Jump to content

Noise


jackal

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I feel like a broken record here, but iso comparisons can not be made on a per-pixel-basis on different resolving sensors.

 

Both sensors have 6.8 x 6.8 um pixel pitch so they should be very comparable in that sense. (Comparable, not equal)

 

The effect of the noise is however different if you make same size prints from the two cameras due to the different resolution.

Edited by adli
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like a broken record here, but iso comparisons can not be made on a per-pixel-basis on different resolving sensors.

 

i agree

 

so if you want the real world take on it

 

i've looked through all my M8 photos and all my M9 photos and real world, including the higher MP..... the M9 become unacceptable 2 stops later

 

this is from the point of view of making an editorial DPS file 444mm wide with a 5mm bleed, 300dpi

Edited by jackal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Both sensors have 6.8 x 6.8 um pixel pitch so they should be very comparable in that sense. (Comparable, not equal)

 

The effect of the noise is however different if you make same size prints from the two cameras due to the different resolution.

 

That was kind of my point. If you look at the entire image as a whole, printed or online, the higher megapixel one will look better than it would on a per-pixel-basis. That is part of the allure of the M9, landscape/high res quality from 80-640, better street/avilable light quality from 640-2500.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D, for a start the M8 (top crop) is iso320

 

YES... the M8 was/is THAT bad

 

I shoot 320 all the time because I like the look of the files. I've never seen anything like that unless I've messed-up the exposure.

 

I feel like a broken record here, but iso comparisons can not be made on a per-pixel-basis on different resolving sensors.

 

I totally agree - you are a broken record. Seems like you're going to pursue every single post of 100% crops anywhere on the forum. You do realize that people are going to quickly tire of your tiresome nagging?

 

We're all grown-ups here (most of us anyway), we can download DNGs or look at online jpegs or even (goodness me) go and try the camera for ourselves. But people are also interested in pixel level comparisons occasionally (good ones at least - this doesn't seem to be one of them), especially when certain pixel-level claims are made for or against one or other camera.

 

Anyway, if you're so against these non-"real world" tests, I suggest you go out into the "real world" and enjoy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was kind of my point. If you look at the entire image as a whole, printed or online, the higher megapixel one will look better than it would on a per-pixel-basis. That is part of the allure of the M9, landscape/high res quality from 80-640, better street/avilable light quality from 640-2500.

 

Both better noise performance on pixel-level and higher resolution contributes to better IQ in the M9. One improvement does not exclude the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more convinced if the subject and lighting were the same. The top image doesn't match what I see from properly exposed shots on my M8. But then I don't normally push 3/4 of a stop in post. Top image still looks underexposed as the numberplate is not white - probably needs pushing 1.5 stops to get there... no wonder there is noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more convinced if the subject and lighting were the same. The top image doesn't match what I see from properly exposed shots on my M8. But then I don't normally push 3/4 of a stop in post. Top image still looks underexposed as the numberplate is not white - probably needs pushing 1.5 stops to get there... no wonder there is noise.

 

Exactly. The image looks as though it's been under-exposed at least a couple of stops and pushed already. And it still has a way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot 320 all the time because I like the look of the files. I've never seen anything like that unless I've messed-up the exposure.

 

a lot of my work involves different exposures for different parts of the picture (but often without bracketing)

 

some work requires shots to be pulled around a fair bit (hence the allure of the H3D and why I almost bought one)

 

The M8 at 320 and over was always pretty useless in this respect and if forced to shoot at anything other than 160 I would end up having to do massive repair to the final image, blurring and degraining small sections, even repainting over an image to totally recreate it from scratch. I've had to sit there and paint in car bumpers and replace paintwork on bonnets, doors etc.. with my own hand using the brush and gradient tools. M9 is a giant leap in this respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M8 at 320 and over was always pretty useless in this respect and if forced to shoot at anything other than 160 I would end up having to do massive repair to the final image, blurring and degraining small sections, even repainting over an image to totally recreate it from scratch. I've had to sit there and paint in car bumpers and replace paintwork on bonnets, doors etc.. with my own hand using the brush and gradient tools. M9 is a giant leap in this respect.

 

I'm sorry you thought the M8 was/is such a rubbish camera. Plenty of people around here do/used to think you're wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. The image looks as though it's been under-exposed at least a couple of stops and pushed already. And it still has a way to go.

 

both shots were similarly underexposed so the comparison is valid

 

and for the work I do, the fact that they are ev +0.75 is very relevant, see above

 

if you like, take the point of the post this way:

 

you can play with the files in post much more on the M9 for any given iso

 

 

 

 

is anyone going to correctly identify the 2 iso's ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you thought the M8 was/is such a rubbish camera. Plenty of people around here do/used to think you're wrong.

 

i never said the M8 was rubbish, please don't misrepresent me.. all you do is convey (rightly or wrongly) that you have bit of a problem with reading/language

 

i said it was no good at higher iso

 

hope that's cleared that up

Link to post
Share on other sites

all you do is convey (rightly or wrongly) that you have bit of a problem with reading/language

 

Jackal - you post a "test" of a couple of freakishly badly exposed images in order to prove some personally held conviction about which sensor you consider to be better or worse. The intention is obvious and the methodology worthless. But you seem to think that I'm the one that's retarded.

 

It's a bad day on the forum today, imho. Think I'll sign out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that the M9 image may not have been as 'underxposed' as the M8, so pushing the first 0.75 stops elevates noise from shadows into midtones. Pushing the M9 image 0.75 stops may not do the same as the original image may have been better exposed.

 

Either way - the noise in the shadows on the M9 image (inside the cab) is proper nasty - nice big blobs of magenta... about what I'd expect with 2500 on my M8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackal - you post a "test" of a couple of freakishly badly exposed images in order to prove some personally held conviction about which sensor you consider to be better or worse. The intention is obvious and the methodology worthless. But you seem to think that I'm the one that's retarded.

 

It's a bad day on the forum today, imho. Think I'll sign out.

 

 

 

With the M8 you are stuck with the files you have at higher iso... you can't manipulate them very much. The fact that the shots are underexposed matters little. The fact that the shots are underexposed is intentional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackal - you post a "test" of a couple of freakishly badly exposed images in order to prove some personally held conviction about which sensor you consider to be better or worse. The intention is obvious and the methodology worthless. But you seem to think that I'm the one that's retarded.

 

It's a bad day on the forum today, imho. Think I'll sign out.

 

It is good to see that your rethoric skill, your tact, tone and humble personality shines trough.. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Either way - the noise in the shadows on the M9 image (inside the cab) is proper nasty - nice big blobs of magenta... about what I'd expect with 2500 on my M8.

 

 

The noise on the M9 is proper nasty... but proper nasty as in no worse that what you see in the image above it which is the M8 at 320 (not 2500 !)

 

The M9 is in a different league (admittedly in part because of the larger res). I can push underexposed shadow 2 stops at iso640 with results that could be sent to clients. If you did this on an M8 file it would look like Josephs Technicolour dreamcoat !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...