Are bigger pixels less noisy?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,024
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
4

Nick Zochios wrote:

What i posted is an iso 8000, without any editing, from an old technology camera which is has a usable limit of around 3200-4000 (the most)
Now at iso 8000, It has very little noise due to great software.
That's the fact. Either like it or not! (tbh i don't care

12800 and 25600 test shots from this "obsolete" camera are on their way..and i will keep you informed in order to make your new experienced comment.

Btw..do you have any comments on this shot? It comes from a low-light beast camera.
https://flic.kr/p/2k9ePjs

???

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)

spider-mario
spider-mario Contributing Member • Posts: 923
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
5

Especially the background now looks more like a painting than a photo. Maybe it would be interesting to compare to a tripod shot of the same scene to get an idea of what the latter is supposed to look like and what detail is or is not missing?

 spider-mario's gear list:spider-mario's gear list
Canon G1 X III Olympus TG-6 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R6 +15 more
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,024
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
3

Nick Zochios wrote:

you shared that one before I think. Does not answer my question above: you say unedited but then say 'because of great software.

the second question would be: shouldn't you be using same software on a similar image from a current camera at something like ISO102400?

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
1

Raw to jpeg through Lr (no editing at all) and then auto levels on DeNoise AI is what you are seeing here.
My point here is that the noise reduction software managed to give me an almost free-of-noise shot at iso 8000 from a camera that i bought for 300 bucks and i am very happy with it.
I usually get acceptable to my eyes results till iso 3200-4000. Now i can push the iso at least to 8000 and still get acceptable results ( i smell even higher but i will do another test for that)
I am not interested in shooting at 102400 iso as well in testing any modern camera.(i have got rid of my D750 because I was not happy with its reliability and colors)
I hope i have got you covered now I can't be more clear than this..

I get the quality i want from my D700s and i don't any other modern camera.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/191035018@N07/

(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)

The shot is really very close to the actual scene and i don't feel that i have lost any detail.
Thanks for the advice anyway!
I will try with a tripod at an even higher iso and i will be back here for the results.

J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,321
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
1

Nick Zochios wrote:

The shot is really very close to the actual scene and i don't feel that i have lost any detail.

Why don't you make the RAW available?

robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,024
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
3

Nick Zochios wrote:

Raw to jpeg through Lr (no editing at all) and then auto levels on DeNoise AI is what you are seeing here.

Which is edited both in Lr and in DeNois

My point here is that the noise reduction software managed to give me an almost free-of-noise shot at iso 8000 from a camera that i bought for 300 bucks and i am very happy with it.
I usually get acceptable to my eyes results till iso 3200-4000. Now i can push the iso at least to 8000 and still get acceptable results ( i smell even higher but i will do another test for that)
I am not interested in shooting at 102400 iso as well in testing any modern camera.(i have got rid of my D750 because I was not happy with its reliability and colors)
I hope i have got you covered now I can't be more clear than this..

I get the quality i want from my D700s and i don't any other modern camera.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/191035018@N07/

If you're satisfied, you're satisfied. However, for a discussion hereto be useful more is needed: a comparison to a modern camera and also the underlying raw

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)

I really don't know who to write to in order for you to understand it.
Let me try with capitals.;-)
1/ I DIDN'T TOUCH ANY SLIDER ON LR. I JUST USED IT TO TURN THE RAW TO JPEG.
THEN I USE THE AUTO LEVELS OF DeNoise AI TO REDUCE THE NOISE AND INCREASE THE SHARPNESS ON THE JPEG
2/ I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANY MODERN CAMERA AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR HIGH ISO.
*Please don't ask the same things again.I think i was really clear

(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)

How to do that?

robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,024
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
2

Nick Zochios wrote:

I really don't know who to write to in order for you to understand it.
Let me try with capitals.;-)
1/ I DIDN'T TOUCH ANY SLIDER ON LR. I JUST USED IT TO TURN THE RAW TO JPEG.
THEN I USE THE AUTO LEVELS OF DeNoise AI TO REDUCE THE NOISE AND INCREASE THE SHARPNESS ON THE JPEG
2/ I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANY MODERN CAMERA AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR HIGH ISO.
*Please don't ask the same things again.I think i was really clear

bye

 robert1955's gear list:robert1955's gear list
Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR
(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)

Greetings to your family!

alanr0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
What is Good Enough?
4

Nick Zochios wrote:

What i posted is an iso 8000, without any editing, from an old technology camera which is has a usable limit of around 3200-4000 (the most)

How do you define "usable limit" in this context?

Now at iso 8000, It has very little noise due to great software.
That's the fact. Either like it or not! (tbh i don't care

As far as I can tell, nobody is denying that noise can be reduced in software. There are questions as to how well it can be done without destroying texture and image detail, but we don't have anything to compare against at this stage.

If you have found a combination of equipment and workflow which suits your needs, then we are very pleased to hear it.  Some here had difficulty relating your initial post to the question posed at the start of this thread, but we now know where you are coming from.

In case you haven't noticed, this is the DPR's nerd corner, where folk are given to exchanging views based on quantitative analysis and on the science and engineering behind photography.

Regarding ISO 8000 from Nikon D700

For what its worth, Bill Claff's PhotonsToPhotos reports that your D700 has lower noise than the Sony 7RSiii between ISO 800 and ISO 1250, and is almost identical to the Nikon D3 of similar vintage I mentioned above.  A perfectly respectable performance.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Nikon%20D700_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4_14,Sony%20ILCE-7SM3_14

I don't know what tone curves are applied in your workflow. Saturation signal for D700 at ISO 8000 corresponds to 1359 electrons. If we allow half a stop headroom we have 1000e- full white in JPEG. Pixel values in the fabric bag behind your bottle are around 20%, corresponding to a mean sensor signal of roughly 40 electrons (assuming a simple gamma 0.5 tone curve).

This is in the transition region between Poisson distributed photon/shot noise (6.3 e-) and sensor read noise (5.7 e- for D700) becoming dominant.

I would expect the Sony 7Siii to deliver noticeably better performance here, but not by a huge margin. Its read noise is much less, but the photon noise is only slightly lower due to its higher quantum efficiency (51% c.f. 39%).

Both should respond well to competant noise reduction.

-- hide signature --

Alan Robinson

alanr0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
Re: Quantum efficiency, 93° ;)
7

Nick Zochios wrote:

I really don't know who to write to in order for you to understand it.
Let me try with capitals.;-)
1/ I DIDN'T TOUCH ANY SLIDER ON LR. I JUST USED IT TO TURN THE RAW TO JPEG.
THEN I USE THE AUTO LEVELS OF DeNoise AI TO REDUCE THE NOISE AND INCREASE THE SHARPNESS ON THE JPEG
2/ I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANY MODERN CAMERA AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR HIGH ISO.
*Please don't ask the same things again.I think i was really clear

And how does this shouty outburst help those of us who use neither Lighroom nor DeNoise AI?

I still use a 9 year old camera, but I am interested in what other hardware can deliver, and in the how and why.  It is part of what the Photographic Science and Technology forum is about.

-- hide signature --

Alan Robinson

(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: What is Good Enough?

Thanks for your response.
i didn't mean to bother the thread with something that is not related to it.
It was just a post to you in order for me to actually have your opinion over the way that a modern noise reduction software can handle the noise at high iso.
I shouldn't have responded to the questions but anyway...

Thanks again for the detailed info.

alanr0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
On or Off-topic?
2

Nick Zochios wrote:

Thanks for your response.
i didn't mean to bother the thread with something that is not related to it.
It was just a post to you in order for me to actually have your opinion over the way that a modern noise reduction software can handle the noise at high iso.
I shouldn't have responded to the questions but anyway...

Thanks again for the detailed info.

Mildly off-topic replies are not a problem here. They quite often lead to interesting discussions.

You say you asked for an opinion. As far as I can tell, you simply posted an image, and said (more or less) "this is what I did, and I like the results".

You did not ask a specific question. You did not ask how it compared with the output of more recent cameras. What kind of feedback were you expecting?

Regarding the noise reduction, you gave no basis for comparison. How does it compare with the un-processed result? How does it compare with the noise reduction provided by the likes of Lightroom, Neat Image or RawTherapee?

Do you know what your noise reduction workflow does? How does it differ from traditional low pass filtering algorithms?  Does it involve non-linear truncation of outliers (as in median filtering).  Is there some more sophisticated/opaque machine learning derived process involved?

FWIW, If you add the D750 to Bill's input-referred read noise plots, it slots neatly between the older D700/D3 sensor, and the more recent Sony sensors, which you claim to have no interest in.

PS.  I may not have been paying attention, but I do not recall the last time anyone on this forum described a camera as a "Low light beast".

-- hide signature --

Alan Robinson

(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: On or Off-topic?
1

I don't have even a 10% of your technical knowledge so i am not able to comment on your technical details.
I have the raw of the jpeg i posted but i tried to upload it here and it is not possible as it is a NEF file.
My own conclusion has to do with two things.

a/ The amount of noise the software managed to erase? (i don't know if that is the proper word)

b/The amount of the details that i see on the final image. This is actually a very surprising thing for me.

As a photographer, most of the time I go with whatever is more pleasing to my eyes, and to my understanding, the specific software managed to turn an 8000 iso shot into an iso 800 shot (or less).

I mentioned the term "Low light beast" because it has been used countless times on the photography forums to describe the high iso abilities of specific cameras.
One of them is the D750. I had this camera and i never been impressed with high iso capabilities or any other of its optical qualities.

To be precise.It has never managed to give me some good reasons not to get rid of it.
Exactly the opposite to my D700.
But...i suppose all has nothing to do with this post.

Anyway.I am very please with the results I get from my trusty D700. Now that the modern software manages to give pleasant results at even really high iso I really can't see any reason for me to deal with any other modern camera.

I know that it is a shock for anyone here who spends thousands of buck every now and then to buy the "newer" but that's me

This is my Flickr account.I am very happy with the quality so i don't see the reason to change my camera anytime soon.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/191035018@N07/

Thanks again for your help

JahnG
OP JahnG Veteran Member • Posts: 3,341
Topic changed to noise reduction

alanr0 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

Thanks for your response.
i didn't mean to bother the thread with something that is not related to it.
It was just a post to you in order for me to actually have your opinion over the way that a modern noise reduction software can handle the noise at high iso.
I shouldn't have responded to the questions but anyway...

Thanks again for the detailed info.

Mildly off-topic replies are not a problem here. They quite often lead to interesting discussions.

You say you asked for an opinion. As far as I can tell, you simply posted an image, and said (more or less) "this is what I did, and I like the results".

You did not ask a specific question. You did not ask how it compared with the output of more recent cameras. What kind of feedback were you expecting?

Regarding the noise reduction, you gave no basis for comparison. How does it compare with the un-processed result? How does it compare with the noise reduction provided by the likes of Lightroom, Neat Image or RawTherapee?

Do you know what your noise reduction workflow does? How does it differ from traditional low pass filtering algorithms? Does it involve non-linear truncation of outliers (as in median filtering). Is there some more sophisticated/opaque machine learning derived process involved?

FWIW, If you add the D750 to Bill's input-referred read noise plots, it slots neatly between the older D700/D3 sensor, and the more recent Sony sensors, which you claim to have no interest in.

PS. I may not have been paying attention, but I do not recall the last time anyone on this forum described a camera as a "Low light beast".

Alan, interesting issues concerning noise reduction.

My original pixel-size and noise questions have been thoroughly and very well answered, so yes, why not slightly look at noise reduction, which probably is quite interesting for many.

I shoot jpg and very seldom use NR in my old PaintShop Pro 9 program, which mainly seems to just blur the picture when using NR. Only when there has been some easily defined ("lassoed") noisy area on a picture I have "blurred" that area. I do own a "newer" PaintShop Pro program, the X5 version, which I have seldom used as the old version "9" works perfectly well in Win10 pro and is slightly simpler and faster to use. Both programs basically seems to do the same thing.

I just checked (in the net) that my newer X5 version has an additional NR setting, "digital noise" where different colored areas might be "noise reduced". Must look at it, but I doubt it is very advanced?

However, it seems that some more advanced noise reduction plugins would be possible to utilize not only in Photoshop but also in PaintShop Pro X5. (I'm Shooting jpg)

I found a program in Amazon.de (which I use, being in EU) named AKVIS Noise Buster, but it is probably not anything advanced at all? Any other suggestions?

What are BTW "non linear" noise reduction systems, some plugins?

Jahn

PS Nick, what was the NR program you use, and is it a plugin, usable in Photoshop (and possibly in PSP X5) shooting jpeg?

 JahnG's gear list:JahnG's gear list
Canon PowerShot A650 IS Panasonic ZS100 Pentax K100D Super Pentax K-r Pentax K-S1
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,321
Re: Topic changed to noise reduction

Since you shoot JPEG, I think Topaz would be your best choice. I personally did not like it much but that was "a version ago", I have not tried the most recent one. It could not remove some hot pixels, for example.

If you shoot RAW, IMO the best choice is DXO. The downside is that it does not have the colors and the overall behavior of LR/ACR. It is possible to force it to work with a custom color profile but the shadow lifting and the highlight compression algorithms are not as good (IMO) as those of LR.

Eric Fossum
Eric Fossum Senior Member • Posts: 1,517
Re: Topic changed to noise reduction
2

J A C S wrote:

Since you shoot JPEG, I think Topaz would be your best choice. I personally did not like it much but that was "a version ago", I have not tried the most recent one. It could not remove some hot pixels, for example.

You know, those hot pixels, assuming there are only a handful, are like a watermark or signature that uniquely matches your photo to you, forever, in a photo-forensic sort of way  That could be useful and so you might not want to suppress them!

 Eric Fossum's gear list:Eric Fossum's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon Coolpix P1000 +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads