D200 - image size & noise?

[Andrew M Kerr]

In a recent thread on the D200, started by Matthew Lin (M-L), the inevitable noise debate flared up.

As one way of reducing noise at higher ISO, Adam Barkow suggested shooting at lower resolution (i.e. at medium image size, 2896 x 1944 px = 5.6 MP) . (This is an ideal size for press photos; I'm asked for 2048 px maximum dimension).

Do any other D200 owners have experience of whether this reduces noise at high ISO?

There was a suggestion that this might just involve a resampling of the entire 10 MP image which I guess would make little difference to noise. But if medium image size instead uses a limited number of photo sites (with therefore more space between them) I could imagine it might make a difference.

Anyone done any tests on this? I'm curious as to the results.

Have a good one.

Andrew

 

[ARClark]

I'm no technical expert, but it doesn't make sense to me on the surface to shoot at a lower quality setting to reduce noise. I would think you'd want the higher density of pixels in fine or RAW to hold information in the shadow areas.

To reduce noise at higher ISO's, the advice I've heard and employed is as follows:

1) Make sure you expose properly. Do not underexpose as adjusting exposure upwards brings out more noise.

2) Leave sharpening to the last step in post processing of images.

3) Sharpen as little possible to achieve the desired effect.

If shooting RAW, I've found the images seem to be a little better quality when opening in Capture.

Alan

 

[photoforfun]

..and I posted two threads about this subject in this forum.
The original thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18809776
And the update:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19247794&q=stany+buyle&qf=m
Hope this helps.
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[Andrew M Kerr]

Hi Alan,

This was my thinking too. But I was interested to read what the poster wrote and wondered if anyone else had experiences to share.

Alas, few reactions...

Maybe I should have used a more compelling title for the post, like "Latest shots of my cat"

A

 

[Andrew M Kerr]

Now that is really interesting. (Didn't come across your post when I searched).

And I agree with you about the trolls who criticise using a 10 MP camera at 5.6 MP. Only a few short years ago, many would have sold their souls for a 5.6 MP camera. But the clients weren't complaining when they got good (2.7 MP) D1H files.

This sounds like the solution for using the D200 for clean action shots while still having the pixel clout for the larger high quality stuff.

Thanks for the link and for doing the tests!

A
--

..and I posted two threads about this subject in this forum.
The original thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18809776
And the update:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19247794&q=stany+buyle&qf=m
Hope this helps.
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[FrankG]

..and I posted two threads about this subject in this forum.
The original thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=18809776
And the update:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19247794&q=stany+buyle&qf=m
Hope this helps.
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

Very interesting thread.

I just did some quick rough & ready tests shooting the same scene in my living room at very low light (incandescent) at ISO1600 with my D200, including some very dark furniture and several objects (including computer & keyboard) with totally black surfaces. Sorry I can't post any pics at present (I must get round to setting up a new account with a web host) but I can give a brief description of the test and the result:

Same scene all shot in jpeg "fine" mode but at Large, Medium and Small size and then loaded into Photoshop and compared directly (pictures adjusted so that viewed at same size) revealed that the Large size file was definitely the most noisy (both luma and chroma noise somewhat evident at 100%) with the Small size the least noisy (but also slightly less detailed) by a long way.

Intrigued I then decided to try creating a downsized copy (of the Large file) to exactly the same dimensions as the small file (ie 1936 pixels wide) as I expected this to significantly reduce the apparent noise. Directly comparing the result with the original Small file and - again surprise, surprise the original Small file wins!
I'm not sure what the explanation is - but it certainly works!
This may come in handy - cheers!

 

[ARClark]

Stany, that is certainly intriguing. I hadn't seen your posts. My understanding is that pixel size is a major factor in noise. All other things being equal, a larger pixel will produce less noise than a small pixel. So the D2Hx has less noise than the D50, the D50 less noise than the D200, and the D200 less than the D2x. Of course, Canon has lower noise than similarly sized Nkon sensors, but there's speculation that there is some incamera noise reduction going on, to help achieve this.

Anyway, your results indicate that in addition to pixel size, active pixel spacing may also be a factor. This would help explain why the D200 appears to be performing better at reducing noise when fewer pixels are being used. The size of the pixel is still the same, but there will be fewer pixels per unit area being utilized.

Is that how you would explain the improvement?

Alan

 

[photoforfun]

Now that is really interesting. (Didn't come across your post when I searched). And I agree with you about the trolls who criticise using a 10 MP camera at 5.6 MP. Only a few short years ago, many would have sold their souls for a 5.6 MP camera. But the clients weren't complaining when they got good (2.7 MP) D1H files. This sounds like the solution for using the D200 for clean action shots while still having the pixel clout for the larger high quality stuff.
Thanks for the link and for doing the tests! A

It was a pleasure.

Let me add that the whole D200 noise issue is blown out of proportion, the difference between a correctly exposed D200 pic & a Canon 30D/20D isn't that big. Problem is that in some cirumstances D200 seems to underexpose a little, not as bad as D100 did, but still something, and while underexposing you get extra noise.
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[photoforfun]

...switch off in-camera image optimalisation while shooting high iso, it makes your images MUCH more noisy, it affects RAW as well, and this you can't simply turn backwards while PP like WB.
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[JulesJ]

What type of cat have you got? Lol.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

 

[cocovanna]

...switch off in-camera image optimalisation while shooting high
iso

What do you mean by "in-camera image optimalisation"?

Kim

 

[RAL131504]

I missed the original posts of this comparison unfortunately. I have asked several times here for someone to try this and post the results, but finally gave up deciding that no one would dare post shots taken with D200 taken at less than full res. This is even though hardly ever does anyone post pics here at the full res, but always seem to take them at it. I have hoped this might be the result. I have recently downloaded the comparison shots from a review at IR site and tried them at various resolutions and compared them with different camera shots of the same pic. Result seems to be if you don't look at the full res and use smaller resolution, the noise results from D200 will beat most others out there. I particularry compared the D2H and D200 and from IR sample pics, the D200 beats the D2h by a wide margin as far as image noise if you compare same res. shots. I have been turned around, and will now be probably heading for a D200 which I had always said I did not want based on the complaints about noise and my bias toward not needing or wanting the huge files of 10+ mp.

 

[photoforfun]

Kim What do you mean by "in-camera image optimalisation"?

Hi Kim,

In D200 you find under "shooting menu" "optimize image". To get low noise images at iso's higher than 640 put this setting to "normal". Vivid and "more vivid" are "noise creators". Optimize your image afterwards on your PC if necessary.
Hope this helps,
Stany

D200 is a great high iso performer if you study all possibilities but it stays a very complex camera. D80 will do much better on this (more userfriendly).
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[photoforfun]

Alan wrote:

Anyway, your results indicate that in addition to pixel size, active pixel spacing may also be a factor. This would help explain why the D200 appears to be performing better at reducing noise when fewer pixels are being used. The size of the pixel is still the same, but there will be fewer pixels per unit area being utilized.

Is that how you would explain the improvement?

I don't have enough technical background for giving a decent explanation about this, I'm just somebody who tries everything and compares rationally the results. What is sure that the result is very much better if you reduce the image size in the camera as I explained than if you reduce the image size on your PC afterwards. Why? I don't know, result is the only thing that counts for me. I was happy to read in a post from Thon Hogan in this forum that he agreed with this possibility to redcue noise significant in situations where high iso shooting is the only possibility.

--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[FrankG]

I missed the original posts of this comparison unfortunately. I
have asked several times here for someone to try this and post the
results, but finally gave up deciding that no one would dare post
shots taken with D200 taken at less than full res. This is even
though hardly ever does anyone post pics here at the full res, but
always seem to take them at it. I have hoped this might be the
result. I have recently downloaded the comparison shots from a
review at IR site and tried them at various resolutions and
compared them with different camera shots of the same pic. Result
seems to be if you don't look at the full res and use smaller
resolution, the noise results from D200 will beat most others out
there. I particularry compared the D2H and D200 and from IR sample
pics, the D200 beats the D2h by a wide margin as far as image noise
if you compare same res. shots. I have been turned around, and will
now be probably heading for a D200 which I had always said I did
not want based on the complaints about noise and my bias toward not
needing or wanting the huge files of 10+ mp.

Only thing I would caution here is that although this method does seem to work to reduce noise quite significantly - beware as there is a slight catch: you only get the reduced file size images in 8 bit jpeg form not in raw. There is no doubt, especially comparing RAW with Small jpegs, that the Raw files at ISO1600 are more detailed and the colours are better (especially greens I notice). However there is nothing to stop you having the best of both worlds because you can opt to save files in both formats simultaneously (eg Raw + Jpeg Fine Small). I am now trying this (I also mainly used compressed Raw) and the extra space taken up by the Small Fine Jpegs does not make much impact on storage space.

 

[Doug Pitts]

--

Stany...are you talking about reducing the JPEG "quality" from "fine" to "normal", and "basic"?....or are you talking bout "reducing" the* file size* from "large" to "medium" and "basic"?

 

[photoforfun]

Stany...are you talking about reducing the JPEG "quality" from "fine" to "normal", and "basic"?....or are you talking bout "reducing" the* file size* from "large" to "medium" and "basic"?

Hello Doug,

I keep "fine" but I reduce the file size to medium(5.6Mp) or even small(2,5Mp). 5.6Mp gives still nice detail. To be sure I always combine this with a RAW file (RAW+ JPEG fine-M)
Kindest regards,
Stany
--
Kindest regards to everybody, whatever camera you own.
Stany Buyle
Photography is a marvellous hobby which I enjoy, not to compete...
http://www.fotografie.fr/

 

[Doug Pitts]

--
......thanks Stany! I'll try that!

 

[cocovanna]

AFAIK the RAW data (settings part excluded) is completed unaffected of the "optimize image" setting ?

Kim

 

[John Okner]

you can get a better picture with low iso and tripod