File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
It's over. DSLRs are finished.

I got some RAWs shot with a Sony A700 to see if it's worth buying. It looks like Sony internally applies some fugly noise reduction to RAW files, and the result is barely salvageable with NeatImage since a lot of detail is already destroyed.
What the fuck, doesn't applying NR like that defeat the purpose of RAW? How do I got non-shit RAWs from A700?

Pic converted with Adobe Camera Raw with all noise reduction settings set to 0, no further editing.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:11:18 14:23:59Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/5.0Brightness-0.9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1054Image Height791RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHard
>> Anonymous
what were you shooting on, iso 3200?

also >Sony A700

might have something to do with it.

in before butterfly.
>> Anonymous
>>92038

holy crap, didn't see the exif data.

*6400* ISO RATING?? WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING??
>> Anonymous
>>92038
I chose the worst shot I have (at ISO 6400) so the effect is more obvious. But the same faggotry appears at lower sensitivities too, down to 800.
>> Anonymous
>>92040

... most people don't shoot at iso 800 if they can help it.

fuck. I shoot at 400 or less unless there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE. (rebel xt)

Get some lenses with lower f/stops. Much preferable to higher iso's.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
For reference, that's how noise should look like in RAW. See the difference? This image cleans up much more nicely with NeatImage, too.
>> Anonymous
>>92041
I already have a f/2.8 standard zoom for my current camera, can't go any lower. Well, there are a couple ridiculous f/2 zooms by Olympus, but fuck that shit.

And I often shoot at ISO 800 or 1600, then run RAW images through NeatImage or NoiseNinja and get results totally acceptable for smaller prints.
>> Anonymous
>>92044

well, if it works for you fine.

But I think it's pretty common knowledge that you're going to get noise at 800 and up.

Bitching about shitloads of noise at iso 6400 is like diving into the ocean and complaining that you got wet.
>> Anonymous
>>92045
If you read what I originally posted, I'm not bitching about shitloads of noise. I'm bitching about Sony applying bad software noise reduction in RAW files (that are supposed to contain RAW DATA FROM THE SENSOR WITHOUT IN-CAMERA PROCESSING KTHX)
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>92049
are you 100% certain that its had in camera noise reduction applied? as it been at a ridiculously high ISO, it may be similar to Nikon's ISO High+ thingie, where it simulates the higher ISO by applying gain to the stop below. Therefore that 'NR' that you complain about may or may not be just digital gain.
So i ask you; are you 100% sure that its NR?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92049
1. I don't see how this means "DSLRs are finished". Maybe "The Sony A700 is finished"
2. Are you sure that's bad noise reduction? Are you sure that's not, say, a complete lack of noise reduction? Or bad noise reduction from whatever software you use to process the RAW?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
*i have only just woken up to find this at the top <3

The A700 does have onboard bizonic NR which I think is done to every image and isnt usercontrolled.

You're a dumb troll and I'm tired, go away.
>> Anonymous
>>92051
>>92052
Just compare the noise in OP pic to the second one.

Fine noise specks, no more than a few pixels in size = normal noise produced by a Bayer-type sensor.
Blotches of color that look like a Pointilist painting = noise smeared with bad NR
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
also (to now be usefull)

I'm going to go into town and borrow an A700, stick in my CF and take some shots to test out the noise and the NR. If you've all been good people I might even be bothered to take some shots with my A100 to see how the noise differs.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92053
>onboard bizonic NR which I think is done to every image and isnt usercontrolled.

So there's absolutely no way to disable it if I want to apply my own NR later? That's retarded.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:06:17 19:31:08Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width432Image Height456
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92057
I went to the internets and downloaded a random A100 raw shot at high sensitivity. It seems to be OK.

<-- Again, converted with all noise reduction in ACR at zero.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)157 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:11:18 16:08:16Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/6.3Brightness3.9 EVExposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length105.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width839Image Height629RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHard
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
ISO 800
Alpha 100
no NR

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image IDf468f40cb2593dc6e6385662c9a229b8
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
>>92064
thats ISO 1600

ISO 800

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID354212406125b4b6f8e3c8081406f2c8
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
ISO 400

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID219989045188cd54824d5a4242261fe5
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
     File :-(, x)
>>92041
I don't see ISO1600 being any problem even without any special noise reduction softwares.

This one might be a bad example, but it has also been "pushed" to match ISO6400.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerLauri KosonenMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:11:18 16:51:45Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias-2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width427Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
     File :-(, x)
>>92071

Also, this. (Without pushing or pulling.)
Hardly noticable noise.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerLauri KosonenMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:11:13 19:31:09Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width427Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>92071
>>92072
if youre pixel peeping for noise, it doesnt count when you size it down that much.