| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2007 11:33:04 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Just a quick note that I have noticed. I bought a Sandisk Extreme III compactflash card for more memory and already owned a Extreme II Compactflash card. On a 20d anyways, I get more noise with the III than I do with the II because of the transfer rate of the buffer in the camera vs the transfer rate of the card. the buffer of the camera cannot keep up and cause noise. Is this a possiblity? Are you using a 133x(Type III) transfer flash card or the 66x(type II) flash card?
Hope this helps someone.
Rich |
Not anything to do with flashcard. If it was a case of data loss, you would have corruption in the images, if the image even showed up at all.. |
Hey Mark,
Its not coruption, the card sucks the data off the cameras buffer at a higher rate of speed than the camera can handle, the writing of the data to the card from the buffer is so fast that creates some noise. Making for a noisier photo overall.
Rich
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 11:35:54.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 11:40:21 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Its not coruption, the card sucks the data off the cameras buffer at a higher rate of speed than the camera can handle, the writing of the data to the card from the buffer is so fast that creates some noise. Making for a noisier photo overall.
Rich |
I wouldn't have thought that was possible...
R.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 11:45:42 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Its not coruption, the card sucks the data off the cameras buffer at a higher rate of speed than the camera can handle, the writing of the data to the card from the buffer is so fast that creates some noise. Making for a noisier photo overall.
Rich |
I wouldn't have thought that was possible...
R. |
Maybe its not, Maybe I am just parinod. However, I have tried it on my 20d using both Sandisk and Lexar type III compact flash cards and they give me in my opinion a noisier image than the Type II compact flash cards all the same. I will eventually post some photos on this, but that may take a while, probably the weekend. Cause I will not be home all week. Anyone out there who can attempt what I am talking about and tell me I am in fact crazy?
Thanks
Rich
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 11:47:48 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Maybe its not, Maybe I am just parinod. However, I have tried it on my 20d using both Sandisk and Lexar type III compact flash cards and they give me in my opinion a noisier image than the Type II compact flash cards all the same. I will eventually post some photos on this, but that may take a while, probably the weekend. Cause I will not be home all week. Anyone out there who can attempt what I am talking about and tell me I am in fact crazy? |
I have both types, I use them interchangeably, I've never noticed a difference. But then, I haven't looked for one either...
R.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 11:52:13 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Hot_Pixel:
Maybe its not, Maybe I am just parinod. However, I have tried it on my 20d using both Sandisk and Lexar type III compact flash cards and they give me in my opinion a noisier image than the Type II compact flash cards all the same. I will eventually post some photos on this, but that may take a while, probably the weekend. Cause I will not be home all week. Anyone out there who can attempt what I am talking about and tell me I am in fact crazy? |
I have both types, I use them interchangeably, I've never noticed a difference. But then, I haven't looked for one either...
R. |
Normally if I do not look to a 100% crop, I do not see the difference either, but once I went to 100% I see more noise and usually a bit loss of detail overall. Not that I am saying that it is a great deal of noise either, I still this it is acceptable. However I am saying that there is an increase in my opinion between the 2 cards. Could you when you have time actually look so I can actually know if its just me or I can confirm this with someone else? I was going to post this, but did have enough info to call it true or not yet.
Bear, on a side note and not to highjack the thread, I have sent you a pm of some towns on the Cape I have been asked to photograph, any help would be appreciated.
Rich
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 11:54:05.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:25:32 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
What was the ISO, exposure, and aperture for this shot? What were the lighting conditions like? |
You do have a fair amount of noise there. Have you tried using the noise ninja plug in for photoshop?
It works wonders.
Ernie |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 12:28:27 PM · #32 |
OK, here ya go: both images are 100% crops. Both images are 1/2 type II (on the left) and 1/2 type III (on the right). The lighter image is shot at camera normal metering, ISO 100, JPG Fine, not adjusted at all in PS. The darker image was 2 stops underexposed then autoleveled, otherwise not touched. Obviously, underexposure = noise, but as far as i can see there's no difference between cards on the noise.
 
Robt.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 12:29:07.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 01:01:19 PM · #33 |
I will then conceed my opinion, as bear has shown that it is just me. Sorry to have taken the thread in the wrong direction and thank you bear for taking the time out to check to make sure I was not misleading folks. Also thanks for the photos.
Rich
PS: Thanks for the answer to the PM as well.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 13:02:57.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 06:20:43 PM · #34 |
| I think I've learned some things about noise and converting RAW. I have figured out that when I was opening my .NEF (RAW) shots in Photoshop, Photoshop was set to adjust each setting automatically (conpensating for over or under exposed shots, adjusting contrast, etc. So it was making all the adjustments before the conversion. Once converted and opened as a jpg I was getting tons of noise. However, if I take the check marks out of each box before converting to jpg and do all my post processing to the jpg rather then the .nef file everything is good (very little noise)- make sense? |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 06:24:33 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by zeus0826:
make sense? |
Yup. I think you figured it out :-) I had the same issues when I first switched to RAW.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 06:47:24 PM · #36 |
FWIW, here is your original 100% cropped image after noise filtering via Neat Image:
Edit: Added link to Neat Image.
Message edited by author 2007-01-30 19:50:28.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2007 06:54:59 PM · #37 |
very cool...maybe it's time to invest in neat image.
Thanks for everyone's help!! |
|
|
|
01/30/2007 07:26:09 PM · #38 |
| I know I'm starting to sound like I'm a Bibble salesman on these boards lately but Bibble has Noise Ninja built into it and does a pretty decent job of reducing noise before the conversion and IMO does a WAY better job than Photoshop at processing RAWs. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 02:41:34 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by zeus0826:
However, if I take the check marks out of each box before converting to jpg and do all my post processing to the jpg rather then the .nef file everything is good (very little noise)- make sense? |
Does that not pretty much get rid of the reasons we shoot raw to begin with? I shoot raw, but when converting in CS2 I do not automatically accept what the automatic settings say.
If you simply uncheck the boxes and then convert, changing everything in the jpg you are defeating the purpose of shooting raw, which is to be able to make those adjustments before going to jpg...giving you more lattitude to make changes. Just be careful of the underexposure.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 04:43:01 AM · #40 |
Actually, using CS2 can do a very good job of noise reduction:
Filter, Noise, Reduce Noise.
You can try the default settings box and use:
Strength at 8 to 10
Preserve Details at 35-50%
Reduce Color Noise at 0%
Sharpen details at 0%
or
Click on the Advanced Button, and select the Per Channel Tab.
From there, you can reduce noise in say the Blue Channel only.
Experiment with it - I rarely ever use 3rd party software anymore for noise reduction.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 02:08:35 PM EDT.
