«

We all know that Canon applies copious noise reduction to its DSLR
image, a "feature" which cannot be turned off.

Obviously a desktop computer with essentially unlimited time can weild
a lot more power than a tiny, in-camera digital processor with little
to no time to work on the image. But I wondered, how much better is
the "save the NR for the desktop" approach?

Take a look...
http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/resolution_chart

It is clear that Foveon is cleaner at ISO 1600 than Canon at ISO 100
after both have NR applied.

Kibo informs me that (Georgette Preddy)
stated that:

>We all know that Canon [*SLAP!*]
....make cameras that have you drooling with envy.

[...]

>Take a look...
>http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/guestbook

Oh dear. Please feel free to ask us for tips George, we're here to help.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Georgette Preddy wrote:

> We all know that Canon applies copious noise reduction to its DSLR
> image, a "feature" which cannot be turned off.
>
> Obviously a desktop computer with essentially unlimited time can weild
> a lot more power than a tiny, in-camera digital processor with little
> to no time to work on the image. But I wondered, how much better is
> the "save the NR for the desktop" approach?
>
> Take a look...
> http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/resolution_chart
>
> It is clear that Foveon is cleaner at ISO 1600 than Canon at ISO 100
> after both have NR applied.

To those unfamiliar with George/Georgette Preddy, please ignore his
postings. If you read other postings by him you will find that
he, for some reason, has a fetish against Canon. He is also
extraordinarily pro Sigma/Foveon.

> We all know that Canon applies copious noise reduction to its DSLR
> image, a "feature" which cannot be turned off.

No, you're the only one who "knows" this. Actually you're full of ****
as usual.

> It is clear that Foveon is cleaner at ISO 1600 than Canon at ISO 100
> after both have NR applied.

More bovine excrement...

Hey Lionel,

Do you think these are the cross-gender Preddy Prats proffessional pictures
that he has sold? If so, then I am suprised at how good a photographer he
is.......


"Lionel" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Kibo informs me that (Georgette Preddy)
> stated that:
>
> >We all know that Canon [*SLAP!*]
> ...make cameras that have you drooling with envy.
>
> [...]
>
> >Take a look...
> >http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/guestbook
>
> Oh dear. Please feel free to ask us for tips George, we're here to help.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

You are sounding gay now.

Is it a true fact ? not biased ?
if yes, I might consider buying one Foveon sensor cam for concert shot .

=bob=

"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> We all know that Canon applies copious noise reduction to its DSLR
> image, a "feature" which cannot be turned off.
>
> Obviously a desktop computer with essentially unlimited time can weild
> a lot more power than a tiny, in-camera digital processor with little
> to no time to work on the image. But I wondered, how much better is
> the "save the NR for the desktop" approach?
>
> Take a look...
> http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/resolution_chart
>
> It is clear that Foveon is cleaner at ISO 1600 than Canon at ISO 100
> after both have NR applied.

On 22 May 2004 20:01:11 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

>We all know that Canon applies copious noise reduction to its DSLR
>image, a "feature" which cannot be turned off.

Please post a cite from a reliable source that supports your assertion
that the Canons apply "copious noise reduction"

GK
>
>Obviously a desktop computer with essentially unlimited time can weild
>a lot more power than a tiny, in-camera digital processor with little
>to no time to work on the image. But I wondered, how much better is
>the "save the NR for the desktop" approach?
>
>Take a look...
>http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/resolution_chart
>
>It is clear that Foveon is cleaner at ISO 1600 than Canon at ISO 100
>after both have NR applied.

Georgette Preddy wrote:

> We all know that Canon applies copious noise reduction to its DSLR
> image, a "feature" which cannot be turned off.
>
> Obviously a desktop computer with essentially unlimited time can weild
> a lot more power than a tiny, in-camera digital processor with little
> to no time to work on the image. But I wondered, how much better is
> the "save the NR for the desktop" approach?
>
> Take a look...
> http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/resolution_chart
>
> It is clear that Foveon is cleaner at ISO 1600 than Canon at ISO 100
> after both have NR applied.

I disagree concerning the computer's superiority in this application.
It appears you don't understand the Canon noise reduction and, as usual,
just want to promote the Foveon.

Kibo informs me that "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> stated that:

>Is it a true fact ? not biased ?
>if yes, I might consider buying one Foveon sensor cam for concert shot .

Don't. Preddy's a liar. The SD9 & 10 are both a particularly bad choice
for available light shooting, as they both have very poor quality at
high ISOs.

If you can afford one, I'd recommend a 300D or 10D, & a few fast prime
lenses. That's how I shoot my live gig photos:
<http://lo.ve.ly/gallery/TheChurch>
Those were all taken with the 10D at ISO 800 or 16000 & Canons cheapest
lens: the 50mm/F1.8II, which costs about $70USD.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------