Is it that bad? - DPChallenge Forums

01/23/2006 10:00:53 PM · #1

Take a look at this 100% crop of an ISO100 shot.

It appears grainy. I have had better 100% crops from some other p&s cameras. Can any of you please kindly post some sample 100% crops from your ISO100 shots? I would like to compare. I'm just so sad as I cant have blown-up size photos looking nice from my camera.

ISO 100
F3.2
1/242s

Message edited by author 2006-01-24 00:50:42.

01/23/2006 10:34:20 PM · #2

please, can someone post a 100% crop of your photo at ISO100? Thanks :S

01/23/2006 10:35:34 PM · #3

More info would help with the discussion. What were the camera settings. What was the exposure. How was it lit...

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/23/2006 10:38:46 PM · #4

Originally posted by TooCool:

More info would help with the discussion. What were the camera settings. What was the exposure. How was it lit...

actually, on almost ALL images, even under bright sun light :(
it gets worse with higher ISO (more details loss) but it is just as bad on ISO100 (or even ISO64). That's why, I'm stunned. Is this how the Fuji SuperCCD works? It's very grainy!

David.C

01/23/2006 10:39:33 PM · #5

I don't see grain so much as I see jpg artifacts. As Ron asked, what are the camera settings -- ISO, aperture, shutter speed, quality (jpg compression, sharpness, contrast and anything else that affects the final result.

David

Mal37

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

01/23/2006 10:46:35 PM · #6

This is from a Nikon Coolpix 7600. ISO 100, Ap. 4.9, 1/180. 100% crop.

Not a great pic but I rarely use ISO 100 on this cam, usually 50 or 200, so I had to search a bit.

Gringo

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/23/2006 10:48:22 PM · #7

It's clear that the ISO was at 100.

Is this an un-altered crop? Or have you processed it at all?

What resolution are you shooting at?
Tiff?
Jpeg?
Raw?

What size is this original file?
Ex: 4288 X 2848

Do you have any compression settings?

Sharpen settings?

More info would be helpful.

Tamron AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical XR IF Super Zoom for Nikon

01/23/2006 10:54:26 PM · #8

Sorry for the lack of info. Here is another example. Notice especially the lid of the garbage bin?

ISO200
F3.5
1/437s
SuperFINE quality JPG (highest quality besides RAW)

Message edited by author 2006-01-23 22:57:45.

rachelellen

Nikon D70s

01/23/2006 10:57:07 PM · #9

What quality setting are you using on your camera? Fine, Normal, Quick...? What are you using to save the file on your computer? What is your compression setting there? It does look more like JPG compression than grain to my inexpert eyes.

01/23/2006 10:58:41 PM · #10

Originally posted by rachelellen:

SuperFINE, which is supposedly the BEST quality, if I want any better, it would be RAW. And with my 5mp sensor, the image size at SuperFINE is usually around 2.5MB per photo.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/23/2006 11:03:26 PM · #11

Originally posted by crayon:

Sorry for the lack of info. Here is another example. Notice especially the lid of the garbage bin?

ISO200
F3.5
1/437s
SuperFINE quality JPG (highest quality besides RAW)

I see the noise on the first shot but not on the second (maybe my eye but it looks like the texture of the subject...). The first shot looks like it was a longer exposure due to the darkness of the shot. With smaller sensors (like most p/s or prosumer cameras have) with higher pixel counts there will be noise at longer exposure. This is a given. It is because the sensor heats up from the current going through it and with the light sensors packed so close together it is difficult to get rid of this heat. In any electronic device, add heat, get noise...

With my old OLY p/s camera if I wanted to eliminate noise I had to add light in great quantities...

Skyarcher

Canon EOS-5D

01/23/2006 11:05:11 PM · #12

Okay, I had to go searching, but I found some that I took at ISO 100, with my old camera (Nikon Coolpix 5700), but I also wanted something similar to your image. Luckily, I have a Christmas Cactus. ;)

I can't answer why, but here are my 100% crops.

01/23/2006 11:08:21 PM · #13

Originally posted by Skyarcher:

I can't answer why, but here are my 100% crops.

Your examples look like they have much more light than than crayon's original example...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/23/2006 11:15:36 PM · #14

hmm, ok, i'll try again with lots lots of light... i'm keeping my fingers crossed...

Skyarcher

Canon EOS-5D

01/23/2006 11:23:30 PM · #15

Okay, at first I tried to find an image that was similar in subject to crayon's..

Let me try this one, it's darker.

Again, 100% crop. All have been straight out of camera, cropped and resized down to 640 at the longest.

01/23/2006 11:25:31 PM · #16

Originally posted by Skyarcher:

I think all of yours look less grainy than mine :(
Thanks... I'll post up some new pics as examples soon.
I need to prove that "bright light" theory first for myself.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/23/2006 11:26:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by Skyarcher:

You're still at 1/250 of a second. My noise issues happened when I got down around 1/30 or less. Without knowing what the original examples settings were it's hard to tell if we are comparing apples to apples...

Skyarcher

Canon EOS-5D

01/23/2006 11:35:42 PM · #18

Originally posted by TooCool:

[quote=Skyarcher] Okay, at first I tried to find an image that was similar in subject to crayon's..

Let me try this one, it's darker.

Again, 100% crop. All have been straight out of camera, cropped and resized down to 640 at the longest.

*edited out thumb, doesn't need to be repeated 3rd time. ;)*

You're still at 1/250 of a second. My noise issues happened when I got down around 1/30 or less. Without knowing what the original examples settings were it's hard to tell if we are comparing apples to apples...

;) Scroll to my set of 3 images, last image in the row (right)... that is 1/30th. (I may not have gotten the info listed yet when you looked before.)

But... that's true, we know the settings for the garbage can, but not the cactus.

Message edited by author 2006-01-23 23:36:37.

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

01/24/2006 12:51:28 AM · #19

Originally posted by Skyarcher:

But... that's true, we know the settings for the garbage can, but not the cactus.

I just updated the settings for the 1st photo, also pasted ehre for your reference, thanks:

ISO 100
F3.2
1/242s

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

01/24/2006 03:19:21 AM · #20

Crayon, you might have missed the point. Three people have asked you for the in-camera processing settings and you haven't acknowledged them so I suspect that you didn't know there were any.

I'm sure your camera is like most at that level and above where in the camera menu you can set defaults like Sharpness, Contrast and Noise Reduction. The general advice fo anyone using a half-reasonable post processing package is to set all of those defaults to the one that least alters your image so that you can make those adjustments in the controlled environment of the computer. If you are getting really bad results directly out of the camera, my money, like the others who asked for the details, is on the in-camera settings messing everything up. You have to start with those before you do anything else.

Just as an aside, I seem to recall that DPReview have had some slightly unkind things to say about FinePix quality compared to similar cameras so I'd go check there too because they usually have solutions as well.

Brett

Panasonic DMW-LTZ10 1.5x Teleconverter

01/24/2006 03:39:19 AM · #21

Originally posted by KiwiPix:

No, there are no adjustments available for Sharpness, Contrast and noise reduction in-camera.

I'd check out DPReview on the Fuji sensor thingy. Thanks!

KiwiShotz

Panasonic DMC-FZ20

01/24/2006 04:23:50 AM · #22

I found a manual online at www.fujifilm.com.

- Page 65 has a Sharpening Menu with three settings Hard, Standard & Soft.

- Page 57 has the menu for "FinePix Color" with settings for Standard, Chrome and B&W. It says there that for F-Chrome "The contrast and saturation are set to high"

- I didn't find any NR-Noise Reduction settings (yet:) However the Quality mode (P54) has some variants like F vs N mode that looks significant.

The first two could mess around with the basic RAW data to such and extent as to give you the noise/grain problem.

Brett