NEW Olympus 88 Pro (8 MP, 5X Zoom with IS)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jeb Sebastian, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.

    Specs:

    Olympus 88 Pro
    Effective pixels 8.0
    5X Optical Zoom - 7.1-35.6mm (actual)
    F2.4-F3.5 with IS
    Min shutter 60 Seconds + Bulb
    Max shutter 1/8000 sec
    Macro focus to 1 cm
    ISO Settings: Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
    New super noise reduction processor
    Hot shoe
    xD Picture Card
    Jeb Sebastian, Feb 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jeb Sebastian

    R2D2 Guest

    (Jeb Sebastian) wrote in
    news::

    > Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.
    >
    > Specs:
    >
    > Olympus 88 Pro
    > Effective pixels 8.0
    > 5X Optical Zoom - 7.1-35.6mm (actual)
    > F2.4-F3.5 with IS
    > Min shutter 60 Seconds + Bulb
    > Max shutter 1/8000 sec
    > Macro focus to 1 cm
    > ISO Settings: Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
    > New super noise reduction processor
    > Hot shoe
    > xD Picture Card
    >


    More 'old' news. ;)

    http://tinyurl.com/yqcod
    R2D2, Feb 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Jeb Sebastian" <> wrote:

    > Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.


    Sure, they can make "noise free" ISO 400 images. It's easy. Just truncate
    the data and only deliver 4 valid bits (for a total of 12 bits per pixel).
    No latitude, no shadow detail, no texture detail, no thanks.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan


    >
    > Specs:
    >
    > Olympus 88 Pro
    > Effective pixels 8.0
    > 5X Optical Zoom - 7.1-35.6mm (actual)
    > F2.4-F3.5 with IS
    > Min shutter 60 Seconds + Bulb
    > Max shutter 1/8000 sec
    > Macro focus to 1 cm
    > ISO Settings: Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
    > New super noise reduction processor
    > Hot shoe
    > xD Picture Card
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 12, 2004
    #3
  4. Jeb Sebastian

    Mark Johnson Guest

    (Jeb Sebastian) wrote:

    >Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.
    >
    >Specs:
    >
    >Olympus 88 Pro
    >Effective pixels 8.0
    >5X Optical Zoom - 7.1-35.6mm (actual)
    >F2.4-F3.5 with IS
    >Min shutter 60 Seconds + Bulb
    >Max shutter 1/8000 sec
    >Macro focus to 1 cm
    >ISO Settings: Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800
    >New super noise reduction processor
    >Hot shoe
    >xD Picture Card


    That xD thing's a problem. They should have a CF slot, too.
    Mark Johnson, Feb 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Jeb Sebastian

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    >> Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.


    >Sure, they can make "noise free" ISO 400 images. It's easy. Just truncate
    >the data and only deliver 4 valid bits (for a total of 12 bits per pixel).
    >No latitude, no shadow detail, no texture detail, no thanks.


    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan


    How can they do that? 4 bits/channel is only 16 colors.

    Isn't there any other way they might have used to reduce noise at high
    current?
    Mark Johnson, Feb 13, 2004
    #5
  6. "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.

    >
    > >Sure, they can make "noise free" ISO 400 images. It's easy. Just truncate
    > >the data and only deliver 4 valid bits (for a total of 12 bits per

    pixel).
    > >No latitude, no shadow detail, no texture detail, no thanks.

    >
    > >David J. Littleboy
    > >Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > How can they do that? 4 bits/channel is only 16 colors.


    No, that's 4,096 colors. (Since it's 12 bits.)

    By the way, the "4 valid bits" is just a guess. It could be 5 valid bits or
    3 valid bits.

    > Isn't there any other way they might have used to reduce noise at high
    > current?


    When you "reduce noise" you do not magically reinstate the data that was
    destroyed by the noise: you replace that data with averaged values, i.e. no
    information. That's equivalent to chopping off the lower order bits. It
    doesn't look blotchy any more, it looks smooth. But there's no information
    there.

    There's no free lunch here. If you want the detail, you have to acquire the
    data. That means using ISO 50.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Jeb Sebastian

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    >"Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:


    >> >> Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.


    >> >Sure, they can make "noise free" ISO 400 images. It's easy. Just truncate
    >> >the data and only deliver 4 valid bits (for a total of 12 bits per

    >pixel).


    >> >David J. Littleboy
    >> >Tokyo, Japan


    >> How can they do that? 4 bits/channel is only 16 colors.


    >No, that's 4,096 colors.


    Per channel.

    But:

    >By the way, the "4 valid bits" is just a guess. It could be 5 valid bits or
    >3 valid bits.


    But why would you think they are chopping off bits, like that? And if,
    for example, it was only 4 bits, wouldn't you notice in the software
    after you download. These are stored as digitized images, which is
    much of the appeal. You can just query in the software how many colors
    are used.


    >> Isn't there any other way they might have used to reduce noise at high
    >> current?


    >When you "reduce noise" you do not magically reinstate the data that was
    >destroyed by the noise: you replace that data with averaged values, i.e. no
    >information.


    Well, I don't know all the algorithms and processes used by various
    noise reduction software. I assume it involves some kind of averaging
    taking care not to lose the edges.


    >That's equivalent to chopping off the lower order bits. It
    >doesn't look blotchy any more, it looks smooth. But there's no information
    >there.


    But it wouldn't look smooth at less than true color. You'd see obvious
    banding in gradients.


    >There's no free lunch here. If you want the detail, you have to acquire the
    >data. That means using ISO 50.


    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan


    ISO 50, sounds like a plan. But if they have a usable 400, that could
    be great, too. I just think the xD only feature is too limiting. They
    should have CF, as well.

    I just don't know that they're throwing away a bunch of useful shadow
    detail in dark or dim scenes, but that some other method is used by
    the firmware.

    Of course, I don't know.
    Mark Johnson, Feb 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Jeb Sebastian

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    >"Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:


    >> >> Oly claims this unit is 'noise free' to 400 ISO.


    >> >Sure, they can make "noise free" ISO 400 images. It's easy. Just truncate
    >> >the data and only deliver 4 valid bits (for a total of 12 bits per

    >pixel).


    >> >David J. Littleboy
    >> >Tokyo, Japan


    >> How can they do that? 4 bits/channel is only 16 colors.


    >No, that's 4,096 colors.


    Per channel.

    But:

    >By the way, the "4 valid bits" is just a guess. It could be 5 valid bits or
    >3 valid bits.


    But why would you think they are chopping off bits, like that? And if,
    for example, it was only 4 bits, wouldn't you notice in the software
    after you download. These are stored as digitized images, which is
    much of the appeal. You can just query in the software how many colors
    are used.


    >> Isn't there any other way they might have used to reduce noise at high
    >> current?


    >When you "reduce noise" you do not magically reinstate the data that was
    >destroyed by the noise: you replace that data with averaged values, i.e. no
    >information.


    Well, I don't know all the algorithms and processes used by various
    noise reduction software. I assume it involves some kind of averaging
    taking care not to lose the edges.


    >That's equivalent to chopping off the lower order bits. It
    >doesn't look blotchy any more, it looks smooth. But there's no information
    >there.


    But it wouldn't look smooth at less than true color. You'd see obvious
    banding in gradients.


    >There's no free lunch here. If you want the detail, you have to acquire the
    >data. That means using ISO 50.


    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan


    ISO 50, sounds like a plan. But if they have a usable 400, that could
    be great, too. I just think the xD only feature is too limiting. They
    should have CF, as well.

    I just don't know that they're throwing away a bunch of useful shadow
    detail in dark or dim scenes, but that some other method is used by
    the firmware.

    Of course, I don't know.
    Mark Johnson, Feb 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Jeb Sebastian

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <c0hf0g$23q$> on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:08:48 +0900, "David J.
    Littleboy" <> wrote:

    >When you "reduce noise" you do not magically reinstate the data that was
    >destroyed by the noise: you replace that data with averaged values, i.e. no
    >information. That's equivalent to chopping off the lower order bits. It
    >doesn't look blotchy any more, it looks smooth. But there's no information
    >there.
    >
    >There's no free lunch here. If you want the detail, you have to acquire the
    >data. That means using ISO 50.


    Not necessarily. For some insight on how Canon overcame noise problems, see
    <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0005/00051902canoncmos_eetimes.asp>; e.g.,

    The new sensor has an amplifier in each pixel to convert optical
    signals to electronic signals. The unevenness of those amplifiers
    causes noise that has a fixed pattern. To eliminate the noise, Canon
    engineers developed on-chip noise-reduction circuitry that reads out
    the mixture of noise and optical signals in 10 milliseconds and then
    pure noise in another 10 ms. When the pure noise is subtracted from
    the mixture, a pure optical signal remains.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Feb 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Jeb Sebastian

    Leonard Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <c0hf0g$23q$> on Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:08:48 +0900, "David J.
    > Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>There's no free lunch here. If you want the detail, you have to acquire the
    >>data. That means using ISO 50.

    >
    > Not necessarily. For some insight on how Canon overcame noise problems, see
    > <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0005/00051902canoncmos_eetimes.asp>; e.g.,
    >
    > The new sensor has an amplifier in each pixel to convert optical
    > signals to electronic signals. The unevenness of those amplifiers
    > causes noise that has a fixed pattern. To eliminate the noise, Canon
    > engineers developed on-chip noise-reduction circuitry that reads out
    > the mixture of noise and optical signals in 10 milliseconds and then
    > pure noise in another 10 ms. When the pure noise is subtracted from
    > the mixture, a pure optical signal remains.


    AKA dark frame subtraction. Unfortunately this only gets rid of the
    "fixed pattern" noise, which in small-sensor digicams is so
    insignificant compared to the other noise sources that typically
    dark frames are only performed for exposures of over a second.

    - Len
    Leonard, Feb 18, 2004
    #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. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    917
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    771
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. °..Jan Plexy..°

    Canon Powershot Pro 1 Vs. Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom

    °..Jan Plexy..°, Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    607
    Matti Vuori
    Jun 30, 2005
  4. JC

    FA: Olympus 5050 Pro Compact Digital Zoom

    JC, Jul 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    283
  5. Teamhair

    Olympus D-550 Zoom problems with zoom lens

    Teamhair, Aug 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    370
    Teamhair
    Aug 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page