The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread
- Thread starter Guy Mancuso
- Start date
apocolibri
Member
Re: 20,000 ISO on m43... THIS IS NUTZ!!!!
Always denoise first, Larry.
Sharpening first will only sharpen and exagerate the noise.
You've probably noticed that with Sharpen AI the "Stabilize" setting provides the most sharpening... but you need to look closely at the edges of your image, such as the edges of a moon shot, as too high a setting will introduce crunchy artifacts that may not be seen in the center of the image.
The "Sharpen" setting provides the most "realistic" results if the image is not too soft, though it won't restore sharpness in a soft image as "Stabilize" will.
Always denoise first, Larry.
Sharpening first will only sharpen and exagerate the noise.
You've probably noticed that with Sharpen AI the "Stabilize" setting provides the most sharpening... but you need to look closely at the edges of your image, such as the edges of a moon shot, as too high a setting will introduce crunchy artifacts that may not be seen in the center of the image.
The "Sharpen" setting provides the most "realistic" results if the image is not too soft, though it won't restore sharpness in a soft image as "Stabilize" will.
I am working with 4/3 ISO 6400 files so I use it frequently and it makes a difference.
Larry
Re: 20,000 ISO on m43... THIS IS NUTZ!!!!
I generally try all three mode if it is an important image. I have found the best mode is different for each image. Sometime Stabilize, others Sharpen, or maybe Focus. I have rescued some images that were in pretty bad shape. Almost like magic. Like you were at that point in time again and you can retake the picture with better focus or hold it more stabil,
Larry
Thanks. As I thought, denoise first.
I generally try all three mode if it is an important image. I have found the best mode is different for each image. Sometime Stabilize, others Sharpen, or maybe Focus. I have rescued some images that were in pretty bad shape. Almost like magic. Like you were at that point in time again and you can retake the picture with better focus or hold it more stabil,
Larry
Some random recents...
Pair of Rowers by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
ISO 80 is more useful/usable than you think...
The Ever Changing City by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
A favourite boozer (from a play with Olympus Workspace)...
The Salisbury by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
Finally.... Finally.... I got my much neglected FL-36 out and started playing with Flash. I’ve decided this is the year of flash (and the tripod also). This photo I think represents the point where I started to get my head around some of the white balance challenges.
Knocking Off Time by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
Apologies if that leaves you tempted to grab into the photo.
Pair of Rowers by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
ISO 80 is more useful/usable than you think...
The Ever Changing City by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
A favourite boozer (from a play with Olympus Workspace)...
The Salisbury by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
Finally.... Finally.... I got my much neglected FL-36 out and started playing with Flash. I’ve decided this is the year of flash (and the tripod also). This photo I think represents the point where I started to get my head around some of the white balance challenges.
Knocking Off Time by Jason Hindle, on Flickr
Apologies if that leaves you tempted to grab into the photo.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
GX8 with Zuiko 12mm f/2 @ f/4
I was initially very optimistic about Denoise AI. But my testing was limited. I have found some glitches upon further testing.
I have been playing with it. On 4/3 photos at 6400 ISO. So a good test.
Ran a batch process on 7 files taken within minutes of each other. Performer on stage with changing colored lights.
Had to crank the noise slider up to 100 because in some images high contrast edges showed patches of background that were not denoised. At default setting these patches were larger and became smaller as the noise slider was increased. Did not see much change to the rest of the image as the slider was increased. So I went with 100. May not work with all files.
Some images showed the problem and others not a trace. Go figure, they were taken within seconds of each other.
If the image is important here are the fixes for the artifacts. For the patches of the image which showed the original grain structure, high contrast edges and very bright areas, I lassoed the area and used a Gaussian blur. About .6 on up till it looked natural. The best technique was to lasso the area, hide the marching ants, then Gaussian blur with a higher value. Immediately following the blur or it will not work, use the Fade command. Move the Fade slider until it looks good.
Another artifact is in certain areas of fairly uniform tonality I could see faint vertical banding with slight discolorization. The cure is to create a blank layer above the stack and to use the clone stamp at low opacity. Select the source with a value that matches what the banding should be. If the banding is predominately lighter, which it was in my case, set the clone layer to Darken and the brush to Darken.
I batch process the file using Scripts->Image Processor. I don't think Image Processor come with PS. I believe it is a Russel Brown program. It works great.
Create a script to use with the Image Processor. Starting with just opened file, start recording. Create a dup layer and make it active. Open the Denoise AI filter. Make what adjustment needed. Close the file and end the action. Start Image Processor and set parameters to your liking. I had is save a tiff file to a folder it created under the folder containing the original images.
The above was all in PS. Now go to LR. You will see the new folder but it will be empty. Select the new folder and right click and select synchronize. Now the images are in LR and you can work on them
This may seem like a lot of work and it sort of is. But the results are superior to most any other program especially for noisy 4/3 images. Where it shines is that even with drastic noise reduction you do not get that watercolor effect on areas such as skin.
This is a new program and does not have the refinements of other Topaz programs such as presets and the values used are not sticky. But that will come with upgrades. They may even solve the problem of blotchy areas which are not processed and the banding.
Larry
I have been playing with it. On 4/3 photos at 6400 ISO. So a good test.
Ran a batch process on 7 files taken within minutes of each other. Performer on stage with changing colored lights.
Had to crank the noise slider up to 100 because in some images high contrast edges showed patches of background that were not denoised. At default setting these patches were larger and became smaller as the noise slider was increased. Did not see much change to the rest of the image as the slider was increased. So I went with 100. May not work with all files.
Some images showed the problem and others not a trace. Go figure, they were taken within seconds of each other.
If the image is important here are the fixes for the artifacts. For the patches of the image which showed the original grain structure, high contrast edges and very bright areas, I lassoed the area and used a Gaussian blur. About .6 on up till it looked natural. The best technique was to lasso the area, hide the marching ants, then Gaussian blur with a higher value. Immediately following the blur or it will not work, use the Fade command. Move the Fade slider until it looks good.
Another artifact is in certain areas of fairly uniform tonality I could see faint vertical banding with slight discolorization. The cure is to create a blank layer above the stack and to use the clone stamp at low opacity. Select the source with a value that matches what the banding should be. If the banding is predominately lighter, which it was in my case, set the clone layer to Darken and the brush to Darken.
I batch process the file using Scripts->Image Processor. I don't think Image Processor come with PS. I believe it is a Russel Brown program. It works great.
Create a script to use with the Image Processor. Starting with just opened file, start recording. Create a dup layer and make it active. Open the Denoise AI filter. Make what adjustment needed. Close the file and end the action. Start Image Processor and set parameters to your liking. I had is save a tiff file to a folder it created under the folder containing the original images.
The above was all in PS. Now go to LR. You will see the new folder but it will be empty. Select the new folder and right click and select synchronize. Now the images are in LR and you can work on them
This may seem like a lot of work and it sort of is. But the results are superior to most any other program especially for noisy 4/3 images. Where it shines is that even with drastic noise reduction you do not get that watercolor effect on areas such as skin.
This is a new program and does not have the refinements of other Topaz programs such as presets and the values used are not sticky. But that will come with upgrades. They may even solve the problem of blotchy areas which are not processed and the banding.
Larry
apocolibri
Member
I found an issue similar to the one you described, Larry. I dealt with it by using a softening brush over the small area where the problem emerged, prior to running the image through DeNoise AI.
Remember that when Sharpen AI was first released there were grid patterns present in some parts of a file that couldn't be dealt with. This was reported to Topaz and dealt with inside of a week... so I'm more than confident that any glitches we find at the onset will be dealt with and resolved by Topaz in an expeditious manner.
I took a different approach to yours in my testing. In my efforts to find any shortcomings I maxed out the iso setting on my OMD EM5 Mk2 and underexposed the image by up to one stop. So in my recent tests I was shooting at an iso between 40,000 and 53,000 iso. The File information is attached below, followed by the original 25,600 iso image. Unfortunately the File Information window doesn't show that the image was underexposed, raising the effective iso.
The original shot is then followed by the shot after being run through DeNoise AI followed by Sharpen AI. The results are interesting... to say the least:
Remember that when Sharpen AI was first released there were grid patterns present in some parts of a file that couldn't be dealt with. This was reported to Topaz and dealt with inside of a week... so I'm more than confident that any glitches we find at the onset will be dealt with and resolved by Topaz in an expeditious manner.
I took a different approach to yours in my testing. In my efforts to find any shortcomings I maxed out the iso setting on my OMD EM5 Mk2 and underexposed the image by up to one stop. So in my recent tests I was shooting at an iso between 40,000 and 53,000 iso. The File information is attached below, followed by the original 25,600 iso image. Unfortunately the File Information window doesn't show that the image was underexposed, raising the effective iso.
The original shot is then followed by the shot after being run through DeNoise AI followed by Sharpen AI. The results are interesting... to say the least:
Interesting. I don't think I'd ever use ISO that high. If I can get good results from 6400 ISO I would be happy.
What do you mean use a softening brush? A slight Gaussian blur seems to work well but on some images there were lots of highlight areas that needed work.
The image below is from the set mentioned above. It is scaled to about 100% Note that the background is pretty noise free while there is some noise on the face. I like my images to have the bite that noise provides in the skin areas so I masked the layer and with a low opacity brush brought back some of the grain in the face.
As an aside. This was shot with the 75mm 1.8 wide open at about 1/160 sec with an E-M1X. Shot at the local American Legion who often hosts musical events. They are very informal in a bar like area so I can wander around and get close without disturbing anyone. The lighting and backgrounds are not very good which is a challenge. Therefore I tend to shoot tight to eliminate the background. This shoot happened to be on a little stage area which was not to bad. Lots of fun and I get some great pictures from it. I am impressed by the sharpness of that lens.
Larry
What do you mean use a softening brush? A slight Gaussian blur seems to work well but on some images there were lots of highlight areas that needed work.
The image below is from the set mentioned above. It is scaled to about 100% Note that the background is pretty noise free while there is some noise on the face. I like my images to have the bite that noise provides in the skin areas so I masked the layer and with a low opacity brush brought back some of the grain in the face.
As an aside. This was shot with the 75mm 1.8 wide open at about 1/160 sec with an E-M1X. Shot at the local American Legion who often hosts musical events. They are very informal in a bar like area so I can wander around and get close without disturbing anyone. The lighting and backgrounds are not very good which is a challenge. Therefore I tend to shoot tight to eliminate the background. This shoot happened to be on a little stage area which was not to bad. Lots of fun and I get some great pictures from it. I am impressed by the sharpness of that lens.
Larry
Attachments
apocolibri
Member
I'd probably never use an iso that high either, Larry.
The point of the test was to discover the limitations of the program. If I had found 25,600 iso images unusable I would have then run tests at 12,800, and on down until I found the results usable. What this test showed is that with the addition of a little noise from the PS noise filter this image could be printed successfully and no one would ever know it was shot between 40K and 53K iso.
The softening brush is one of the brushes available in Apple's old Aperture program. I still use Aperture as it works today as well as before it was discontinued. My Nik and Topaz plugins work seamlessly with it as well.
Elderly
Well-known member
The title of this thread is:
'Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread '
As interesting and important as these technical discussions about de-noising are,
I'm not sure that they belong in 'Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread ';
I've always considered this thread predominently a place for ............... images
.
Such as that great shot of Larry's taken in the American Legion.
I realise that de-noising can be important to Micro Four Thirds users in particular,
so wouldn't this discussion be more appropriately placed in its own dedicated thread in 'Four Thirds Cameras'?
Or maybe for more general viewing, in the 'Digital Image Processing Forum' ?
I have to state my prejudice here: I am too lazy and incapable to do much post processing
and so it's not my personal idea of fun.
'Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread '
As interesting and important as these technical discussions about de-noising are,
I'm not sure that they belong in 'Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread ';
I've always considered this thread predominently a place for ............... images
.Such as that great shot of Larry's taken in the American Legion.
I realise that de-noising can be important to Micro Four Thirds users in particular,
so wouldn't this discussion be more appropriately placed in its own dedicated thread in 'Four Thirds Cameras'?
Or maybe for more general viewing, in the 'Digital Image Processing Forum' ?
I have to state my prejudice here: I am too lazy and incapable to do much post processing
and so it's not my personal idea of fun
.
pegelli
Well-known member
Let me agree and disagree with you
I agree this denoise discussion doesn't belong here really.
But denoising is as important for any sensor format, maybe just needed at slightly higher iso's as the sensor size grows. So why not post this discussion in the Image Processing forum? That's where brand and sensor size agnostic discussions like these belong in my mind.
Elderly
Well-known member
Let me agree with you ....... and agree with youLet me agree and disagree with you
I agree this denoise discussion doesn't belong here really.
But denoising is as important for any sensor format, maybe just needed at slightly higher iso's as the sensor size grows. So why not post this discussion in the Image Processing forum? That's where brand and sensor size agnostic discussions like these belong in my mind.
The last line of mine in your quote of my post suggests the Image Processing Forum as an alternative place
.
pegelli
Well-known member
Thanks Ian :thumbup:The last line of mine in your quote of my post suggests the Image Processing Forum as an alternative place
Note to self: don't react to a post:
- before morning coffee
- before reading it all
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Thank you Ian. How on earth did you know?Happy Birthday Jorgen :thumbup: I hope I have the right date?
I realise that six candles are not quite a sufficient number for you today :ROTFL: ...
.... but, I thought that this image is fun
and the children were very noisy !!!
After I removed my birth date from FB, hardly anybody sends gratulations anymore. Says something about what those electronic crutches do with us, doesn't it :loco: :ROTFL: :chug:
apocolibri
Member
I fully agree, Ian. I wasn't aware of the Digital Imaging Processing Forum or I would have posted this topic there. Apologies.The title of this thread is:
'Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread '
As interesting and important as these technical discussions about de-noising are,
I'm not sure that they belong in 'Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread ';
I've always considered this thread predominently a place for ............... images
Such as that great shot of Larry's taken in the American Legion.
I realise that de-noising can be important to Micro Four Thirds users in particular,
so wouldn't this discussion be more appropriately placed in its own dedicated thread in 'Four Thirds Cameras'?
Or maybe for more general viewing, in the 'Digital Image Processing Forum' ?
I have to state my prejudice here: I am too lazy and incapable to do much post processing
and so it's not my personal idea of fun
How do we get it moved?
I was only thinking that the main complaint I read about the m43 format are the poor high iso results. By placing the topic here it would help those who need to shoot at higher iso, such as birding photographers.
On the other hand, I have posted images showing how noise is mitigated by this software at iso's as high as 40,000 so that aspect of the topic does conform to the parameters of an "image thread."
But yes, this topic should be moved.
Elderly
Well-known member
I've never been a member of FB, but iirc you posted it on this forum (hoping for birthday presents of some of the many cameras that you say you are very interested in and will buy next year? :ROTFL: