Digital camera noise reduction idea

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Viator, Dec 2, 2007.

  1. Viator

    Viator Guest

    I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    internal origin (the circuits) or optical.

    But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    have a digital camera.
    Viator, Dec 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Viator

    Marra Guest

    It wont make any difference as the internal electronics are low
    impedance anyway.

    The noise is caused by the semiconductor material not outside
    interference.
    Marra, Dec 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Viator

    acl Guest

    On Dec 3, 3:42 am, Marra <> wrote:
    > It wont make any difference as the internal electronics are low
    > impedance anyway.
    >
    > The noise is caused by the semiconductor material not outside
    > interference.


    Part of it is also inherent in the incoming signal (because at low
    enough levels the photon's discreteness is important).
    acl, Dec 3, 2007
    #3
  4. Viator

    Didi Guest

    On Dec 3, 1:00 am, Viator <> wrote:
    > I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    > reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    > electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    > just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    > the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    > that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    > internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >
    > But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    > have a digital camera.


    No, it will not work. A tinfoil hat on the operators head
    might be a more useful idea, though...

    Dimiter
    Didi, Dec 3, 2007
    #4
  5. Viator

    EAL Guest

    On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:00:14 -0800 (PST), Viator
    <> wrote:

    >I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    >reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    >electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    >just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    >the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    >that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    >internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >
    >But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    >have a digital camera.


    The noise comes from the sensor and the electronics, not from radio
    signals around you.

    You can reduce noise by cooling the camera. That reduces in the sensor
    and electronics. Don't cool below freezing, though, because then the
    battery will fail.

    Ed
    EAL, Dec 3, 2007
    #5
  6. Viator

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Viator wrote:
    > I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    > reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    > electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    > just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    > the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    > that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    > internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >
    > But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    > have a digital camera.


    I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 3, 2007
    #6
  7. Viator

    Ron Hunter Guest

    EAL wrote:
    > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:00:14 -0800 (PST), Viator
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    >> reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    >> electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    >> just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    >> the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    >> that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    >> internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >>
    >> But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    >> have a digital camera.

    >
    > The noise comes from the sensor and the electronics, not from radio
    > signals around you.
    >
    > You can reduce noise by cooling the camera. That reduces in the sensor
    > and electronics. Don't cool below freezing, though, because then the
    > battery will fail.
    >
    > Ed


    It is true that even a small reduction in the temperature of the sensor
    can greatly lower noise. However, one runs into power problems (lithium
    batteries can help), and condensation problems when the camera is
    returned to room temperatures.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 3, 2007
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital Didi <> wrote:
    > On Dec 3, 1:00 am, Viator <> wrote:


    >> I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    >> reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    >> electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    >> just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    >> the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    >> that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    >> internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >>
    >> But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    >> have a digital camera.


    > No, it will not work. A tinfoil hat on the operators head
    > might be a more useful idea, though...


    It would help if the tinfoil was very thick, say an inch, and deep
    frozen first before applying it to the camera half an hour before
    taking a photograph.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 3, 2007
    #8
  9. Viator

    irwell Guest

    On 3 Dec 2007 10:20:07 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    wrote:

    >In rec.photo.digital Didi <> wrote:
    >> On Dec 3, 1:00 am, Viator <> wrote:

    >
    >>> I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    >>> reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    >>> electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    >>> just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    >>> the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    >>> that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    >>> internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >>>
    >>> But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    >>> have a digital camera.

    >
    >> No, it will not work. A tinfoil hat on the operators head
    >> might be a more useful idea, though...

    >
    >It would help if the tinfoil was very thick, say an inch, and deep
    >frozen first before applying it to the camera half an hour before
    >taking a photograph.

    He could also mount a high powered phase cancellation oscillator
    on the camera.
    irwell, Dec 3, 2007
    #9
  10. Viator

    Viator Guest


    > No, it will not work. A tinfoil hat on the operators head
    > might be a more useful idea, though...


    I appreciate your maturity.
    Viator, Dec 4, 2007
    #10
  11. Viator

    Viator Guest


    > I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.


    Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.
    Viator, Dec 4, 2007
    #11
  12. On Dec 3, 10:00 am, Viator <> wrote:
    > I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    > reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    > electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    > just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    > the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    > that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    > internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >
    > But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    > have a digital camera.


    The "noise" does not come from external "signal noise", so shielding
    it will do nothing.

    Dave.
    David L. Jones, Dec 4, 2007
    #12
  13. Viator

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Viator wrote:
    >> No, it will not work. A tinfoil hat on the operators head
    >> might be a more useful idea, though...

    >
    > I appreciate your maturity.
    >


    Thanks. When one asks such a question one should be open to some ridicule.
    It tends to promote rational thinking, and some research before posting.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 4, 2007
    #13
  14. Viator

    Guest

    On Dec 3, 9:04 pm, Viator <> wrote:
    > > I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.

    >
    > Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.


    Dealing with retarded ideas from clueless people is the leftover
    meatloaf of life.
    Oh, BTW *light* IS electromagnetic!
    , Dec 4, 2007
    #14
  15. Viator

    Brian MW0GKX Guest

    "Viator" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I was curious if anyone has thought of the following way to
    > reduce image noise, in particular noise that comes from an
    > electromagnetic source i.e. not light. The idea is,
    > just cover most of the camera with tinfoil, everything except
    > the lens of course. By this method, the only signal noise
    > that affects the analog sensor elements will be of either
    > internal origin (the circuits) or optical.
    >
    > But will it work? I haven't tried it, since I temporarily don't
    > have a digital camera.


    Buy a decent camera. Mine already has an aluminium casing.
    Brian MW0GKX, Dec 5, 2007
    #15
  16. Viator

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > On Dec 3, 9:04 pm, Viator <> wrote:
    >>> I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.

    >> Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.

    >
    > Dealing with retarded ideas from clueless people is the leftover
    > meatloaf of life.
    > Oh, BTW *light* IS electromagnetic!


    Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
    studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
    'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
    wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
    at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?
    Ron Hunter, Dec 5, 2007
    #16
  17. Viator

    acl Guest

    On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > wrote:



    > Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
    > studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
    > 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
    > wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
    > at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?


    No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is
    precisely coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields.
    These are quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.

    The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
    terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
    form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
    can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.
    acl, Dec 5, 2007
    #17
  18. Viator

    Ron Hunter Guest

    acl wrote:
    > On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> wrote:

    >
    >
    >> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
    >> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
    >> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
    >> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
    >> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?

    >
    > No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is
    > precisely coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields.
    > These are quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.
    >
    > The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
    > terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
    > form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
    > can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.


    Well, since sound has the 'medium', of matter, and travels as motion of
    molecules (or atoms), it seems to obey much the same rules, but can't
    travel through a vacuum.
    Ron Hunter, Dec 5, 2007
    #18
  19. Viator

    acl Guest

    On Dec 5, 3:38 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > acl wrote:
    > > On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
    > >> studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
    > >> 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
    > >> wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
    > >> at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?

    >
    > > No but there seems that there's some confusion here: light is
    > > precisely coupled undulations in the electric and magnetic fields.
    > > These are quantised, and the quantum is called the photon.

    >
    > > The flow of electrons is another story. But it can be cast in the same
    > > terms. For that matter, sound waves in solids can be cast in the same
    > > form: there, you'd probably think of them as "waves", but in fact they
    > > can also be thought of as consisting of particles-phonons. And so on.

    >
    > Well, since sound has the 'medium', of matter, and travels as motion of
    > molecules (or atoms), it seems to obey much the same rules, but can't
    > travel through a vacuum.



    True, I was just commenting that switching between thinking of
    something as particles and as waves is done in many different
    contexts, not only for electromagnetic radiation. It just depends on
    how closely you look (like light: normally you're fine thinking of it
    as waves, but if you look too closely, it's sort of made up of
    discrete particles).

    That sound "quanta" are different from light quanta is also signified
    by the fact that they have a different name :)
    acl, Dec 5, 2007
    #19
  20. Viator

    Guest

    On Dec 5, 4:10 am, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > On Dec 3, 9:04 pm, Viator <> wrote:
    > >>> I think your tinfoil helmet has slipped.
    > >> Dealing with quality people like you is the spice of life.

    >
    > > Dealing with retarded ideas from clueless people is the leftover
    > > meatloaf of life.
    > > Oh, BTW *light* IS electromagnetic!

    >
    > Oh? I guess physics has changed in the 40 years or so since I last
    > studied it. Seems to me, that at that time, light was made up of
    > 'photons', and was only in the 'electromagnetic spectrum' by virtue of
    > wavelength considerations. VERY different from the flow of electrons,
    > at least by the standards I studied. Has this changed?


    Hilarious from Mr "It tends to promote rational thinking, and some
    research before posting. "
    , Dec 5, 2007
    #20
    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. jos
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    347
  2. Richard DeLuca

    Sharpening & Noise Reduction- In Camera, or After?

    Richard DeLuca, Dec 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    496
    Mike Jacoubowsky
    Dec 10, 2006
  3. saxophool

    In camera noise reduction setting

    saxophool, Feb 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    295
    saxophool
    Feb 2, 2007
  4. Ali

    In Camera Noise Reduction And RAW

    Ali, Oct 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    295
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 13, 2007
  5. John Navas

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

    John Navas, Oct 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    John Navas
    Oct 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page