Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Low noise or high resolution ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Low noise or high resolution ?

 
 
Morgan Ohlson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003
When looking at test images it's obvious that some digitals (<500$) in most
of the cases differ a lot in picture quality.

But, when judgeing the photos it's hard to compare

a) sharp images, but with some noise ...and
b) not as sharp pictures, but almost free from noise.

Since all cameras below 500$ can't have the top quality there must be som
trade-off's.


What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
resolution?

....are the two problems (noise or resolution) bigger or smaller on different
motifs or different picture use (inkjet, lab-copies, large magnifications) ?


Morgan O.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lucas Tam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003
"Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:zTdbb.29466$(E-Mail Removed):

> But, when judgeing the photos it's hard to compare
>
> a) sharp images, but with some noise ...and
> b) not as sharp pictures, but almost free from noise.


Just curious, which cameras are you looking at?

> Since all cameras below 500$ can't have the top quality there must be
> som trade-off's.
>
>
> What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
> resolution?


Depending on the amount of noise, I would tend to favour the higher
resolution camera. You can always clean up and shrink a higher resolution
photo. The downsampled photo will end up looking the same, or better
than a photo taken with a lower resolution camera.

Also, make sure you're comparing photos taken with the same settings in
the same conditions. Shutter speeds play a large part in the amount of
noise you get.

Anyhow, for ~400 - 500.00, you can get a very nice digital camera that
produce relatively low noise photos. Canon S400 takes some very nice
photos.
--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Marvin Margoshes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003

"Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:zTdbb.29466$(E-Mail Removed)...
> When looking at test images it's obvious that some digitals (<500$) in

most
> of the cases differ a lot in picture quality.
>
> But, when judgeing the photos it's hard to compare
>
> a) sharp images, but with some noise ...and
> b) not as sharp pictures, but almost free from noise.
>
> Since all cameras below 500$ can't have the top quality there must be som
> trade-off's.
>
>
> What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
> resolution?
>
> ...are the two problems (noise or resolution) bigger or smaller on

different
> motifs or different picture use (inkjet, lab-copies, large magnifications)

?
>
>
> Morgan O.
>
>

I don't think noise is much of a problem with curreent digicams, if the
lighting is adequate.

Sharpness depends on both the pixel count and the quality of the lens.

There are detailed comparisons of various camera at www.dpreview.com.


 
Reply With Quote
 
gr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2003
"Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
> resolution?


Lower resolution is more of a concern than noise, if you're planning to
print large sizes. You need resolution for a sharp image, and if you don't
have enough resolution it will look worse than any noise. Noise is generally
a non-issue for digital images unless you're taking pictures in dark areas
that require a long exposure.

If it's a choice between resolution or low-noise, go for the camera with
more resolution. You can always use software like NeatImage to remove noise,
or you can shrink the image in software and the noise will go away. But you
can't add resolution to a low-resolution image, even if it has low-noise.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Samuel Paik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2003
"Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
> resolution?


In my opinion, once you have adequate resolution, noise is a significant
issue.

Sam

who has some nice 8x11s from a 1.2 Mpel camera--they're not as sharp
as I'd like, but the thing I notice most is the amount of noise in
large monotone areas like the sky.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Morgan Ohlson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2003
"Lucas Tam" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns93FD7DD964DEnntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
> "Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:zTdbb.29466$(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > But, when judgeing the photos it's hard to compare
> >
> > a) sharp images, but with some noise ...and
> > b) not as sharp pictures, but almost free from noise.

>
> Just curious, which cameras are you looking at?
>
> > Since all cameras below 500$ can't have the top quality there must be
> > som trade-off's.
> >
> >
> > What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
> > resolution?

>
> Depending on the amount of noise, I would tend to favour the higher
> resolution camera. You can always clean up and shrink a higher resolution
> photo. The downsampled photo will end up looking the same, or better
> than a photo taken with a lower resolution camera.
>
> Also, make sure you're comparing photos taken with the same settings in
> the same conditions. Shutter speeds play a large part in the amount of
> noise you get.
>
> Anyhow, for ~400 - 500.00, you can get a very nice digital camera that
> produce relatively low noise photos. Canon S400 takes some very nice
> photos.


Take for instance Kodak 6340 (Kodak usually very low noise) and Casio
ExilimZ3 at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/Z3/Z3A.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DX6340/D63A.HTM
Look at the comparing house pictures (picture taken of a large poster)

1) Download house picture
2) Show in pic-view software (like Irfan View)
3) Cut out a smaller part from the picture (same for both cameras). When
looking at noise areas of smooth coloring is the best. (white parts or
windows in house picture)
4) Magnify on screen and show both photos side by side.

The carachter of the pictures is huge.

I don't say its a problem with noise, but there is absolutely large
differences in cameras.

I start almost all camera investigation at:
http://www.dcviews.com/page.htm (Review jump station)

Morgan O.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Morgan Ohlson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2003
"Samuel Paik" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> "Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > What should be considered most annoying, noticable noise or lower
> > resolution?

>
> In my opinion, once you have adequate resolution, noise is a significant
> issue.
>
> Sam
>
> who has some nice 8x11s from a 1.2 Mpel camera--they're not as sharp
> as I'd like, but the thing I notice most is the amount of noise in
> large monotone areas like the sky.


Since most people probably chose digicams in a price range, not top Fuji's
towards cheap Fuji's, almost all camera comparisons by customers is made
between cameras of the same Pix resolution.
Much control 3Mpix: Canon A70 vs Nikon CP3100 vs Pentax Optio330
Point & shoot 3Mpix: Kodak dx4330 vs Fuji A310 vs HP735

Because of this I was looking for some reflexions on the topic. I find your
answer to be the most rational one.

In many tests the topic of noise is only talked about when lighting is the
subject (max ISO-setting). Still some of the big manufacturers have much
noise in budget digicams (below <500$) and perhaps some reviewers are a
little bit too tolerant because of this.

I could understand if reviewers feel unconfortable to "kill-off" a modell
from a large, noble manufacturer. The fact remains. Some manufacturers seem
not to reach low levels of noise at in the budget range. The winners seem to
be: Canon, Fuji and Kodak.
....maybe Sony too.

Morgan O.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lucas Tam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2003
"Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:n3xbb.29574
$(E-Mail Removed):

> Take for instance Kodak 6340 (Kodak usually very low noise) and Casio
> ExilimZ3 at
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/Z3/Z3A.HTM
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DX6340/D63A.HTM
> Look at the comparing house pictures (picture taken of a large poster)


I think with these two cameras it has more to do with the sharpness of the
photograph than the noise. The differences between the CCD, Lens,
processing algorithms often produce two very different looking pictures.
Noise is only one factor.

I think the Kodak takes nicer pictures than the Casio Z3. Personally I
don't find Casio cameras all that great - except for their price. On the
other hand, I used to own a Kodak camera and found the colours and picture
quality to be top notch!

Actually, I like my old Kodak DC240 (1.3MP) more than my Fuji Finepix S602
(3.1MP)...

--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lucas Tam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2003
"Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Erxbb.29578$(E-Mail Removed):

> In many tests the topic of noise is only talked about when lighting is
> the subject (max ISO-setting). Still some of the big manufacturers
> have much noise in budget digicams (below <500$) and perhaps some
> reviewers are a little bit too tolerant because of this.


Well, honestly, the amount of noise between budget cameras is not all THAT
great... there are other (more important?) factors to consider like
features, lens quality, and color rendition.

Also, since most budget cameras do not have long shutter speeds, it makes
the matter of noise even less significant.

--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Morgan Ohlson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2003

"Lucas Tam" <(E-Mail Removed)> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns93FEB0B539B25nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130.. .
> "Morgan Ohlson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:n3xbb.29574
> $(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Take for instance Kodak 6340 (Kodak usually very low noise) and Casio
> > ExilimZ3 at
> > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/Z3/Z3A.HTM
> > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DX6340/D63A.HTM
> > Look at the comparing house pictures (picture taken of a large poster)

>
> I think with these two cameras it has more to do with the sharpness of the
> photograph than the noise. The differences between the CCD, Lens,
> processing algorithms often produce two very different looking pictures.
> Noise is only one factor.
>
> I think the Kodak takes nicer pictures than the Casio Z3. Personally I
> don't find Casio cameras all that great - except for their price. On the
> other hand, I used to own a Kodak camera and found the colours and picture
> quality to be top notch!
>
> Actually, I like my old Kodak DC240 (1.3MP) more than my Fuji Finepix S602
> (3.1MP)...


Pro's seem to get strongly biased in matters of color saturation and color
tone.

Perhaps one even could say that some get a little arrogant about that. Just
like every pro, to prove himself as a pro has to dislike some color tones.

I believe that one gets very much picture quality per $ from Kodaks. Pro
reviews often dislike their picture carachteristics wich I find strange.

I will look on mentioned pictures again to compare... perhaps you're wright
about the resolution.


Morgan O.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pcos low carb diet. Low carb diet program. Cholesterol low carb diet.Low carb diet foods. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb diabetes diet. Low fat high carb diet. The low carb diet.Low carb diet pregnancy. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low carb calorie diet. No low carb diet. Free low carb diet. Low carbdiet meal plan. zyraco C++ 0 11-10-2009 01:44 PM
Low Fat, Low Carb, Low Calorie and every other crazy fad diet youhave tried. ruxandra C++ 0 04-14-2009 07:00 PM
High-performance, low-noise heatsinks Jeff Conescu Computer Support 0 10-28-2004 12:00 PM



Advertisments