PDA

View Full Version : High ISO sample images from cameras old and new


Four Thirds User
13th May 2011, 03:00 PM
Four Thirds User (Fourthirds-user.com (http://fourthirds-user.com)) is a sibling site to the e-group.

It's an issue that has bugged Four Thirds users since day one - high ISO camera performance. Is it really that bad? And how do the latest cameras fare? You can make your own mind up!

More... (http://fourthirds-user.com/2011/05/high_iso_sample_images_from_cameras_old_and_new.ph p)

Zuiko
13th May 2011, 04:00 PM
There's food for thought, I'll be digesting all this later. Thanks Ian, that's a lot of work you've done there! *chr

stevednp3
13th May 2011, 05:03 PM
Nice one Ian, thanks for doing this. Its spot on from the tests I got from my e30 and e5 and I for one think the e5 is worth every penny (well at 1,250) for the extra noise reduction and sharpness :D *chr

Wreckdiver
13th May 2011, 05:57 PM
Thanks for doing this Ian *chr

A quick look at the E-5 noise levels shows a definite improvement over the E-3.

Steve

David Morison
13th May 2011, 06:07 PM
This is extremely interesting and I am somewhat disappointed with the E30 results. Since I got the E5 I have used the E30 less and less and the results of this convinces me I should sell it and buy an EPL2, which would be used a lot more as a carry anywhere compact and which can, if needs be, act as a back-up for the E5. Needless to say I am more than happy with the E5 and don't regret paying the full price! Thank you Ian for all your hard work but just to keep us all happy with our Olys how about repeating it with a couple of canikons.

Regards

David

catkins
13th May 2011, 06:16 PM
Just to copy the message that I put on the fourthirds forum, to see if any thoughts from this forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always interesting to get comparative shots like these.
Out of interest to compare how the E-30 that I have compares at a higher ISO with the E-5 which seems to get good reviews, I've downloaded two .orfs -

Image 6: E-5 ISO: 3200
http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_im...w/P5100634.ORF
and Image 10: e-30 ISO: 3200
http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_im...w/P5104430.ORF

Comparing the two side by side in ACDSee Pro 4, I'm surprised by how good the E-30 is when the whole image is seen. But the surprise to me is when zooming in to show more detail - although the E-5 seems to have less obvious noise this seems entirely due to far greater noise reduction with presumably in-camera editing that has lead to a noticeable softness in the detail of the overall E-5 image.
However, in places such as the text on the herb jar this blur is 'shadowed' and I wonder whether this may be due to movement of the camera or the IS system?
Are you able to judge what the blur is due to - over zealous noise reduction or movement?

Regards

Ian
13th May 2011, 07:53 PM
Just to copy the message that I put on the fourthirds forum, to see if any thoughts from this forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Always interesting to get comparative shots like these.
Out of interest to compare how the E-30 that I have compares at a higher ISO with the E-5 which seems to get good reviews, I've downloaded two .orfs -

Image 6: E-5 ISO: 3200
http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_im...w/P5100634.ORF
and Image 10: e-30 ISO: 3200
http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_im...w/P5104430.ORF

Comparing the two side by side in ACDSee Pro 4, I'm surprised by how good the E-30 is when the whole image is seen. But the surprise to me is when zooming in to show more detail - although the E-5 seems to have less obvious noise this seems entirely due to far greater noise reduction with presumably in-camera editing that has lead to a noticeable softness in the detail of the overall E-5 image.
However, in places such as the text on the herb jar this blur is 'shadowed' and I wonder whether this may be due to movement of the camera or the IS system?
Are you able to judge what the blur is due to - over zealous noise reduction or movement?

Regards

There is no noise reduction in the camera for the RAW files. That defeats the object of RAW files. Sony did try a form of noise reduction before recording the RAW file but they got seriously bad feedback and shelved the idea.

What you are seeing in ACDSee is ACDSee's starting point interpretation of the RAW file. Then the idea is that you, the person who processes the RAW image, works from there.

The DSLRs had anti-shock and a delayed timer release so there is really no chance of any camera movement during the exposure.

I don't know how good ACDSee's profile for Olympus cameras, and especially the E-5 is. Adobe Camera RAW 6 and later (including Lightroom 3) has very good quality edge sharpening algorithms, as does the E-5 itself when it produces in-camera JPEGs.

Ian

catkins
13th May 2011, 09:37 PM
There is no noise reduction in the camera for the RAW files. That defeats the object of RAW files. Sony did try a form of noise reduction before recording the RAW file but they got seriously bad feedback and shelved the idea.

What you are seeing in ACDSee is ACDSee's starting point interpretation of the RAW file. Then the idea is that you, the person who processes the RAW image, works from there.

The DSLRs had anti-shock and a delayed timer release so there is really no chance of any camera movement during the exposure.

I don't know how good ACDSee's profile for Olympus cameras, and especially the E-5 is. Adobe Camera RAW 6 and later (including Lightroom 3) has very good quality edge sharpening algorithms, as does the E-5 itself when it produces in-camera JPEGs.

Ian

Interesting. But to add to the confusion of my mind is that I had understood that Noise Reduction &/or Noise Filtering can be applied to the in-camera RAW.
http://www.fourthirds-user.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8875 shows the confusion that surrounds all this.

So just to clarify what I am seeing, can you confirm that the E-5 image http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_im...w/P5100634.ORF has no ghosting or shadow on the text of the herb jar, then that at least means that ACDSee hasn't got it right - see screenshot below:
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/Oly_E-5_ISO_3200_P5100634_ACDSee_Pro_4_Screenshot_1.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/33962)

Regards
Chris

stevednp3
13th May 2011, 09:46 PM
Omg no lightroom 3 dosent display like that :confused:

catkins
13th May 2011, 10:21 PM
Omg no lightroom 3 dosent display like that :confused:

Right, thanks, at least with the confirmation that this isn't being shown in other software then I can check what's going on!

I've downloaded the Olympus Viewer 2 software again, as computer problems a month back meant that it hadn't been reinstalled. That shows the image displaying no blur as seen in the screenshot.
So I've then looked at the E-5 image in the 'Process' section of ACDSee Pro 4 (used for RAW editing) and again the image is as it should be expected.
So I've gone back to where this started off in 'Image Compare' where I had the E-5 and the E-30 images side by side to make for easy comparison, and it is this element of ACDSee Pro that is at fault with the E-30 image displaying as expected but with the E-5 image exhibiting blur/shadow and resultant softness.
I then went back to the 'Process' section of ACDSee and made small changes to the 'Noise Reduction' Luminance and Color and then went back to the comparison view. The E-5 image now displays as expected!

So apologies for casting doubt on the E-5 image, but at least once the area of possible fault is clarified it was easier for me to check. ACDSee Pro 4 is able to deal with the E-5 RAW images but there is obviously some small area of issue in the comparative view part of the software. With the alterations made to each RAW the E-5 does now indeed show the better clarity, although I remain impressed with the E-30.

Thanks for your help.

Now then I'm still confused though, what's the reality of Noise Reduction and Noise Filtering in RAW images?

Regards
Chris

Zuiko
13th May 2011, 10:36 PM
Right, thanks, at least with the confirmation that this isn't being shown in other software then I can check what's going on!

I've downloaded the Olympus Viewer 2 software again, as computer problems a month back meant that it hadn't been reinstalled. That shows the image displaying no blur as seen in the screenshot.
So I've then looked at the E-5 image in the 'Process' section of ACDSee Pro 4 (used for RAW editing) and again the image is as it should be expected.
So I've gone back to where this started off in 'Image Compare' where I had the E-5 and the E-30 images side by side to make for easy comparison, and it is this element of ACDSee Pro that is at fault with the E-30 image displaying as expected but with the E-5 image exhibiting blur/shadow and resultant softness.
I then went back to the 'Process' section of ACDSee and made small changes to the 'Noise Reduction' Luminance and Color and then went back to the comparison view. The E-5 image now displays as expected!

So apologies for casting doubt on the E-5 image, but at least once the area of possible fault is clarified it was easier for me to check. ACDSee Pro 4 is able to deal with the E-5 RAW images but there is obviously some small area of issue in the comparative view part of the software. With the alterations made to each RAW the E-5 does now indeed show the better clarity, although I remain impressed with the E-30.

Thanks for your help.

Now then I'm still confused though, what's the reality of Noise Reduction and Noise Filtering in RAW images?

Regards
Chris

No need to apologize, it's great that this issue has come out. Your experience may yet help someone else who has the same problem, possibly even with some other brand of software. Now if the question does come up we at least have a potential answer. :)

Ian
14th May 2011, 09:41 AM
Noise Reduction does affect RAW files. This is long exposure dark frame subtraction to paint out hot pixels.

Noise filtering is a smoothing process and only applies to JPEGs created in the camera. It can be switched off or moderated to your preference.

Ian