Low noise or high resolution ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Morgan Ohlson, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. 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.
    Morgan Ohlson, Sep 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Morgan Ohlson

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in
    news:zTdbb.29466$:

    > 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 ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Sep 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in message
    news:zTdbb.29466$...
    > When looking at test images it's obvious that some digitals (<500$) 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.
    Marvin Margoshes, Sep 21, 2003
    #3
  4. Morgan Ohlson

    gr Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> 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.
    gr, Sep 21, 2003
    #4
  5. Morgan Ohlson

    Samuel Paik Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> 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.
    Samuel Paik, Sep 22, 2003
    #5
  6. "Lucas Tam" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns93FD7DD964DEnntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in
    > news:zTdbb.29466$:
    >
    > > 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.
    Morgan Ohlson, Sep 22, 2003
    #6
  7. "Samuel Paik" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > "Morgan Ohlson" <> 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.
    Morgan Ohlson, Sep 22, 2003
    #7
  8. Morgan Ohlson

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in news:n3xbb.29574
    $:

    > 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 ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Sep 22, 2003
    #8
  9. Morgan Ohlson

    Lucas Tam Guest

    "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in
    news:Erxbb.29578$:

    > 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 ()
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
    Lucas Tam, Sep 22, 2003
    #9
  10. "Lucas Tam" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:Xns93FEB0B539B25nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130...
    > "Morgan Ohlson" <> wrote in news:n3xbb.29574
    > $:
    >
    > > 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.
    Morgan Ohlson, Sep 23, 2003
    #10
    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. Jeff Conescu

    High-performance, low-noise heatsinks

    Jeff Conescu, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    491
    Jeff Conescu
    Oct 28, 2004
  2. KL234
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    890
    Dave Hau
    Feb 26, 2004
  3. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    485
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  4. HS Crow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    725
    HS Crow
    Sep 23, 2005
  5. Robert Coe
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    571
    Robert Coe
    Jun 2, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page