In-camera high ISO noise reduction & ACR

I've been involved in a discussion over on DPReview where someone believes that, when shooting with a Nikon dSLR (in this case a D7000, but the model isn't really important) high ISO NR is automatically applied in-camera directly to the raw file, and this will be carried over to any raw conversion software, including third-party software such as ACR/LR.
Now I do agree that even with NR switched off, Nikon do automatically apply some limited NR to high ISO images in-camera, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that this is not something that ACR would interpret, and so it would not actually have any effect on the appearance of the raw file when it's processed. In fact, if the high ISO NR is somehow embedded into the raw file, that would go against my whole concept of how a raw file works in a convertor such as ACR! Surely any "default" high ISO NR is just added to the proprietry part of the EXIF, and is therefore only factored in when using Nikon conversion software (ViewNX, etc)? Otherwise, the file could not truly be considered to be 'raw'.
I think I'm right, but wanted confirmation from some of the experts on here! And of course, I'm also quite happy to be proven wrong!
M

Noel Carboni wrote:
By the way, the reference I found for D7000 shows that the High ISO NR can be disabled. See this page: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/D7000A7.HTM
What camera do YOU have, Molly?
-Noel
Hi Noel,
Wow, I'm impressed with your efforts here! Your point about blurring being a potential sign of whether or not NR has been applied to the high ISO raw files is a good one, and I agree that, based on that thinking, the examples you've found don't really seem to show much evidence of that, particularly the shots of the focus/resolution target.
I do have a D7000; I replied as such back in post three ("yes I do" in response to your question "do you have such a camera?"), but I can see how that may not have been as clear as it should have been! I'm going to try some test shots myself to see if I can pick out any evidence of softening/blurring that may indicate NR being applied during the processing of the raw data. However, unfortunately my PC is currently being fixed as I've been having some hardware issues, so that testing won't be happening until I get it back (hoping within a week, missing it already).
Regarding your reference that indicates that high ISO NR can be switched off, yes it can, but apparently only up to a point - here's what it states in the Nikon manual (and what has in turn sparked off this discussion over on DPR):
"High ISO NR - option: off - Noise reduction is only performed at ISO sensitivities of ISO 1600 and higher. The amount of noise reduction is less than the amount performed when low is selected for High ISO NR" (as the article indicates, there are three options apart from off: high, normal, and low).
As I've said previously, my understanding was that all of that had zero bearing on the raw file once it was loaded into ACR: regardless of any NR settings applied in-camera, either by the user or by Nikon bypassing the user, they were all thrown away by the Adobe raw processing algorithms, as are things like picture controls, sharpening, contrast, etc. But following my recent discussion, I started to wonder if my understanding of the raw capture process was incorrect, hence this thread.
Thanks again for your work here. Above and beyond the call of duty!
M

Similar Messages

High ISO Noise Setting on 6D

Just got a 6D as a companion to my BMCC for when I need low light shots and wider shots. It's been a little while since I had my 5D MKIII and I am trying to remember how I had my camera set up for video. Right now I am trying to figure out if I need to have High ISO Noise Reduction set to off or another setting. I have heard from photographers that it can cause you to lose some detail, and it's best to address the noise in post. Since I will be shooting at higher ISOs I am wondering how I should set it. For those who shoot a lot of video, what has been your experience in different situations?
Also, what do you guys think about the current picture styles? I have heard a lot about Technicolor. People praise it a lot but I also hear that it has some noise problems. Would love to hear some opinons on current picture profiles.

See below for text from the 6D manual . This paragraph sounds like HINR is added to the metadata of a RAW file and not directly applied. It also could mean that LightRoom and Adobe RAW don't use this metadata? Does anyone know if this guess is correct?
EOS 6D Manual:
If you play back a RAW image with the camera or print an image directly, the effect of high ISO speed noise reduction may look minimal. Check the noise reduction effect or print noise-reduced images with Digital Professional (provided software).

High ISO noise handling

First, I must say thank you for DNG Profile Editor and generic Camera * profiles. You did really outstanding work!
The last part that we need to completely abandon Nikon Capture NX2 is better noise model for high ISO NEFs. Please see following samples how NX2 compares to ACR 5.2. For my eyes the NX2 render noise in very pleasing manner: fine and smooth texture. I didn't find way how to get similar results with ACR.
ACR 5.2: http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6147/acr52ba7.jpg
NX2: http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/2139/nx2fi6.jpg
Please see both images in 100% zoom.
Any chance to introduce NX2-like noise look into ACR?

>Jeff, you can say the same for example about capture sharpening.
No, you can't...noise is supper high frequency texture, edges in an image may or may not be high, medium or low frequency but most images do not contain super high frequency along the lines of the noise. Hence the ability to sharpen the edge and not the noise (and the ability ti reduce the noise) So, ignoring the capture sharpening is leaving image detail on the table, ignoring noise is not.
Some people fall in love with the film grain look of digital camera noise. It ain't film grain. If you like film grain you CAN put it in an image after the fact but noise simply breaks up the continuity of the photographic image.
In your posted example, you had noise eduction off and sharpening at default. Both of which combine to reduce the image quality you can get from that image. Considering the ACR was at default, I think it did pretty darn good against NX.
Again, you really need to understand what you think you are seeing. Everything you see on a computer display is 3-4 times as large as reality at a 100% zoom. It's meaningless if the final result is a print.

Any chance Photoshop itself will get Camera Raw's noise reduction and sharpening?

I would love to have the noise reduction and sharpening from ACR 6 in Photoshop itself for JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files. Yes, I know I can open those files in ACR, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and then have it then open the files to Photoshop. But it would be so nice if we could do that without having to go through Camera Raw.

Matt Howell wrote:
Yes, I am absolutely saying that the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR 6 is vastly superior to any filters in Photoshop CS5.
For those who only work only with RAW files this is a non-issue, but I sometimes prefer to use TIFF files generated by CANON DPP software or occasionally even JPEG's straight out of Canon DSLR's. Going through ACR just for noise reduction causes unnecessary color space conversions, as well as just a needlessly complex workflow.
Perhaps you should ask Canon to make DPP noise reduction better. I also do not think is a good idea to get too aggressive with noise reduction and sharpening when you first bring a image into Photoshop unless you only use the image single use for a particular output device. Your better off working with a somewhat soft image till you ready for output and then sharpen for the output devive being used. If you use strong sharpening and NR up front sharpeing again for your output device may produce unwanted sharpening and NR artifacts... There are several third party noise reduction and sharpening plug-ins that are better then Adobe Photoshop built in ones. Noise reduction has to be balanced too much will loose detail masking detail is important. ACR noise reduction provides masking adjustments and works well. Third party plug-ins offer offer advanced masking features also. Photoshop noise reduction filter has a basic preserve detail slider which I presumes does some kind of masking but this is not as good at ACR masking and third paty masking. You can of course add you own masking before using photoshop noise reduction filter. Sharpening also needs masking for sarpening will sharpen noise as well as detail.
IMO your better off with third party plug-ins that are designed to be the best. They keep getting better there is no clear winner for all images. I'm been satisfied with NeatImage and I have only had to pay for two upgrades. I had to pay for the addition the 32 bit plugin then and for the addition a 64 bit plugin. All other updates to NeatImage has been free of charge even the lates version 7 of the 64 bit plugin was no charge for me.

High ISO noise

Anybody else getting nasty noise in high ISO images, especially in the dark areas? I know ISO 1600 is going to be noisy, but when I process such an image in Aperture, it's ugly.

Running the image through Noise Ninja (which is excelent, of course) either a Photoshop plug-in or directly through the stand-alone NN, is clunky and obviates one of the claimed advantages of Aperture: it saves the master and some (small) parameterization of the changes that have been made. If you run an image through an external editor, it must save the whole result (I think as a new master).
The conclusions are not only that Aperture should support plug-ins - but the plug-in interface needs to be pretty sophisticated to retain the Aperture advantages. It must return a succinct parameterization of the changes made.
The Aperture noise reduction is essentially dysfunctional. It is not nearly as good as Adobe, which is not nearly as good as NN. Even if NN was licensed to Apple and built into Aperture, I think there would be a problem: one pays for the quality of NN in computation - if Aperture had to redo the NN modifications to the master every time the was displayed, one would probably want at least an eight processor G5! (Or whatever the Intel equivalent would be.)
PowerMac G5 2 x 2.3 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.3) Canon 20D

In-camera noise reduction

This question is directed to the technically knowledgeable out there and has to do with in-camera noise reduction settings. Although I'm shooting with a 1D4, I would guess the same would apply to all models. In a nutshell, is in-camera noise reduction (assuming it's enabled) applied to RAW files or just to JPEGs? If it's applied to RAW files (which is all I shoot), have any of you shot RAW with noise reduction disabled, and if so, how were the results? I tried to do a search here on this topic but was unable to find any information. Thanks.

hsbn wrote:
No, with all due respects, it is Long Exposure NR. Why would it make it worst with High ISO if it is "High ISO Noise Reduction".
6D Manual page: 128 - 129
5D Mark III manual page 144-145
"Images taken at ISO 1600 or higher may look grainier with the [Enable] setting than with the [Disable] and [Auto] setting"
With Auto setting, camera will not do LENR if the ISO is higher than 1600.
I've tested this and it's give many kind of artifact with high ISO from time to time. Others it just gives more noise.
Hi,
- Great to know, thanks! It's very surprising indeed.
LENR is supposed to remove hot pixels and noise due to long exposure. It's (sadly) surprising the in-cameras LENR may be worse than in post...
We'll take a review about it , since shooting long exposure at higher than ISO 1600 is not uncommon for astro photography.
I think 5D Mark 2 didn't have this "problem". Will check that too.
- The manual tells that in-camera High ISO NR applied is lower at high ISO than the NR that can be applied in post, not "worse", sorry, my mistake.
Thanks once again.
EDIT: The User manual of 5D Mark 2 doesn't tell anything about this matter. The manual of 7D does, as well as 6D and 5D3 as you mentioned.
Since I used to work with 5D2 I didn't realize the 5D3 could be different. Or at least the manual of 5D2 doesn't say the final result of LENR at 1600 or higher could be worse. Good thing to keep in mind.
Sitll doesn't understand why the result "may" be worse, the 5D3 has enormous computing potential with the Digic 5+
This seems to only affect if LENR is set to "ON" / "Enabled", not to "Auto". Very likely a more agressive NR is applied in such case.
We'll carry some test indeed.
EDIT 2:
In just brief tests with the 5D Mark 3 we found some inconsistency on the results between setting Long Exposure NR to "OFF", "Auto" & "On".
We set High ISO NR, Peripheral Illumination Correction and Chromatic Aberrations to OFF, to see only the effect of LENR in JPG (not RAW yet).
This camera (5D3) applies High ISO NR even when you set it to OFF (very noticeable in video mode).
At ISO 6400 we didn't see a hot /stuck pixel (even when LENR set to "OFF") that appears at ISO 3200 when setting LENR to OFF or Auto. Of course "ON" deletes all hot /stuck pixels, but also increaed grain.
We all already know that the more the sensor heats up (shooting and shooting long exposure stills - or using Live View for stills or video), the more noise we'll get in the pictures (and video).
So far we couldn't get a "rule". Sometimes the "Auto" works better than "ON", it seems it depends on the selected ISO value and how hot is the sensor too.
I pesonally don't understand WHY the LENR delivers more grainy images when set to "ON", if the NR is more agressive the grain should be finer than in "OFF" or "Auto", so it doesn't make sense...
We'll test the 5D Mark 2 to compare with 5D3 in this regard
HD Cam Team
Group of photographers and filmmakers using Canon cameras for serious purposes.
www.hdcamteam.com | www.twitter.com/HDCamTeam | www.facebook.com/HDCamTeam

Noise reduction applied to high ISO .tif files in ACR 4.1?

Evidently ACR 4.1 applies noise reduction to high ISO raw files from Canon cameras, even when noise reduction is turned "off" in the plug-in (and this results in smeared detail). I have a 5D that I bought specifically for its lack of noise in high ISO files, and I don't want a software program forcing me into using noise reduction and ruining all those marvelous details in my high ISO raw files. Can someone tell me if there is a similar problem with ACR 4.1 if you open a .tif file with it? If not, I'm thinking I'm going to use Canon DPP 3.02 to convert my raw files to .tif, and then use ACR 4.1 to quickly adjust exposure, black point, etc., all of which is awkward and slow in DPP 3.02.
Rob

No, although ACR v4.1 does apply some baseline noise reduction to many raw files, I do not think that it applies any default NR to TIF files. Lightroom v1.1 does not apply any noise-reduction to TIF or JPG files by default, at least as far as I've noticed, so I believe this will likely carry over to ACR v4.1 as well. Of course you *can* turn the NR sliders up from zero and then it will! In any case, you'd be advised to test that theory yourself just to make sure, before designing a workflow around that assumption...

ACR v4.1 vs v4.0: baseline high ISO NR - Part 1

Hi there,
I have been participating in a couple of threads in both this forum and the Lightroom forum with regards to additional "baseline" noise-reduction that appears to be happening on high ISO Canon files. To start, here are the links to the other threads:
ACR Forum (I started that thread):
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc4323e/
Lightroom Forum:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc44a00/
Here is a summery of the issues as I see them so far:
1) I, and numerous other photographers, are objecting to what appears to be additional baseline smoothing being done to high ISO raw files in ACR v4.1, even with the luminance NR slider at zero. Most users complaining appear to be shooting with Canon.
2) At issue is the (apparent) smearing of some micro-detail due to noise-reduction and an overall artificial looking rendering of detailed scenes when examined closely. In addition, out of focus details can start looking a little posterized and indeed, I have seen that all of the above effects can be worsened by the new sharpening controls, if one is not careful in their application.
3) Not all users are unhappy with this new processing.
4) I asserted that previous versions of camera raw did not appear to do additional ISO dependent smoothing but was corrected by Thomas Knoll who indicated that they did. Regarding this, I now have confirmed that indeed he is absolutely correct (as he should be!), but the effect is far more subtle in comparison to what ACR v4.1 is doing.
6) While this might all be construed as "pixel-peeping", several of us have confirmed that the effect is also visible in larger prints. In addition, some users (myself included) are unhappy with this apparent new "direction" that Adobe is taking since many felt that in the past that ACR produced the best compromise raw conversions - lots of fine detail preserved without any *obvious* smoothing. Without the ability to disable (or minimize) this smoothing, one is now forced to live with the default levels of NR on high ISO files in ACR v4.1.
7) While I claimed that I could not see this smoothing effect in other raw files from a Fuji S5 Pro, a Nikon D2X and a Leica M8 at higher ISO's, I am now beginning to think that the "chunkiness" of the noise in some of these other cameras might simply be making the new high-ISO smoothing less effective and thus less visible than it is on Canon raw files since ISO 1600 noise it quite tight and fine on my EOS-30D and most other Canons tested.
8 ) Further to point 7, Thomas Knoll also indicated that it was only Bayer-pattern sensors that "benefited" from this new raw conversion. That is why my initial testing did not show the Fuji S5 Pro (which has a complex hexagonal array Super CCD and not a simple rectangular array sensor) to suffer these same effects.
9) I presume this ACR comparison to hold true for Lightroom v1.0 compared to v1.1 as well.
In any case, what I have done is take a several ISO 1600 images from my EOS-30D and one ISO 1600 image from a D2X and make two versions of each image. One is the original CR2 or NEF file and the second, I used "exifedit" softare to modify the EXIF "iso-speed" field so that it no longer reads 1600, but rather 100. Opening these two versions of each raw file will show if there is any additional high-ISO-dependent differences in the raw conversions.
Indeed both ACR v4.0 and ACR v4.1 show a greater degree of noise reduction on the original ISO 1600 versions than when they are "tricked" into thinking the raw was shot at ISO 100. The effect is much greater in ACR v4.1 however and was immediately apparent to me within seconds of opening my first high ISO raw file. However with previous versions of ACR, it was so subtle that I never noticed it at all.
[...continued, with samples in next posting]

[Part 2 ...continued from previous post]
I have assembled several PSD files, each with 4 layers labeled as such (with description following the -->):
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> same raw file but with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.0
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> raw file with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.0
In both versions of ACR, the luminance NR slider was at zero, the chroma at the default of 25 and all the sharpening off or minimized. I have not found the chroma NR slider to have any visible impact to actual image detail, at least not in any of these samples, so I left it at 25. White balance was As-Shot and other controls at default/zero. No additional processing or sharpening was applied to any of the samples, apart from cropping the image to make it smaller for download.
Here are the samples:
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/D2X_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.39 Mb) An ISO 1600 D2X raw comparison. I use the word "blur" since we are looking at an out-of-focus background portion of the shot. Sadly the shot has no truly sharp detail to compare.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(6.06 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. Included to have a similar image to compare to the Nikon.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Outdoor_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(13.14 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The outdoor shot I had linked to in my other posts.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Statue_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.79 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The indoor Las Vegas statue shot I had linked to in my other posts.
The above files are just crops from the original full images. Decompress the zip and open them up in Photoshop, either at 100% or 200%. Simply check and uncheck each layer as needed to make comparisons between the different versions. When comparing, you might try to apply a small amount of sharpening (one pass of "Sharpen" for example) equally to each layer as the differences might become more apparent. Also, people viewing the samples on a CRT might find the differences less obvious than those using an LCD display.
My conclusions are as follows:
1) I believe that ACR v4.1 is indeed doing additional "baseline" smoothing of high ISO files. This is most apparent on the Canon examples but the noise is so coarse on the D2X file that is hard to be certain whether (a) there is no additional smoothing on the high ISO version, or (b) whether the smoothing is of insufficient strength (or radius?) to be clearly visible.
2) I personally believe there to be a slight reduction in "micro-detail" when using "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600". On some images more so than on others. In addition, there is a "smoothed" and "edge-detected" look to small details as well as some slight "furriness" where the NR algorithm appears to be deciding where edges of detail are and where smoothing should occur.
3) More to point #2, I prefer all three other versions of the converted files. That is, to my eye, the worst looking ones are "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600", at least on the Canon files.
4) However the very best version, when all aspects of image quality are being considered, is the "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100" version! The ever-so-slight reduction in overall noise does not appear to affect micro-detail to any significant extent, yet there is a significant reduction in "white-specks" in darker areas (especially after post-sharpening) and certain areas of color in the images are identified and rendered better - the last item being really hard to describe. Look at the dark engraved lines on the head of the statue: ACR v4.0 fills them in as slightly "reddish" whereas in ACR v4.1 they are black and look more "normal" to me. On the outside shot, looking and the red brick colour of the wall in the distance (the one with all the patios on the right), ACR v4.1 seems to better identify where the colour should be, whereas ACR v4.0 slightly desaturates portions of that wall between floors.
5) Further to point 4 is that indeed there is obviously some very complex processing going on, and if one could reduce the level of NR on an ISO 1600 file, down to the level which ACR uses when fooled into thinking it is an ISO 100 file, I would certainly be quite happy with the results. I imagine many others would be too...
6) Finally, this effect will certainly not be visible in smaller prints however the more you push a file (for example a 20x30 print from a 30D will have a source resolution of about 117dpi) or if you end up cropping an image, thereby increasing the overall magnification and thus also the defects, well then those processing artifacts can become visible upon close and critical inspection - large prints of landscapes for example.
My humble request:
In ACR v4.2 or LR v1.2, please have the luminance NR slider, when set to zero, have the same degree of effect as when an ISO 1600 file is processed as though it were ISO 100. Alternatively, put in a "Preserve all texture detail" checkbox in the detail section that does the same thing. That way we'll have the best of both worlds: for some types of images, one can use this new-found intelligent NR but for those where the most natural look and finest detail is of utmost importance, we can turn it off - or at least reduce it to more-or-less the same level as previous versions of ACR.
In general, the new NR processing does seem quite "intelligent" and is a big step up from the previous version's crude luminance slider. I certainly do not want to change back to the old system as there are many real and visible benefits to the processing in the new ACR! In addition, the new sharpening controls are also a big step up from previous version, offering much more fine control and less artifacting, when used judiciously.
However, please leave the majority of sharpening and noise-reduction decisions to the individual user. That way, one can selectively apply these effects in layers or by using the history brush. I would be equally unhappy if suddenly there was an aggressive new baseline sharpening applied to all raw conversions, when the sharpening controls were at zero!
I realize now that maybe there never was a true "zero" in NR and sharpening, but with previous versions of ACR, this processing appeared to be very subtle and lent itself very well to post-NR and post-sharpening. This is why, even after trying out virtually every other raw converter made, I always came back to Adobe Camera Raw, time and time again.
Please don't give up on progress and on new and innovative ways to improve ACR, but also please don't take away those qualities that have made a legion of photographers use Adobe Camera Raw as their raw converter of choice!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander
http://www.sublimephoto.com

Noise Reduction and RAW

I use a Rebel T4i, but the model really should not matter I think.
When Hi ISO or Long Exposure Noise Reduction is set does it apply to RAW?
I am under the impression that RAW get no additional processing. But I'm learning to look at my images in new ways. Something doesn't add up. It seems like the noise reduction is applied to RAW images. My mind is going to explode pretty soon if somebody doesn't set me straight.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Long exposure noise reduction is applied directly to RAW. It's "destructive", burnt into the file. It takes the noise readings from the second "dark" shot and subtracts them from the first image, and creates a single RAW out of it.
High ISO noise on the other hand is just listed as a setting. Programs like Lightroom will ignore it, but some programs, like Canon's DPP will apply it on import. I don't use it so I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine that you can adjust it since it's just a setting.

Very neat algorithm for noise reduction for high ISO

I thought of this algorithm for the suppression of parasitic points occurring at high ISO
ISO 6400
before
http://i053.radikal.ru/1009/26/ba1c56f4837b.jpg
after
http://s56.radikal.ru/i153/1009/73/ffcdcd185821.jpg
Operation for photoshop, but for the Russian version and the English version must rename the layers ...
http://rapidshare.com/files/417172652/Noise15.atn
P.S.
Maybe it will help you to further improve noise reduction algorithms

Hi travojed !
Thank you for your message
I came to the conclusion that the high level "Median" (or "Dust&Scratches") destroys parts in this algorithm.
And it seemed to me that the best result (when the contours remain sharp) will be if, instead of a "median" using the Topaz Denoize (Raw-moderate), because Topaz protects the sharp contours in this algorithm.
Example (at full resolution - copy the address into a separate window)
(RAW 6400)
before
http://s57.radikal.ru/i157/1009/73/ec1fbac57a83.jpg
after
http://s43.radikal.ru/i101/1009/fd/c30219adfc74.jpg
P.S.
I do not recommend using a constant value "Threshold" because at different values of the ISO get different noises
travojed If you give me your example of a noisy image, I can see how best to remove the noise

Noise reduction f(ISO,Camera) ?

Could there be some kind of "Preset"
(I could prepare for my husband/wife)
so that images from a basic camera
are imported with preset noise reduction ?
I would adjust NR parameters for different ISOs.
Kind of Lens Correction f(F,f,Camera).
Out-of-pipeline ?

If you so elect in the preferences to apply default development actions by ISO AND by Camera, you can re-save your defaults using a series of shots at each ISO setting for that camera. Then when you import from that camera, LR will check the ISO and apply whatever you had previously set for defaults for that camera/ISO combination. I use this for my two cameras and it works great. I keep a separate folder for "default setting images" whereby I can always return to them if I determine I want to change my defaults moving forward.
It works well but be sure to save a default for each possible ISO setting.
Jeff

Sony a700 cRAW files - excessive noise at higher ISO settings

I have found an issue when using the cRAW file format of my Sony a700 in Aperture. If I use ISO 800 or higher, I see "red speckle" (i.e. red pixels) artifacts and higher than expected colour noise in dark or shadow areas of images. The level of noise is very noticeable and is difficult to remove completely without loosing detail. However, if I take an image of the same scene under the same conditions and exposure settings, except using the RAW format, then the red speckle artifacts are virtually non existent, and the colour noise is very much reduced. I tried the same "experiment" using Lightroom, and there is no discernible difference between cRAW and RAW files, so it definitely seems an issue with the way Aperture converts the cRAW files. Of course the short term solution is simply for me to use the RAW instead of cRAW, but IMO a longer term fix from Apple is needed. Has anybody else noticed this problem?

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

Problems sharpening high ISO-files from Sony A700 in ACR 4.2

According to the reported problems with sharpening/noise-reduction high ISO-RAWs from Canon-cameras, the same issue seams to appear on ARW-Files of the Sony alpha 700.
Many of A700-users claim, that the pictures show a sort of watercolour effect. These effect will be the more recognizable, the higher the ISO-setting at the camera was. To explain what I mean, heres a 100%-crop of an shot at ISO 1600:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The writing seems somehow rough; there are a lot oft artifacts at the edges. Settings were:
Basic: Dynamic/Vibrance 0
Detail: Amount 33%, Radius 0.6, Detail 0 (!), Masking 20, Luminance 14, Color 10.
(The edges would have been much rougher, if I had set Detail to 25 (default) ore more.)
And here is what the Sony Image Data Converter did:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The edges are clear, I cant see any artifacts.
Now my questions:
Is this problem typical for the Sony A700 or does it appear to other cameras too?
How can I avoid this problem using ACR 4.2? I really dont want to use the Sony-Converter, because its slow and complex to handle.
Which are the best settings for sharpening and NR files from the A700 in ACR 4.2?
Please excuse my English Im German.
Anna

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

Canon 5D2 ACR chroma/luminance noise reduction

Admitting to being somewhat lazy w/respect to experimentation, can anyone recommend chroma/luminance noise reduction settings in ACR for the 5D2, as a function of ISO?

Well, if we deal with the subject here at this level of details, then I need to add some points:
1. For the advanced digital photographer: if a lower ISO is enough for a correct exposure, but one is aiming at achieving "exposure to the right", then it is useful to turn up the ISO
i without reducing the exposure
in order to "get to the right edge".
2. Mitigating the above: the vast majority of cameras do not have true 1/3 stop ISO steps, i.e. there is no analog gain associated with the 1/3 steps; they are achieved by numeric manipulation of the nearest (lower or higher) full stop ISO result. For example from the Canons, only the 1Dxxx models support real 1/3 step ISOs.
There is no point of using these ISO steps with raw data.
3. Almost all cameras offer high ISOs, which are fake, i.e. numerical derivations of lower ISOs; in some cases they are
b not only
those characterized as "High", "Extention", etc. For example ISO 12800 and 25600 are marked as "high" with the Canon 5DMkII, but in reality already 6400 is fake.
There is no point of using these ISO steps with raw data (yes, I wrote this already).
4. The top
b useful
ISO is usually even lower. For example the graphs in http://www.panopeeper.com/Demo/Canon5DMkII_Noise.GIF show, that the loss from 1600 to 3200 with the 5DMkII is precisely one stop, i.e. there is no point to use ISO 3200 with raw data. Some other cameras can not utilize even lower ISO settings in raw (the usefulness of those settings is when recording JPEG in-camera).
Using those ineffective ISO steps causes cutting off the one stop of the dynamic range with each ISO stop.
This is an ACR forum, thus these issues are off-topic, but so much can be perhaps tolerated.

High ISO or Push The RAW File? (ACR/LR has a problem here!!)

This topic has been discussed numerous times.
Should you shoot with high ISO or can you just push the exposure in your RAW converter?
What looks better?
What has more noise?
I tested. Nikon D300, shot inside, crappy tungsten light. Each scene I shot with a higher ISO and with the same aperture and shutter speed one stop lower ISO.
For instance:
- f/4, 1/80s, ISO800
- f/4, 1/80s, ISO1600
Now I went in ACR 5.2 and pushed the lower ISO shot 1 stop. Noise Reduction all off.
Here are the results:
- In ACR pushing 1 stop isn't enough. You need to push somewhat around 1.3 stops
- The color shifts in the pushed shot - more saturation, more contrast. Wood for instance gets significantly redder.
- Noise stays virtually the same!
Hmmm. So what would Nikon Capture NX 2 do? Again, NR all off.
That's what happens:
- Pushing 1 stop is enough. It does exactly what you'd expect.
- Color stays exactly the same.
- Noise stays exactly the same.
The shots are virtually indistinguishable!!
So what about 2 stops?!
The exact same results. The "problem" in ACR magnifies, you need to push around 2.6 to get there and saturation and contrast shift significantly now, to an extent where clipping and blocking happens.
Capture NX on the other hand again works flawlessly. No difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 400 pushed 2 stops. Noise? The same. Shadows? The same. Colors? The same.
Shadows don't get lost any more in an underexposed shot that's pushed 2 stops than they are in a shot with ISO two stops higher!
Very interesting. So with NX you could probably shoot the whole evening on ISO 200 and then push it later. Unfortunately NX can only go +2 stops ...
Last comment here:
Adobe need to do some homework here. A lot that is. The non linear increase of exposure, the shift in color and saturation and also the severe, blocky color noise that ACR/LR show in very high ISO shots are way below what we can expect.
Do you trust me or do I need to post the shots?
Cheers!
Thomas

Jeff Schewe says:
"Of course I don't trust you ..."
Sorry, it took me a while, but here are the shots. Initially I did a more sloppy handheld test but I wanted to do it right and now used a tripod and cropped exactly.
http://www.gg-images.us/misc/isovsev
The image names show the ISO, if it says -1 or -2 it means it was 1 or 2 stops underexposed and then pushed accordingly in the RAW converters.
The RAW files are at http://www.gg-images.us/misc/isovsev/raw
Lee Jay says:
"The "exposure" slider in LR/Camera Raw isn't a pure raw*2^exposure, and this is quite intentional."
And why is this so? And what is the intention?
Gordon McKinney says:
"And remember, the camera does an electronic amplification "push" of exposure on the sensor. It should perform better than software since it provide the A/D converts more signal to work with. ..."
The results from Capture NX look as if the software is doing just as good as the in-camera "push" that high ISO does.
Thomas

In-camera high ISO noise reduction & ACR

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for