Base ISO noise with G80

[Dmderb]

I was recently shooting my new G80 in glaring midday sun conditions (shooting an event, couldn't choose the time of day) and was surprised to see what seemed like a bit too much noise at the base ISO, with so much available light. It was easily noticeable on people's faces, but only at 100% magnification, nothing really terrible. To calibrate "a bit too much" - this is in comparison to shots under more normal/diffused lighting (including shots from my em10ii). I suspect it had to do with some relative underexposure as the camera might have been fooled by the overall light available, and yet the faces were partially in the shade. But there was also quite a bit of noise in the blue sky. I see in LR that there was easily at least a stop of headroom available without blowing any highlights (in fact the whole scene as sun drenched). I was shooting in shutter priority and the camera chose the f-stop and therefore exposure, no exposure compensation dialled by me. Unfortunately I can't share the pictures, sorry. Anybody has similar experiences and thoughts on what could be causing this unintuitive outcome? Shall I always try to expose to the right? What is the best way to consistently achieve it without blowing the highlights? Anything else that I may be missing? Thank you.

 

[meijs]

I have the same experience.

Just don't underexpose, when exposure is right there is no noise.

The G80 is very noise-vurnerable to underexposure !!

 

[bradevans]

JPG or raw? I;m guessing raw but if not many panasonic shooter JPG shooters put the NR at -4 or -5 (ie very low compared to default)

 

[Dmderb]

JPG or raw? I;m guessing raw but if not many panasonic shooter JPG shooters put the NR at -4 or -5 (ie very low compared to default)

raw

 

[spike29]

I have the same experience.

Just don't underexpose, when exposure is right there is no noise.

Do you mean EV correction underexpose? or adjust according to histogram ETTR?

So go to EV correction plus side? if possible?

interesting, base is 200 iso i assume, Does idynamic does anything bad or good in this case? (this seems to raise shadow without causing noise in the shadow parts.)

The G80 is very noise-vurnerable to underexposure !!

could this behaviour be fuelled by the lak of a AA filter?

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

I struggle to identify any issues with my g80 but blue sky noise is a definite. Fortunately it cleans up very easily and with great success.

 

[spike29]

.... Unfortunately I can't share the pictures, sorry. ..

would it be possible to repeat this behaviour? In a setup which you can show/post?

i had a similar thing capturing a group of kids in the shadow. (don't place this either ) wile there was a bright sun around. F8 200iso 1/200 in raw. had to raise EV +1 and 100% dodge and colorburn to get the right exposure in high and low.

But i thought i did something wrong or this was the border of the capability's.

 

[Dmderb]

I just looked at DxO and was a bit surprised, as the G80 is a more recent and expensive camera. The low-light ISO of the em10ii is 842, the G80's is 656. I assume this noise characteristic of the G80 sensor might be reflected in the base ISO noise levels as well? So possibly another factor?

 

[Astrotripper]

In general, you have to be careful when applying sharpening. This usually does noticeably increase the noise, even at base ISO. If you need to raise exposure or bring up shadows in post it will be even worse.

I tend to either not use sharpening at all or applying it in small amounts and choosing parameters that do not impact the noise.

When converting raw files from my GM5, I also apply some noise reduction more often than I do for images from my Olys. I would guess G80 might be similar. If so, it's another reason to be very careful in regards to sharpening, micro contrast boosting, clarity adjustments and similar operations.

BTW, I found that artificial lighting that emits a narrow wavelengths of light causes massive increase in noise. But from what you wrote, this cannot be the case here, since it was natural light.

 

[meijs]

In general, you have to be careful when applying sharpening. This usually does noticeably increase the noise, even at base ISO. If you need to raise exposure or bring up shadows in post it will be even worse.

I tend to either not use sharpening at all or applying it in small amounts and choosing parameters that do not impact the noise.

When converting raw files from my GM5, I also apply some noise reduction more often than I do for images from my Olys. I would guess G80 might be similar. If so, it's another reason to be very careful in regards to sharpening, micro contrast boosting, clarity adjustments and similar operations.

BTW, I found that artificial lighting that emits a narrow wavelengths of light causes massive increase in noise. But from what you wrote, this cannot be the case here, since it was natural light.

The finding about artificial lightning enhancing noise exactly reflects mine experience.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

In the early days of digital the choice seems to have been sharp detail and some "noise" or mush and no noise. The choice often was "mush" or "noise" and they both looked horrible to different sets of eyes - personally I chose noise to mush.

Sensor technology has improved so that the AA filter has been removed to get better detail but you can still get rid of noise by mushing things up a bit in post

Once upon a time film was graded by speed and ISO rating. Fast film was always "grainy".

In early digital used to switch to B&W capture when I was forced to use high ISO captures as the "noise" of colour images was replaced by more arty "grain".

These days noise hardly bothers me.

I have a GX85 on order - looking forward to all the noise

 

[Dmderb]

In the early days of digital the choice seems to have been sharp detail and some "noise" or mush and no noise. The choice often was "mush" or "noise" and they both looked horrible to different sets of eyes - personally I chose noise to mush.

Sensor technology has improved so that the AA filter has been removed to get better detail but you can still get rid of noise by mushing things up a bit in post

Once upon a time film was graded by speed and ISO rating. Fast film was always "grainy".

In early digital used to switch to B&W capture when I was forced to use high ISO captures as the "noise" of colour images was replaced by more arty "grain".

These days noise hardly bothers me.

I have a GX85 on order - looking forward to all the noise

 

[Loga]

I have a bit 'unorthodox' opinion here. I am using early m4/3 cameras, and this is not an accident. My (not scientific, but relatively long-term) experience is that old cameras like GF1 or GF2 were better at base ISO noise than new ones. I used to have OM-D E-M5 for 1,5 years, and a Panasonic G5 for almost a year, but I suffered from the same phenomenon you described. My GF2 and GF1 never produce noisy sky, never ever. Not to mention that I prefer their rendering to the 16mp era quite a lot. To me, 16mp era seems flat and noisy. But you can take photos above ISO 1600 with less noise, and sometimes the colours (white balance) is also better on newer cams.

I was recently shooting my new G80 in glaring midday sun conditions (shooting an event, couldn't choose the time of day) and was surprised to see what seemed like a bit too much noise at the base ISO, with so much available light. It was easily noticeable on people's faces, but only at 100% magnification, nothing really terrible. To calibrate "a bit too much" - this is in comparison to shots under more normal/diffused lighting (including shots from my em10ii). I suspect it had to do with some relative underexposure as the camera might have been fooled by the overall light available, and yet the faces were partially in the shade. But there was also quite a bit of noise in the blue sky. I see in LR that there was easily at least a stop of headroom available without blowing any highlights (in fact the whole scene as sun drenched). I was shooting in shutter priority and the camera chose the f-stop and therefore exposure, no exposure compensation dialled by me. Unfortunately I can't share the pictures, sorry. Anybody has similar experiences and thoughts on what could be causing this unintuitive outcome? Shall I always try to expose to the right? What is the best way to consistently achieve it without blowing the highlights? Anything else that I may be missing? Thank you.

 

[alcelc]

Not owned G85/80.

According to my experience on GX85, when Zebra pattern be set at 105%, I always find there should be +2/3ev headroom before actual highlight overblown. i.e., if make the setting to the margin of no zebra alert on screen, usually -2/3ev be expected.

I suppose Panny trends to have a priority on highlight preservation.

Might try to test the Zebra on G85 to see how it behaves.

 

[secretworld]

The m4/3 sensor size is a little on the edge, pixel size/noise.

I do the following:

Expose to the right (ETTR), if you do this good, exposure can vary dramaticly from -3 (to preserve highlights) to +3EV compensation (to prevent noise in low contrast situations) depending on the scene. For fun you can shoot with exposure bracketing in 1ev steps from -3 to +3ev to see how it affects the shots.

Keep a check on sharpening, no sharpening usually means no noise too!

Use selective sharpening

Or use selective noise reduction (or both).

Out of focus and uniform areas can look very noisy after sharpening (hence the blue sky noise), but the don't need any sharpening.

Thing is, I really like to PP and I still get better (and faster) at it after many years. Oh I use lightroom.

--
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6757037874/albums/desktop

 

[_vlad]

The m4/3 sensor size is a little on the edge, pixel size/noise.

I do the following:

Expose to the right (ETTR), if you do this good, exposure can vary dramaticly from -3 (to preserve highlights) to +3EV compensation (to prevent noise in low contrast situations) depending on the scene. For fun you can shoot with exposure bracketing in 1ev steps from -3 to +3ev to see how it affects the shots.

Keep a check on sharpening, no sharpening usually means no noise too!

Use selective sharpening

Or use selective noise reduction (or both).

Out of focus and uniform areas can look very noisy after sharpening (hence the blue sky noise), but the don't need any sharpening.

Thing is, I really like to PP and I still get better (and faster) at it after many years. Oh I use lightroom.

 

[spike29]

After Vlad's his comment i looked at the SP sharpening tools and i think the treshold in there is "bokeh preservation"




one of the four tabs for sharpening



Because the only threshold there is in "unsharp mask" tab.

(witch can be used for clearing haze, same as the blacklevel tool.)

on other place sharpening is applied is in the developers settings:






they placed it on threshold 1

This is after the normal applied "natural sharp" preset based on exif data of the rawfile.

(this is a setting witch only applies sharpening on things that needs sharpening and avoid sharpening noise or large pieces of one color.)

I am not sure if this kind of "double" sharpening also is effecting the image badly.

(i am tend to leave this kind of things on there default if i can't see or know the consequences.)







--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge is adictive, every time i get some i want more.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[_vlad]

After Vlad's his comment i looked at the SP sharpening tools and i think the treshold in there is "bokeh preservation"


one of the four tabs for sharpening

This is Natural sharpening method - and yes Bokeh preservation seems to do what we are talking about. When you change the sharpen method to "unsharp mask" - you will find treshold there.

Because the only threshold there is in "unsharp mask" tab.

(witch can be used for clearing haze, same as the blacklevel tool.)

on other place sharpening is applied is in the developers settings:


they placed it on threshold 1

This is after the normal applied "natural sharp" preset based on exif data of the rawfile.

(this is a setting witch only applies sharpening on things that needs sharpening and avoid sharpening noise or large pieces of one color.)

I am not sure if this kind of "double" sharpening also is effecting the image badly.

(i am tend to leave this kind of things on there default if i can't see or know the consequences.)

And this is export sharpening - classical "unsharp mask" where you can set treshold directly. This one is used when you prepare the image for final application (printing, web or so). Unlike editing sharpening (aka Natural discussed before) which are nondestructive, output sharpening (export) is destructive and cannot be reverted. Me personally either leave it as it is or turn it compeletely off - especially when I achieved desires sharpness in non destructive editing. The choice is up to you.



--
Vlad

 

[spike29]

....

This is Natural sharpening method - and yes Bokeh preservation seems to do what we are talking about. When you change the sharpen method to "unsharp mask" - you will find treshold there.

Thanks for this clarification.

.....

And this is export sharpening - classical "unsharp mask" where you can set treshold directly. This one is used when you prepare the image for final application (printing, web or so). Unlike editing sharpening (aka Natural discussed before) which are nondestructive, output sharpening (export) is destructive and cannot be reverted.

eh when i export after development to Jpeg it is always destructive or not? Or do you mean when exporting a 16bit Tiff?

Me personally either leave it as it is or turn it compeletely off - especially when I achieved desires sharpness in non destructive editing. The choice is up to you.

--
Vlad

i did three developement on a "troubled" image , default unsharpmask, non sharpning, and special for large printing setting. Just to see if it is effective.

And viewed in faststone next to each other the large sized printing setting is accentuating the spots. and off and default are more ore less the same. it sharpening the outlines of the details and nearly doesn't effecting the larger area's.




default...............................sharpening non.........................................for large sized printing

i think i leave it on default, 70%, 0.6 radius threshold 1 for now.

Thanks.



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge is adictive, every time i get some i want more.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[_vlad]

.....

And this is export sharpening - classical "unsharp mask" where you can set treshold directly. This one is used when you prepare the image for final application (printing, web or so). Unlike editing sharpening (aka Natural discussed before) which are nondestructive, output sharpening (export) is destructive and cannot be reverted.

eh when i export after development to Jpeg it is always destructive or not? Or do you mean when exporting a 16bit Tiff?

Ttweaking in SP(sliders) is always nondestructive - however you cannot see the result in any other app but SilkyPix. And exporting it to standard JPG creates final image with all changes applied - thus these export are destructive - nonreversable. Obviously you can tweak in SP furthemore working with original, but after that you have to export again to different copy. It does not matter whether you export to TIFF or JPG - both are final and "destructed" if you understand me.

Me personally either leave it as it is or turn it compeletely off - especially when I achieved desires sharpness in non destructive editing. The choice is up to you.

--
Vlad

i did three developement on a "troubled" image , default unsharpmask, non sharpning, and special for large printing setting. Just to see if it is effective.

And viewed in faststone next to each other the large sized printing setting is accentuating the spots. and off and default are more ore less the same. it sharpening the outlines of the details and nearly doesn't effecting the larger area's.


default...............................sharpening non.........................................for large sized printing

i think i leave it on default, 70%, 0.6 radius threshold 1 for now.

I think It is reasonable

Cheers

--
Vlad