both more signal and more noise. Since the noise in light is the square root of the signal, as you increase the light, the SNR goes up, and the image, despite having more noise, looks less noisy.

So above you said increase the ISO SNR goes UP now we have increase the light and SNR goes UP?!? So whatever we do SNR goes UP ..........

Actually this more noise added with more light does not play now because we have enough photons to see clear what we are shooting.

We could make our equipment better so at the end we will have small amount of added noise.

Yes. There are at least two ways to make the equipment better. On is to increase the portion of photons falling on the sensor that is actually captured (increase the quantum efficiency). The other is to reduce the amount of noise added by the camera.

YES!

In this case shooting with cap on and shooting of gray uniform object will provide you of all possible information.

No. Shooting with the cap on results in no signal and no noise in light. It will give you information about camera-added noise, which is usually a small subset of the noise in a usable image.

NO! Actually it is not small subset and it grows UP with adding more ISO. Actually it will give you better understanding of your equipment and so called native ISO.
-
So this whole scientific blah, blah need to tell you that you need to add more light if you do not like level of the noise in the end images.
You can lower the noise little bit by using bigger glass but this will change DoF and also will not fix bad colors produced from poor light.

FingerPainter Veteran Member • Posts: 8,461
Re: How Do I Measure Noise Using Photoshop? And What Is A Significant Change?

Video-vs-photo wrote:

Let me do it like you

The sincerest form of flattery?

You get style points. Not many points for relevancy.

FingerPainter wrote:

Video-vs-photo wrote:

So randomness could cause missing signal which is not exactly noise :). But distort original image.

No. Noise is variation in pixel values. How visible noise is depends on the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) - the higher the SNR, the less noisy an image looks.

Most of the noise in a typical digital photograph is variation in pixel values due to the variation that was present in the light itself even before the light was captured by the camera. When light is created, the timing of the release of individual photons, and the colour of each photon are both random. The camera adds additional variation. In most parts of a typical photo, the amount of noise added by the camera is small relative to the amount of noise in the captured light.

NO!
Noise are different things not just SNR of the sensor!

I didn't say that noise is just SNR of the sensor.

About shot noise:

I question the relevance of the context of your sources.

"Originally,

"Originally" when? Before the production of commercially available DSCs, I think. Therefore not of much relevance to our discussion

it was interpreted as arising from the random occurrence of photon absorption events in a photodetector, i.e. not as noise in the light field itself. Intensity noise at the shot noise level is obtained when the probability for an absorption event per unit time is constant and not correlated with former events. However, the existence of amplitude-squeezed light, which exhibits intensity noise below the shot noise level (sub-Poissonian intensity noise), proves that shot noise must be interpreted as a property of the light field itself, rather than as an issue of photodetection only – although a photodetector may be blamed for shot noise if it requires optical attenuation, which raises the shot noise level of the relative intensity (→ relative intensity noise)."

This just backs up what I was saying about shot noise.

So it was but now is different and tomorrow could be different again. Usual for science.

The fact that the cause of the phenomenon was misunderstood decades ago in no way invalidates anything I have said, because what I have said is based on the current understanding, not the previous incorrect one..

To be able to get enough light you need to have enough light so the sensor will be saturated to produce useful picture.

No. Saturation is the maximum capacity of the sensor. If you reach saturation on all pixels you will not have a usable picture. you will have a white picture.

I am non native English speaker and English is known for many different meanings of the words. So in this example I do not talk about FULL saturation of the sensor when get just white dot. But I am talking about lowest level that could be sensed/measured from the sensor.

That's pretty much the opposite of saturation. It is also a lower level than is useful. You need to collect enough photons that their capture is noticed above the noise floor.

Because you can not sense or measure infinite small portions of electrons or photons. So sorry for my bad English!

I wish I had as much facility as you do with a second language.

And if sensor is not saturated enough you will see pattern like grain.

All photos that have not reached saturation on all pixels will have noise because of the (variation) noise naturally occurring in light.

Yes but noise is negligible if we have enough light. All kind of noises will stay below useful information.

Hmm. Not really.

When you have a lot of captured light you have more noise than when you have little captured light. However, the SNR will be higher so the image will look less noisy. Here, your terminology problems are held in common with many English-speakers.

But then we apply amplification to get more use of small portion of the light that we captured and this produce much more signal which does not exist in the image - noise.

No. When you apply amplification (which is only one of several ways of implementing an ISO increase), you don't get more light, and you don't degrade the SNR. Either the SNR remains the same or it is increased. Which of these two occurs depends on whether the camera adds any noise after the gain stage. Most cameras add some noise after the gain stage to so on most cameras that use amplification to implement an ISO increase, increasing the ISO reduces the noisiness (increases the SNR). On many modern digital cameras, the amount of noise added after the gain stage is small, so the improvement in SNR is not readily noticeable.

Yes!
You don't get more light! This is why of you need low noise pictures you need to have enough light!!!

Oh good. We agree.

Fast lens also does not add more light, but capture big portion from already available light. But It add more light to the sensor though but not to the object.

OK

NO!
When you amplify does not matter analogue or digital you amplify everything including the noise ( all kinds of it).

Incorrect, and also a terminology problem. The term "amplification" carries with it the implication of an analog process, not a numeric one. The incorrect part is the claim that analog amplification amplifies everything. In fact, any noise added by the system after the gain stage is not amplified, and that is why increasing the ISO for a given exposure will usually increase SNR.

And because you bring the minimum level of the signal UP but you could not bring the maximum level of signal level/saturation UP

I don't know what you mean by the bolded bit.

your SNR go down

How does that follow? If the signal is constrained, so must be the noise.

and your dynamic range go down.

If you clip, but amplification doesn't guarantee clipping.

Or where before you have dark tones now you have noise.

It must be a large number of stops of amplification to get dark tones to clip. Now you have just run into the same problem as with exposing to saturation.

So no way to cheat with missing light, we just could add more light. Or we can get bigger glass to catch more light.

The effect of adding more light is to add both more signal and more noise. Since the noise in light is the square root of the signal, as you increase the light, the SNR goes up, and the image, despite having more noise, looks less noisy.

So above you said increase the ISO SNR goes UP

Yes, for a given exposure.

now we have increase the light and SNR goes UP?!?

Yes, and usually by a lot more then from a corresponding increase in amplification

So whatever we do SNR goes UP ..........

No, if we decrease exposure, SNR goes down. And if we decrease ISO setting for a given exposure, SNR goes down.

If, at the same time we raise ISO setting N stops and lower exposure by the same number of stops, SNR goes down because the increase to SNR from amplification is much less than the decrease from lower exposure.

Actually this more noise added with more light does not play now because we have enough photons to see clear what we are shooting.

When is "now"?

Amplification hasn't given us any more photons. If you mean after increasing exposure (by using a wider aperture, slower shutter or adding more light to the scene), then we have more noise but its effect is less visible because the SNR is higher. The shot noise only increased by the square root of the signal.

We could make our equipment better so at the end we will have small amount of added noise.

Yes. There are at least two ways to make the equipment better. On is to increase the portion of photons falling on the sensor that is actually captured (increase the quantum efficiency). The other is to reduce the amount of noise added by the camera.

YES!

Always nice to find points of agreement.

In this case shooting with cap on and shooting of gray uniform object will provide you of all possible information.

No. Shooting with the cap on results in no signal and no noise in light. It will give you information about camera-added noise, which is usually a small subset of the noise in a usable image.

NO! Actually it is not small subset

Really? OK what do you think typical levels of camera added noise and shot noise are for a mid-tone area of a well-exposed image. Express your answer as a ratio of camera-added noise to shot noise.

and it grows UP with adding more ISO.

No, the ratio of camera-added noise to shot noise decreases as amplification is increased because the portion of camera-added noise added after th fgains stage is not increased, but all the shot noise in increased.

Actually it will give you better understanding of your equipment and so called native ISO.

?

So this whole scientific blah, blah need to tell you that you need to add more light if you do not like level of the noise in the end images.

The improvement in SNR you get by adding a stop of light is larger than the improvement you get by adding a stop of gain. But only if there is no post-gain added noise will there be no improvement in SNR from adding gain.

You can lower the noise little bit by using bigger glass

or by slowing the shutter, or by bouncing more light off the subject

but this will change DoF

yes

and also will not fix bad colors produced from poor light.

?

it will improve colour depth

MrBrightSide
OP MrBrightSide Contributing Member • Posts: 770
Re: Science To The Rescue Again

That’s deep. Are you saying that trying to measure noise is futile?

J A C S wrote:

bclaff wrote:

My suggestion is that if you shoot raw or raw+jpeg then examining the raw files (with something like RawDigger) is the real "scientific" approach, otherwise the tone curve hopelessly muddles the results.

The problem here is that there is no clear notion what noise is, what we want to measure about it, not to mention how to measure it.

-- hide signature --

Sit!

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 45,013
Re: How Do I Measure Noise Using Photoshop? And What Is A Significant Change?

You don't understand the difference between science and its application relative to technology. All this is technology, measuring and interpretation. It in no way changes the basic science behind what is happening.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 15,664
Re: Science To The Rescue Again

MrBrightSide wrote:

That’s deep. Are you saying that trying to measure noise is futile?

You can certainly try to measure something you do not know what it is.

J A C S wrote:

bclaff wrote:

My suggestion is that if you shoot raw or raw+jpeg then examining the raw files (with something like RawDigger) is the real "scientific" approach, otherwise the tone curve hopelessly muddles the results.

The problem here is that there is no clear notion what noise is, what we want to measure about it, not to mention how to measure it.

Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 14,497
Measurement is futile

MrBrightSide wrote:

That’s deep. Are you saying that trying to measure noise is futile?

What is futile is trying to measure noise in a JPEG or TIFF, where at a minimum, the noise characteristics would change with color, camera profile, white balance, etc. It would be difficult to get good results unless you are quite systematic: also, the results may be misleading.

Shooting a ColorChecker target under varying but consistent conditions could be useful, but only as long as you are systematic.

A synthetic approach, where you start with basic raw noise measurements and then estimate the final image noise characteristics—after raw conversion—can be quite informative. The measurement phase is rather easier, as you only measure grayscale values, but you need to figure out what calculations are needed to get a full color image (there is some published data): and from this, it’s fairly easy to get color noise estimates, which can be compared against actual images. Any great discrepancies can then be analyzed.

Published noise figures for sensors typically only consider these raw measurements, and then only for the green channel. Discussions about noise with colors is usually highly anecdotal and surprisingly little hard data is commonly available; unfortunately it varies with processing and shooting conditions, ensuring unresolved arguments for years to come.

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +2 more
bclaff Veteran Member • Posts: 9,193
Re: Measurement is futile

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

MrBrightSide wrote:

That’s deep. Are you saying that trying to measure noise is futile?

...

A synthetic approach, where you start with basic raw noise measurements and then estimate the final image noise characteristics—after raw conversion—can be quite informative. The measurement phase is rather easier, as you only measure grayscale values, but you need to figure out what calculations are needed to get a full color image (there is some published data): and from this, it’s fairly easy to get color noise estimates, which can be compared against actual images. Any great discrepancies can then be analyzed.

Published noise figures for sensors typically only consider these raw measurements, and then only for the green channel. ...

At PhotonsToPhotos I use all channels for analysis and except for occasional "white balance preconditioning" (pre-scaling of red/blue in the raw data) noise measurements don't vary across the Color Filter Array (CFA).

Regards

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 14,497
Re: Measurement is futile

bclaff wrote:

At PhotonsToPhotos I use all channels for analysis and except for occasional "white balance preconditioning" (pre-scaling of red/blue in the raw data) noise measurements don't vary across the Color Filter Array (CFA).

My apologies! I stand corrected!

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +2 more
MrBrightSide
OP MrBrightSide Contributing Member • Posts: 770
Re: Measurement is futile

"discussions about noise with colors is usually highly anecdotal and surprisingly little hard data is commonly available"

And yet, the hard data is out there being generated by scores of dedicated and talented people around the globe, so I have to ask why serious academic or professional findings are so rarely reported or discussed at the most important website in the photography world?

With so many distinguished members of the Science forum, we should be awash in significant findings from real scientists, yet as you point out, we're not. Is the problem that no one can afford the extortionate prices charged by the greedy academic publishers?

In the interim, I have chosen to hack my own path through the tangle of Wikipedia "facts" and self-recursive theories that seem to be society's preferred alternative to actual thinking.

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

MrBrightSide wrote:

That’s deep. Are you saying that trying to measure noise is futile?

What is futile is trying to measure noise in a JPEG or TIFF, where at a minimum, the noise characteristics would change with color, camera profile, white balance, etc. It would be difficult to get good results unless you are quite systematic: also, the results may be misleading.

Shooting a ColorChecker target under varying but consistent conditions could be useful, but only as long as you are systematic.

A synthetic approach, where you start with basic raw noise measurements and then estimate the final image noise characteristics—after raw conversion—can be quite informative. The measurement phase is rather easier, as you only measure grayscale values, but you need to figure out what calculations are needed to get a full color image (there is some published data): and from this, it’s fairly easy to get color noise estimates, which can be compared against actual images. Any great discrepancies can then be analyzed.

Published noise figures for sensors typically only consider these raw measurements, and then only for the green channel. Discussions about noise with colors is usually highly anecdotal and surprisingly little hard data is commonly available; unfortunately it varies with processing and shooting conditions, ensuring unresolved arguments for years to come.

-- hide signature --

Sit!

J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 15,664
Re: Measurement is futile
1

MrBrightSide wrote:

With so many distinguished members of the Science forum, we should be awash in significant findings from real scientists, yet as you point out, we're not. Is the problem that no one can afford the extortionate prices charged by the greedy academic publishers?

real scientists ≠ academic publishers

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 45,013
Re: Measurement is futile
1

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Published noise figures for sensors typically only consider these raw measurements, and then only for the green channel.

Do you have proof to back up that claim.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
Video-vs-photo New Member • Posts: 18
Re: How Do I Measure Noise Using Photoshop? And What Is A Significant Change?

FingerPainter wrote:

it will improve colour depth

My friend in almost any photo editor we have saturation slider which is not just 0 and 100%. So you could have low middle and high saturation or anything in between.
Also you could have not enough or too much.
In addition in basic electronics we have saturation currents and so on. Whatever.

About shooting with cap on - I can clearly see noise when my cap is on! This means this is not shot noise, because there is no light entering. So you can just shoot at different ISO levels and see if this is good for you because it will be added to the image with or without shot noise. So this images in addition to shooting solid gray will give you enough idea what is noise and how much it is.
On topics about analogue and digital amplification, types of noise, measuring, science and so on I just do not have time and willingness to continue this pointless debate. Result from this is zero just from the start.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads