Canon's overly aggressive Noise Reduction vs a desktop PC

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Georgette Preddy, May 23, 2004.

  1. 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.
     
    Georgette Preddy, May 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Georgette Preddy

    Lionel Guest

    Re: Sigmas overly aggressive sharpening, that can't be turned off, vs a real DSLR.

    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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, May 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Georgette Preddy

    JohnJ Guest

    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.
     
    JohnJ, May 23, 2004
    #3
  4. > 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 shit
    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...
     
    Randall Ainsworth, May 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Georgette Preddy

    ferret Guest

    Re: Sigmas overly aggressive sharpening, that can't be turned off, vs a real DSLR.

    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
    > ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    ferret, May 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Georgette Preddy

    Bryce Guest

    You are sounding gay now.
     
    Bryce, May 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Georgette Preddy

    [BnH] Guest

    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:...
    > 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.
     
    [BnH], May 23, 2004
    #7
  8. 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.
     
    grant kinsley, May 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Georgette Preddy

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, May 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Georgette Preddy

    Lionel Guest

    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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, May 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Georgette Preddy

    Lionel Guest

    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 .


    Oh, I just noticed that you're a fellow Ozzie. :)
    For good local prices, check out www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au
    They're not always the cheapest in Oz, but they're consistantly cheaper
    than just about everyone else.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, May 23, 2004
    #11
  12. [BnH] wrote:
    > Is it a true fact ? not biased ?
    > if yes, I might consider buying one Foveon sensor cam for concert shot .


    Nowhere near the truth. Check the dpreview.com reviews yourself. Never
    trust anything Preddy writes, 99.99% of it is total BS, and on the
    remaining 0.01% he's just ignorant.

    -JP
     
    Jukka-Pekka Suominen, May 23, 2004
    #12
  13. (Georgette Preddy) wrote in
    news::

    > 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?


    I think you have missed something here. The Canon CMOS sensor
    output is very noise free - not due to some general noise reduction
    method. If that was the case, then you have a point. Now you don't.
    The Canon noise reduction method is based on meassuring the actual
    sensitivity of each sensor and compensate to make all sensors have
    the same sensitivity. This cannot be done afterwards - it must be
    made in the camera. And this kind of noise reduction does not blur
    the picture at all. It only improves the image.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, May 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Georgette Preddy

    DJ Guest

    On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:19:11 +1000, Lionel <> wrote:

    >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.


    Great shots! They prove how very useable the ISO1600 setting is on the 10D/300D!
     
    DJ, May 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Georgette Preddy

    m Ransley Guest

    Re: Sigmas overly aggressive sharpening, that can't be turned off,...

    As Georges Sigma stock suffers he continualy grabs at strings to sway
    the masses , Well those that learn, georgey , read the "Conclusion"
    section of all the unbiased camera test reports out there.
     
    m Ransley, May 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: Sigmas overly aggressive sharpening, that can't be turned off, vs a real DSLR.

    "ferret" <> wrote in message news:<c8pf2l$l8k$>...
    > 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.......


    Uh oh...
     
    Georgette Preddy, May 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Georgette Preddy

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that DJ <> stated that:

    >On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:19:11 +1000, Lionel <> wrote:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >Great shots! They prove how very useable the ISO1600 setting is on the 10D/300D!


    Thanks DJ. :)

    It's worth mentioning that none of those shots have been noise-reduced
    (I have NR switched off in C1), just Exp/Cont/Gamma adjusted, & some of
    them are crops. Other than that, they're straight out of the camera.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, May 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Georgette Preddy

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (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.


    What's that; lipstick, just above the red sample in the SD10 image?

    Why are you comparing images on one camera with no noise reduction
    software to images from another camera with noise reduction software?

    Where are the samples of 10D noise, with software noise reduction?

    With a flat, grey subject, you can't see detail loss from noise
    reduction.

    You are a flake; a charlatan. You wouldn't know true science if had a
    sign on it.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 27, 2004
    #18
  19. Charles Schuler, May 29, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daniel

    CD-ROM making aggressive buzzing noise

    Daniel, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,035
    Brian
    Jun 4, 2004
  2. n

    Canon 10D Noise Reduction Plugin

    n, Jan 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    494
  3. Iris Nadine Kartasasmita

    Canon S70: aggressive noise reduction?

    Iris Nadine Kartasasmita, Mar 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    465
    Iris Nadine Kartasasmita
    Mar 24, 2005
  4. John Navas

    Noise Reduction software (Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc.)

    John Navas, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    481
    John Navas
    Oct 19, 2007
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    390
Loading...

Share This Page