peak to peak vs rms noise in images.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jpc, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. jpc

    jpc Guest

    I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.

    If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    for the 3020, I can say the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my
    camera.

    If I ratio the standard deviations-- the rms noise- I get 1.6 or
    roughly the square root of 2.2.

    In electrical engineer parlance I believe the first ratio is the
    equivent of the variations in the voltage while the second is the
    variations in the power, and power noise is normally used as the
    standard.

    In visual terms I'd think it should be the other way around. We see
    differences in pixel intensity not pixel power intensity. By that
    standard the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my camera.

    Anyone have a different opinion?

    jpc
    jpc, Apr 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jpc

    Canongirly Guest

    <jpc> wrote in message news:...
    > I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    > image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    >
    > If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    >

    SNIP

    > Anyone have a different opinion?
    >

    Just one? What the hell are you talking about?
    Canongirly, Apr 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jpc

    Charlie Ih Guest

    I try to answer the original question. The gray levels on the photo
    (digital or film) are produced by photo energy (which is power x time).
    When you read out the voltage (or current) from the photo, the
    voltages represent the original photo or noise power. In my opinion,
    you don't need to do square root again.


    In article <406c3fb1$>,
    Canongirly <> wrote:
    >
    ><jpc> wrote in message news:...
    >> I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    >> image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    >>
    >> If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    >>

    >SNIP
    >
    >> Anyone have a different opinion?
    >>

    >Just one? What the hell are you talking about?



    --
    Charles S. Ih
    302-831-8173, FAX 302-831-4316
    Charlie Ih, Apr 1, 2004
    #3
  4. jpc

    DavidG Guest

    jpc <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    > image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    >
    > If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    > for the 3020, I can say the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my
    > camera.
    >
    > If I ratio the standard deviations-- the rms noise- I get 1.6 or
    > roughly the square root of 2.2.
    >
    > In electrical engineer parlance I believe the first ratio is the
    > equivent of the variations in the voltage while the second is the
    > variations in the power, and power noise is normally used as the
    > standard.


    You are interpreting your results incorrectly. The relationship
    between P-t-P and RMS noise is not one of voltage vs. power. The keys
    is that the "R" in
    RMS stands for root. Thus, both measurements are in the same units.
    P-t-P measures maximum excursions, including the rare "tails" of the
    random distribution describing the noise. RMS describes a type of
    average. The result is a number which, *if* squared, would give you a
    power equal to the average power.

    Using your voltage analogy, and with a sine wave that varies between
    -1V and 1V, the peak-to-peak measurement would be 2V and the RMS would
    be 0.707 or sqrt(2)/2 V.

    David
    DavidG, Apr 2, 2004
    #4
  5. jpc

    Don Stauffer Guest

    The 2.2 to 1 ratio of p-p to rms only applies to sinusoidal waveforms.
    Noise in a camera is not sinusoidal, so do not expect that ratio to
    work. The noise is likely to be a form of Poisson distribution.

    jpc wrote:
    >
    > I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    > image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    >
    > If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    > for the 3020, I can say the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my
    > camera.
    >
    > If I ratio the standard deviations-- the rms noise- I get 1.6 or
    > roughly the square root of 2.2.
    >
    > In electrical engineer parlance I believe the first ratio is the
    > equivent of the variations in the voltage while the second is the
    > variations in the power, and power noise is normally used as the
    > standard.
    >
    > In visual terms I'd think it should be the other way around. We see
    > differences in pixel intensity not pixel power intensity. By that
    > standard the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my camera.
    >
    > Anyone have a different opinion?
    >
    > jpc


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Apr 2, 2004
    #5
  6. jpc

    DJ Guest

    On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 09:20:24 -0600, jpc <> wrote:

    >I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    >image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    >
    >If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    >for the 3020, I can say the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my
    >camera.
    >
    >If I ratio the standard deviations-- the rms noise- I get 1.6 or
    >roughly the square root of 2.2.
    >
    >In electrical engineer parlance I believe the first ratio is the
    >equivent of the variations in the voltage while the second is the
    >variations in the power, and power noise is normally used as the
    >standard.
    >
    >In visual terms I'd think it should be the other way around. We see
    >differences in pixel intensity not pixel power intensity. By that
    >standard the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my camera.
    >
    >Anyone have a different opinion?
    >
    >jpc
    >


    Unlike some, I shall refrain from lecturing you on the math of rms vs pp. I
    think you know all that.

    I think the answer to your musing is that "it depends". Probably no-one has done
    any research on the *subjective* perception of image noise. That would require a
    large number of tests with many people observing many pictures and scoring them
    wrt noise. I suspect if such work was done the outcome would be a pink
    noise/white noise equivalent weighting that takes into account such matters as
    spatial bandwidth, the colouration of the noise, the amount of image detail etc.
    In other words, the rms vs pp vs whatever other measures question can't be
    resolved.

    It's an exact equivalent to the grain debate. There's nice grain and ugly grain.
    People used to argue interminably Tri-X grain versus HP3 grain or whatever, or
    the grain produced by one developer or the other, or at 20'C versus 25'C.

    As to the two cameras you compared. The ratio is 1.6:1 or 2.2:1. Either way I'd
    say "about twice as much". Anything else is measurebation.
    DJ, Apr 3, 2004
    #6
  7. jpc

    Rescho Guest

    I often wonder why digital still camera noise levels aren't quoted in
    decibels (db) as in other type of electronic signal devices? For example a
    good broadcast television camera's signal to noise ratio (the rms noise
    level relative to a signal voltage at peak white) would be (say) 50 db and
    would be better by a voltage factor of two than a camera with a signal to
    noise ratio of 44db (under the same conditions). Using this system we would
    have precise and easily measurable noise figures with which to objectively
    compare cameras.

    The electronics industries have used this method of noise measurement for
    the last 80 odd years in all kinds of signal transducers (TV cameras,
    microphones, record players, telephones etc.) and processing circuitry
    (amplifiers, transmitters, telephone lines etc.). There is no reason (that
    I can see) why this method shouldn't be used for digital still cameras.

    Why has this time proven method been ignored by the digital photography
    industry?

    Regards
    Rescho

    "DJ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 09:20:24 -0600, jpc <> wrote:
    >
    > >I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    > >image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    > >
    > >If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    > >for the 3020, I can say the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my
    > >camera.
    > >
    > >If I ratio the standard deviations-- the rms noise- I get 1.6 or
    > >roughly the square root of 2.2.
    > >
    > >In electrical engineer parlance I believe the first ratio is the
    > >equivent of the variations in the voltage while the second is the
    > >variations in the power, and power noise is normally used as the
    > >standard.
    > >
    > >In visual terms I'd think it should be the other way around. We see
    > >differences in pixel intensity not pixel power intensity. By that
    > >standard the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my camera.
    > >
    > >Anyone have a different opinion?
    > >
    > >jpc
    > >

    >
    > Unlike some, I shall refrain from lecturing you on the math of rms vs pp.

    I
    > think you know all that.
    >
    > I think the answer to your musing is that "it depends". Probably no-one

    has done
    > any research on the *subjective* perception of image noise. That would

    require a
    > large number of tests with many people observing many pictures and scoring

    them
    > wrt noise. I suspect if such work was done the outcome would be a pink
    > noise/white noise equivalent weighting that takes into account such

    matters as
    > spatial bandwidth, the colouration of the noise, the amount of image

    detail etc.
    > In other words, the rms vs pp vs whatever other measures question can't be
    > resolved.
    >
    > It's an exact equivalent to the grain debate. There's nice grain and ugly

    grain.
    > People used to argue interminably Tri-X grain versus HP3 grain or

    whatever, or
    > the grain produced by one developer or the other, or at 20'C versus 25'C.
    >
    > As to the two cameras you compared. The ratio is 1.6:1 or 2.2:1. Either

    way I'd
    > say "about twice as much". Anything else is measurebation.
    >
    Rescho, Apr 3, 2004
    #7
  8. jpc

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <406e3512$0$12740$> on Sat, 3 Apr 2004
    13:52:25 +1000, "Rescho" <> wrote:

    >I often wonder why digital still camera noise levels aren't quoted in
    >decibels (db) as in other type of electronic signal devices? For example a
    >good broadcast television camera's signal to noise ratio (the rms noise
    >level relative to a signal voltage at peak white) would be (say) 50 db and
    >would be better by a voltage factor of two than a camera with a signal to
    >noise ratio of 44db (under the same conditions). Using this system we would
    >have precise and easily measurable noise figures with which to objectively
    >compare cameras.
    >
    >The electronics industries have used this method of noise measurement for
    >the last 80 odd years in all kinds of signal transducers (TV cameras,
    >microphones, record players, telephones etc.) and processing circuitry
    >(amplifiers, transmitters, telephone lines etc.). There is no reason (that
    >I can see) why this method shouldn't be used for digital still cameras.
    >
    >Why has this time proven method been ignored by the digital photography
    >industry?


    Perhaps because of the common use of noise reduction, which makes any such
    spec problematic.

    --
    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, Apr 3, 2004
    #8
  9. jpc

    Rescho Guest

    > Perhaps because of the common use of noise reduction, which makes any such
    > spec problematic.

    If you are referring to "in camera" noise reduction then that would be
    included in the s/n figure for the camera and used when evaluating the
    camera. If you are referring to post camera noise reduction the I can't see
    that it's relevant. For example, with my previous camera (Minolta 7i) I had
    to use noise reduction to improve images taken at (say) 400 ISO, now with my
    Canon 300D, the noise levels are usually acceptable without post camera
    noise processing at the same ISO setting. This is because the Canon has a
    better s/n ratio in the first place.

    Regards
    Rescho.

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:xLqbc.3561$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <406e3512$0$12740$> on Sat, 3 Apr 2004
    > 13:52:25 +1000, "Rescho" <> wrote:
    >
    > >I often wonder why digital still camera noise levels aren't quoted in
    > >decibels (db) as in other type of electronic signal devices? For example

    a
    > >good broadcast television camera's signal to noise ratio (the rms noise
    > >level relative to a signal voltage at peak white) would be (say) 50 db

    and
    > >would be better by a voltage factor of two than a camera with a signal to
    > >noise ratio of 44db (under the same conditions). Using this system we

    would
    > >have precise and easily measurable noise figures with which to

    objectively
    > >compare cameras.
    > >
    > >The electronics industries have used this method of noise measurement for
    > >the last 80 odd years in all kinds of signal transducers (TV cameras,
    > >microphones, record players, telephones etc.) and processing circuitry
    > >(amplifiers, transmitters, telephone lines etc.). There is no reason

    (that
    > >I can see) why this method shouldn't be used for digital still cameras.
    > >
    > >Why has this time proven method been ignored by the digital photography
    > >industry?

    >
    > Perhaps because of the common use of noise reduction, which makes any such
    > spec problematic.
    >
    > --
    > 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/>]
    Rescho, Apr 3, 2004
    #9
  10. jpc

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <406e3f5a$0$439$> on Sat, 3 Apr 2004 14:35:52
    +1000, "Rescho" <> wrote:

    >> Perhaps because of the common use of noise reduction, which makes any such
    >> spec problematic.


    >If you are referring to "in camera" noise reduction then that would be
    >included in the s/n figure for the camera and used when evaluating the
    >camera. If you are referring to post camera noise reduction the I can't see
    >that it's relevant. ...


    It's not simple to either define or to measure what's going on.

    --
    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, Apr 3, 2004
    #10
  11. jpc

    Rescho Guest

    > It's not simple to either define or to measure what's going on.

    I don't agree. A low noise digital to analogue converter to change the
    camera's digital signal to a signal that would look like the analogue output
    of a computer video card channel, photograph a white card against a black
    background. Calibrate an oscilloscope (CRO) to the peak to peak voltage of
    the signal (white to black) then increase the CRO gain to measure the
    residual noise voltage at the black level. Quick calculation and you've got
    the s/n in decibels.
    That's the basic method that was used for measuring noise in broadcast TV
    cameras and the technology in still cameras is essentially the same except
    for the initial digital to analogue conversion part. There is always an
    existing analogue output signal in TV cameras.
    It wouldn't be the sort of thing you could or would do at home but
    manufacturers and professional camera evaluators could use something like
    this to give is more objective camera noise figures than we currently get.
    Manufacturers probably already do. We probably don't these figures because
    we don't ask for them.
    Regards
    Rescho

    "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:tJrbc.3564$...
    > [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <406e3f5a$0$439$> on Sat, 3 Apr 2004

    14:35:52
    > +1000, "Rescho" <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Perhaps because of the common use of noise reduction, which makes any

    such
    > >> spec problematic.

    >
    > >If you are referring to "in camera" noise reduction then that would be
    > >included in the s/n figure for the camera and used when evaluating the
    > >camera. If you are referring to post camera noise reduction the I can't

    see
    > >that it's relevant. ...

    >
    > It's not simple to either define or to measure what's going on.
    >
    > --
    > 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/>]
    Rescho, Apr 3, 2004
    #11
  12. "Rescho" <> wrote in message
    news:406e3512$0$12740$...
    > I often wonder why digital still camera noise levels aren't quoted in
    > decibels (db) as in other type of electronic signal devices?


    Primarily because the MTF (frequency response) isn't flat. A camera with
    the same sensor and electronics but more built-in sharpening would appear
    to have a poorer S/N than one with less sharpening. For a fair
    comparison, the MTFs would all need to be the same, and they are not.

    What I think you need to do is: to put optical sine waves into the camera,
    measure the narrow-band S/N at that spatial frequency, and integrate the
    results with some known eye-noise-sensitivity rating like the RIAA filters
    for audio noise measurements. This would make an averaged perceived S/N
    for the camera. To measure the whole system you need to include the
    display MTF and the eye's MTF as well, but not just for comparing cameras.

    Most other electronic devices aim for a flat frequency response....

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 3, 2004
    #12
  13. jpc

    Guest

    Rescho <> wrote:
    >> It's not simple to either define or to measure what's going on.


    > I don't agree. A low noise digital to analogue converter to change
    > the camera's digital signal to a signal that would look like the
    > analogue output of a computer video card channel,


    Why on earth would you want to do this in the analog domain? You've
    already got the numbers in the digital file, no need to measure again.

    > photograph a white card against a black background. Calibrate an
    > oscilloscope (CRO) to the peak to peak voltage of the signal (white
    > to black) then increase the CRO gain to measure the residual noise
    > voltage at the black level. Quick calculation and you've got the s/n
    > in decibels.


    Nobody's arguing that it would be hard to do. It would be easy to do.

    What they're saying is that the result would be grossly misleading,
    because in-camera noise reduction doesn't work equally well for all
    images. So, you'd get a measurement for the noise level on a white
    card that would be accurate if and only if all you ever did was take
    photographs of white cards.

    Andrew.
    , Apr 3, 2004
    #13
  14. jpc

    Rescho Guest


    > Rescho <> wrote:
    > >> It's not simple to either define or to measure what's going on.

    >
    > > I don't agree. A low noise digital to analogue converter to change
    > > the camera's digital signal to a signal that would look like the
    > > analogue output of a computer video card channel,

    >
    > Why on earth would you want to do this in the analog domain? You've
    > already got the numbers in the digital file, no need to measure again.


    There is no reason not to do it in the digital domain - I used that process
    as an example to explain one method that could be used.

    > > photograph a white card against a black background. Calibrate an
    > > oscilloscope (CRO) to the peak to peak voltage of the signal (white
    > > to black) then increase the CRO gain to measure the residual noise
    > > voltage at the black level. Quick calculation and you've got the s/n
    > > in decibels.


    > Nobody's arguing that it would be hard to do. It would be easy to do.
    >
    > What they're saying is that the result would be grossly misleading,
    > because in-camera noise reduction doesn't work equally well for all
    > images..

    Unless digital cameras use some sort of dynamic processing of images that
    doesn't show up in Exif data and that I'm not aware of I can't see why the
    camera noise levels should vary with image content.
    Could elaborate on that?

    > So, you'd get a measurement for the noise level on a white
    > card that would be accurate if and only if all you ever did was take
    > photographs of white cards.

    I used the white card as an example and one that I know is used for
    broadcast television cameras - there may be a more appropriate reference
    image that could be used for still digital cameras. Whatever reference is
    decided upon then all camera s/n measurements would use that standard so the
    results would give a consistent and usable indication of all cameras s/n
    ratio.

    regards
    Rescho
    Rescho, Apr 3, 2004
    #14
  15. jpc

    Rescho Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote in
    message news:uGubc.1484$...
    > "Rescho" <> wrote in message
    > news:406e3512$0$12740$...
    > > I often wonder why digital still camera noise levels aren't quoted in
    > > decibels (db) as in other type of electronic signal devices?

    >
    > Primarily because the MTF (frequency response) isn't flat. A camera with
    > the same sensor and electronics but more built-in sharpening would appear
    > to have a poorer S/N than one with less sharpening. For a fair
    > comparison, the MTFs would all need to be the same, and they are not.


    The point could be made that it would be fair not to compensate for any in
    camera enhancement when measuring noise in a camera as it's the final camera
    output is what counts. If the final image has measured noise because of
    resolution enhancement and it's unacceptable then so be it - the resultant
    image would have to be post processed to remove that noise, a process that
    in an ideal world should not be necessary.

    > What I think you need to do is: to put optical sine waves into the camera,
    > measure the narrow-band S/N at that spatial frequency, and integrate the
    > results with some known eye-noise-sensitivity rating like the RIAA filters
    > for audio noise measurements. This would make an averaged perceived S/N
    > for the camera. To measure the whole system you need to include the
    > display MTF and the eye's MTF as well, but not just for comparing cameras.

    As I visualise it, the problem of putting optical sine waves into the camera
    as in your suggestion above, would involve the added variable of lens
    resolution as that is the only way that it could be done (that I can see).
    i.e. a test chart with sine bars on it.
    I agree to be acceptable some sort of frequency response weighting would be
    necessary to standardise the procedure and make it match the visual
    perception of noise to the human eye.

    The problem then is of course - who follows standards in anything digital?
    :>)

    Regards
    Rescho
    >
    >
    Rescho, Apr 3, 2004
    #15
  16. "Rescho" <> wrote in message
    news:406ebce5$0$16964$...
    []
    > As I visualise it, the problem of putting optical sine waves into the

    camera
    > as in your suggestion above, would involve the added variable of lens
    > resolution as that is the only way that it could be done (that I can

    see).
    > i.e. a test chart with sine bars on it.
    > I agree to be acceptable some sort of frequency response weighting would

    be
    > necessary to standardise the procedure and make it match the visual
    > perception of noise to the human eye.
    >
    > The problem then is of course - who follows standards in anything

    digital?
    > :>)
    >
    > Regards
    > Rescho


    Yes, it would have be an optical input, and therefore involve the lens.
    But for fixed lens cameras (the bulk of the market) you would have to do
    something like that in any case. For a given light level, by varying the
    zoom you would end up with an integrated SNR versus focal length plot,
    providing a direct camera-to-camera comparison.

    Standards - an issue, yes, but the audio guys got to it together (for
    weighted SNR or sound level measurements....).

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 3, 2004
    #16
  17. jpc

    Guest

    Rescho <> wrote:

    >> Rescho <> wrote:
    >> >> It's not simple to either define or to measure what's going on.

    >>
    >> > I don't agree. A low noise digital to analogue converter to change
    >> > the camera's digital signal to a signal that would look like the
    >> > analogue output of a computer video card channel,

    >>
    >> Why on earth would you want to do this in the analog domain? You've
    >> already got the numbers in the digital file, no need to measure again.


    > There is no reason not to do it in the digital domain - I used that process
    > as an example to explain one method that could be used.


    OK.

    >> > photograph a white card against a black background. Calibrate an
    >> > oscilloscope (CRO) to the peak to peak voltage of the signal (white
    >> > to black) then increase the CRO gain to measure the residual noise
    >> > voltage at the black level. Quick calculation and you've got the s/n
    >> > in decibels.


    >> Nobody's arguing that it would be hard to do. It would be easy to do.
    >>
    >> What they're saying is that the result would be grossly misleading,
    >> because in-camera noise reduction doesn't work equally well for all
    >> images..


    > Unless digital cameras use some sort of dynamic processing of images
    > that doesn't show up in Exif data


    Indeed. That's the point.

    > and that I'm not aware of I can't see why the camera noise levels
    > should vary with image content. Could elaborate on that?


    The new digital cameras use a bunch of prorietary image processing
    techniques to reduce noise. These can make a huge differene to image
    quality, as seen particularly with the Kodak DCS/14 when its firmware
    was upgraded. But as I said, these techniques are image dependent.

    >> So, you'd get a measurement for the noise level on a white
    >> card that would be accurate if and only if all you ever did was take
    >> photographs of white cards.


    > I used the white card as an example and one that I know is used for
    > broadcast television cameras - there may be a more appropriate
    > reference image that could be used for still digital
    > cameras. Whatever reference is decided upon then all camera s/n
    > measurements would use that standard so the results would give a
    > consistent and usable indication of all cameras s/n ratio.


    It's no as easy as that. You have far too simple a model of what goes
    on in a digital camera.

    Andrew.
    , Apr 3, 2004
    #17
  18. jpc

    Guest

    lid wrote:

    > Rescho <> wrote:


    > > I used the white card as an example and one that I know is used for
    > > broadcast television cameras - there may be a more appropriate
    > > reference image that could be used for still digital
    > > cameras. Whatever reference is decided upon then all camera s/n
    > > measurements would use that standard so the results would give a
    > > consistent and usable indication of all cameras s/n ratio.

    >
    > It's no as easy as that. You have far too simple a model of what goes
    > on in a digital camera.


    The only tricky parts are probably getting things down to the n'th
    decimal place, but the testing procedure is essentially how Rescho
    describes (there is really not much else that can be done). See:

    http://www.dolabs.com/Photography/DxO_Analyzer.html

    A long write-up for this product:

    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/dxo-explained.shtml
    , Apr 4, 2004
    #18
  19. jpc

    Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:

    > "Rescho" <> wrote:


    > > I often wonder why digital still camera noise levels aren't quoted in
    > > decibels (db) as in other type of electronic signal devices?

    >
    > Primarily because the MTF (frequency response) isn't flat. A camera with
    > the same sensor and electronics but more built-in sharpening would appear
    > to have a poorer S/N than one with less sharpening. For a fair
    > comparison, the MTFs would all need to be the same, and they are not.


    For a basic SNR test, you want to illuminate each pixel as equally as
    you can, so the field is flat. This factors things like lens MTF, and
    even critical focus, from the equation. More imporant are geometric
    distortion and vignetting -- sources of non-flatness in the
    illumination.
    , Apr 4, 2004
    #19
  20. jpc

    jpc Guest

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 10:18:51 +1000, DJ
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 09:20:24 -0600, jpc <> wrote:
    >
    >>I was taking line profiles of blue sky noise in two images--an 8080
    >>image posted recently and 3020 image from my camera.
    >>
    >>If I ratioed the peak to peak variation --11levels for the 8080 and 5
    >>for the 3020, I can say the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my
    >>camera.
    >>
    >>If I ratio the standard deviations-- the rms noise- I get 1.6 or
    >>roughly the square root of 2.2.








    >>
    >>In electrical engineer parlance I believe the first ratio is the
    >>equivent of the variations in the voltage while the second is the
    >>variations in the power, and power noise is normally used as the
    >>standard.
    >>
    >>In visual terms I'd think it should be the other way around. We see
    >>differences in pixel intensity not pixel power intensity. By that
    >>standard the 8080 is 2.2 times more noisy than my camera.
    >>
    >>Anyone have a different opinion?
    >>
    >>jpc
    >>

    >
    >Unlike some, I shall refrain from lecturing you on the math of rms vs pp. I
    >think you know all that.


    When I reread what I said in the part about electrical engireer
    parlance I doubt it. What I intended to say--and this may not be
    totally correct--is that EE terms like db are define by rms/standard
    deviation numbers. I don't think you can talk about a peak to peak db
    without making several assumptions about wave forms and other thing
    that don't normally apply to digital imagery.

    And if I'm wrong, correct me. Just include a website or two that
    explains the details. Not that I doubt you but this is
    rec.photo.digital :)


    >
    >I think the answer to your musing is that "it depends". Probably no-one has done
    >any research on the *subjective* perception of image noise. That would require a
    >large number of tests with many people observing many pictures and scoring them
    >wrt noise. I suspect if such work was done the outcome would be a pink
    >noise/white noise equivalent weighting that takes into account such matters as
    >spatial bandwidth, the colouration of the noise, the amount of image detail etc.
    >In other words, the rms vs pp vs whatever other measures question can't be
    >resolved.


    You maybe right but I have another idea to toss in the pot.

    When someone pull out a magifing glass to compare two prints or blows
    up a couple digititized images to 800 percent on a monitor, he is
    looking at peak to peak noise. Then he is making a worse case
    evaluation of the differences.

    But when he pulls back and studies the photos as an average person
    would he is looking at rms noise. Under these conditions the S/N
    variations aren't so extreme and the photos don't look that different.

    >
    >It's an exact equivalent to the grain debate. There's nice grain and ugly grain.
    >People used to argue interminably Tri-X grain versus HP3 grain or whatever, or
    >the grain produced by one developer or the other, or at 20'C versus 25'C.
    >
    >As to the two cameras you compared. The ratio is 1.6:1 or 2.2:1. Either way I'd
    >say "about twice as much". Anything else is measurebation.



    When the differences are around a factor of 2, maybe it is
    measurebation. But if you like to push the camera to the limits while
    taking low light non flash images, you need all the S/N you can dig
    out of the camera.

    For those who think it is possible to use as single number to define a
    camera's S/N performance don't forget that CCD's are background noise
    limited. And as the technology improves and the noise floor dropps
    they will become even more background noise limited.

    jpc
    jpc, Apr 4, 2004
    #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. Silverstrand

    "SilverStone Sneak Peak: New Cases at C3" at XYZ C

    Silverstrand, Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    835
    Silverstrand
    Jun 29, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    758
    Silverstrand
    Jul 6, 2005
  3. Ilya Zakharevich

    Film RMS noise in LF vs. digital full well

    Ilya Zakharevich, Oct 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    449
    Ilya Zakharevich
    Oct 22, 2006
  4. Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    Alternative to rms to eliminate spam

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Mar 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    264
    Stephen Wolstenholme
    Mar 29, 2008
  5. Peter

    RMS is touring NZ

    Peter, Sep 30, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    367
    Nik Coughlin
    Oct 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page