I'm wrong? How to reduce RX10m4 noise (examples)

[titasas]

Hello,

I'm new here and new with Sony RX10m4 Cyber-Shot camera.

I love sports and do some job with that. Some times I take ice hockey game picture. I know, that this game need not less 1/800 sec., but I can't use that, because even with ISO-3200 is a lot of noise in the picture and faces not very sharp.

I attached some examples from the ice hockey games. What can you advice to me?

I try use different settings, but don't know what is better.. Also, whats focus mode is best for sport photography? I use Flexible spot and turned on face detection.

Quality: EXTRA FINE

White balance: AUTO

ISO: auto 1200-6400

 

[sybersitizen]

What can you advice to me?

I try use different settings, but don't know what is better..

Quality: EXTRA FINE

White balance: AUTO

ISO: auto 1200-6400

You're shooting JPEG? If you need better control over noise, I advise you to shoot RAW (+ JPEG if you want). Strong noise in an image can be handled much better with a good RAW converter than the in-camera JPEG noise reduction.

Also, whats focus mode is best for sport photography? I use Flexible spot and turned on face detection.

Is that working well?

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Hi,

looking at the exposure data I've noticed that the parameters vary over quite a range, including positive EV added to some and zero in others. I don't think that the lighting conditions in the stadium vary that much. But the metering is being tricked when larger areas of the (white) ice are in the frame, giving a too poor exposure - thus the poor exposure of the faces. And when the view goes into the direction of the stands larger portions of dark areas are in the frame, giving a too long exposure (possible motion blur and over exposure).

Probably the best bet would be to shoot fixed ISO and exposure in M with the aperture set to f/4. And then with the Zebra feature activated you pre-set the ISO and the exposure time which gives you the ice surface almost pure white, allowing perhaps for some slight clipping there (since it's not the ice where you want the details). When the game begins you could check for the faces and if necessary adjust the parameters a bit but then let them unchanged.

 

[Travelshooter]

I find both Lightroom's noise reduction and NIK's Dfine 2 noise reduction to be very effective on either straight out of camera jpegs or raw conversions.

 

[DUTCH van Atlanta]

I find both Lightroom's noise reduction and NIK's Dfine 2 noise reduction to be very effective on either straight out of camera jpegs or raw conversions.

And best of them all is DxO's Prime NR on ARW files.

 

[Travelshooter]

I find both Lightroom's noise reduction and NIK's Dfine 2 noise reduction to be very effective on either straight out of camera jpegs or raw conversions.

And best of them all is DxO's Prime NR on ARW files.

and it very well may be Dutch. OTOH, after a decade + shooting raw with Canon, Panny and Fuji I'm good enough as a shooter at this point in my life to be OK with jpegs from the 10 IV and the 100 VI. Not saying your wrong, just saying I'm past it and can get the results I want knowing the limitations of a 1" sensor before I frame and shoot.

 

[titasas]

What can you advice to me?

I try use different settings, but don't know what is better..

Quality: EXTRA FINE

White balance: AUTO

ISO: auto 1200-6400

You're shooting JPEG? If you need better control over noise, I advise you to shoot RAW (+ JPEG if you want). Strong noise in an image can be handled much better with a good RAW converter than the in-camera JPEG noise reduction.

Also, whats focus mode is best for sport photography? I use Flexible spot and turned on face detection.

Is that working well?

Yes, JPEG, because I dont have time to convert raw and my computer is too slowly do that But I tried couple of time and don't know,.... I have problem with RAW, nothing better I dont know how to edit RAW that would be better.. Its still a lot of noise, same like JPEG.

 

[titasas]

Hi,

looking at the exposure data I've noticed that the parameters vary over quite a range, including positive EV added to some and zero in others. I don't think that the lighting conditions in the stadium vary that much. But the metering is being tricked when larger areas of the (white) ice are in the frame, giving a too poor exposure - thus the poor exposure of the faces. And when the view goes into the direction of the stands larger portions of dark areas are in the frame, giving a too long exposure (possible motion blur and over exposure).

Probably the best bet would be to shoot fixed ISO and exposure in M with the aperture set to f/4. And then with the Zebra feature activated you pre-set the ISO and the exposure time which gives you the ice surface almost pure white, allowing perhaps for some slight clipping there (since it's not the ice where you want the details). When the game begins you could check for the faces and if necessary adjust the parameters a bit but then let them unchanged.

Yes, I try different parameters.. I dont understand metering, but watched a lot of youtube video, but still.. Its hard to undestand how to use different metering program.

Every time I shoot exposure in M and use smallest aperture.

Zebra feature is new for me, I will watch youtube about that, thanks.

 

[Travelshooter]

I find both Lightroom's noise reduction and NIK's Dfine 2 noise reduction to be very effective on either straight out of camera jpegs or raw conversions.

And best of them all is DxO's Prime NR on ARW files.

and it very well may be Dutch. OTOH, after a decade + shooting raw with Canon, Panny and Fuji I'm good enough as a shooter at this point in my life to be OK with jpegs from the 10 IV and the 100 VI. Not saying your wrong, just saying I'm past it and can get the results I want knowing the limitations of a 1" sensor before I frame and shoot.

and there it is.

 

[Michael Fritzen]

... I dont understand metering...

Working on this could be key for a much better understanding of what the camera does, when this works well and provides the desired great output - but also to recognize the situations when the cam's metering gets it "wrong". The metering itself is not really wrong but the cam is unable to read the photographer's mind.

You could do some simple testing by yourself by pointing the cam to an essentially bright / white subject (like a snow covered landscape, or the ice surface in your example shots). If the shots is taken in any of the Auto modes (w/o manual exposure correction) then it is pretty likely that the photo will show such surfaces as some middle grey - and not bright / white. The opposite is also true when the subject is very dark. Again the result will be some middle grey, perhaps a bit darker, but not as dark as the subject really is. OTOH if your subject shows a range from bright to dark tones then the "levelling" done by the exposure metering would get it right. IAW and simplifying a bit, when you're facing a situation pretty far off from "average lit scene" then the metering needs some "help" from the photographer - which could be by dialing in some EC or which could be by taking over the command and shoot Manual for total control over the exposure parameters.

Apart from the Zebras which could provide some interesting additional (visual) information about the exposure it's worth to remind that looking through the EVF is WYSIWYG because it simulates the exposure. IAW when the VF view is getting dark it shows you underexpsore and when it's overly bright it's overexposure. Also learing to read the histogram help to get the right exposure.

 

[sybersitizen]

I have problem with RAW, nothing better I dont know how to edit RAW that would be better.. Its still a lot of noise, same like JPEG.

Well, that's something that you can change with practice. I shoot almost entirely JPEG myself ... but I have to say ... the very best noise reduction I know of is restricted to RAW files.

 

[tbcass]

That's about the best you can do with a 1" sensor. What do you want to do with the photos? One thing you can do is resist the temptation to zoom in to 100%. Here's one of your images reduced to a very usable 8mp. Notice how most of the noise magically disappears. As you go up in ISO the usable resolution goes down but the image is still usable.

--
Tom

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

I find both Lightroom's noise reduction and NIK's Dfine 2 noise reduction to be very effective on either straight out of camera jpegs or raw conversions.

And best of them all is DxO's Prime NR on ARW files.

=====
Why are any of these better than
converting ARW to DNG, then
using current ACR 2018 CC
noise sliders...? I'd like to hear
from those that have made
direct comparisons using
same high noise image...

Why would Adobe allow
difference in LR vs. CC??!!

--
shoot first, apologize as needed...

 

[sybersitizen]

I find both Lightroom's noise reduction and NIK's Dfine 2 noise reduction to be very effective on either straight out of camera jpegs or raw conversions.

And best of them all is DxO's Prime NR on ARW files.

Why are any of these better than converting ARW to DNG, then using current ACR 2018 CC noise sliders...?

DxO's RAW converter offers an extremely high-powered noise reduction option called PRIME NR. It does far more in depth analysis than any 'normal' noise reduction algorithms. The result takes much longer and is almost always much better - and it can only be applied to RAW files.

I'd like to hear from those that have made direct comparisons using same high noise image...

Download a trial version and compare it yourself.

Why would Adobe allow difference in LR vs. CC??!!

Who has said that?

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

Download a trial version and compare it yourself.

Too often leads to disappointment + waste of time.
If its really true, comparisons are out there.
Links will be offered...

 

[DUTCH van Atlanta]

Download a trial version and compare it yourself.

Too often leads to disappointment + waste of time.
If its really true, comparisons are out there.
Links will be offered...

Where I come from that's called "contempt prior to investigation". So be it.

Go back and read some of SaltLakGuy's posts on this subject a few months ago. He was in the same boat until he tried it. You might change your mind; but, then again, you might not. ;-)

 

[DUTCH van Atlanta]

DxO's RAW converter offers an extremely high-powered noise reduction option called PRIME NR. It does far more in depth analysis than any 'normal' noise reduction algorithms. The result takes much longer and is almost always much better - and it can only be applied to RAW files.

DxO's PRIME NR for RAW files is only available in the Elite version of PhotoLab.

 

[sybersitizen]

DxO's RAW converter offers an extremely high-powered noise reduction option called PRIME NR. It does far more in depth analysis than any 'normal' noise reduction algorithms. The result takes much longer and is almost always much better - and it can only be applied to RAW files.

DxO's PRIME NR for RAW files is only available in the Elite version of PhotoLab.

It was/is also available in earlier Elite versions of Optics Pro, the previous name before it was changed to PhotoLab. So?

 

[Jeff Greenberg]

read some of SaltLakGuy's posts on this subject a few months ago

Link to posts?

---
shoot first, apologize as needed...

 

[sybersitizen]

Download a trial version and compare it yourself.

Too often leads to disappointment + waste of time.
If its really true, comparisons are out there.
Links will be offered...

Sounds like you're just lazy. Is Googling for links on your own also disappointing and a waste of time for you? Better that other people do your work for you, I guess.