Canon 20D noise levels

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jerry, Sep 9, 2004.

  1. Jerry

    Jerry Guest

    I hope their as low as promised.
    After waiting, and reading about the New Canon 20D, I finally put myself on
    a list for the camera.. As I have read from some reviewers, some say that
    the noise level at 400-1600 ISO is the same according to their charts, and
    from other postings looking at the pictures there seems to be allot of
    differences from the two bodies. One from a reviewers with the M&M
    displayed, there was almost the same noise level at 1600 ISO on the 20D
    verses the 10D at 400 ISO, is there a difference in the first bodies shipped
    out to the reviewers?
     
    Jerry, Sep 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jerry

    Mitch Alsup Guest

    Each and every 20D, whether a preproduction prototype or a full production
    camera will have a different amount of noise. Change the temperature,
    presto, different noise. Its the nature of the beast (and statistics).

    That said, the noise performance of the 20D at 1600 ISO is darned useable,
    a useful advance over the 10D or 300D or D70 for that mater. Is it all
    Canon marketing suggests--I don't know--only tests on production camers
    will tell.
     
    Mitch Alsup, Sep 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    I have seen a couple of shots from the 20D floating around taken at ISO 100
    and so on that look too noise free for my taste. What I am afraid of with
    this is that they will be too clean and end up looking like something from
    Bryce or one of the other landscape modeling programs (I am talking about
    landscapes here). Other than some slight coloring of the noise at 1600 and
    3200 I think I like the look of these best. Probably what I would do with
    these is just eliminate the color on the noise so that it looked more like
    film grain. BTW you can do that by loading your image in to something like
    Photoshop, duplicating the images layer, blurring the copy with G. Blur say
    about 4 or 5 and then changing the layer blending mode on the blurred copy
    to color, then flatten.

    John
     
    John Doe, Sep 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Jerry

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "John Doe"
    So stick with your higher-ISO films. You can have all the grain you want. Why
    you would want it is anybody's guess.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 11, 2004
    #4
  5. You could always add some noise to the image. If you match the
    amplitude and frequency spectrum of the noise from your favourite film,
    you can even give the image the "film look". If you just want some
    noise, simple white noise will do.

    However, I think it's ironic that someone might consider adding
    computer-generated noise to make a real photograph not look
    computer-generated! I suspect that our perception of the difference
    between photographs and computer-generated images will simply get
    recalibrated a bit as photographs become less noisy.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    Because it makes photos look more real. Film, just about all film has had
    some grain I think humans are more accepting of it than anyone realizes. Too
    much is bad, but none and you images look like something computer generated.

    John
     
    John Doe, Sep 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    You maybe right. Until recently noise/grain has been there and something
    most don't even notice unless it is really bad. Try scanning 3200 ISO film
    with a cheap scanner and you won't notice anything but the noise. This is
    not good, but a little can be nice.

    John
     
    John Doe, Sep 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Jerry

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Now watching US Open tennis on HDTV. Perhaps the SDTV horizontal scan
    lines would make it look more like real TV, but I sure don't miss them
    :) Digital is fine with me.

    Reminds me of the vinyl vs. CD discussions.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Sep 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Jerry

    Skip M Guest

    How do you feel about the old images done on 8x10 film? Those are pretty
    grain free, I'd be more than happy to see that from a camera the size of a
    35mm...
     
    Skip M, Sep 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    You are comparing grapefruit to sugar cubes the HDTV to digital camera
    images.

    John
     
    John Doe, Sep 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    I am not found of 8x10 film. I do however like 4x5 especially for
    landscapes. However film and processing at least around here is hard to come
    by and when you do expensive.

    John
     
    John Doe, Sep 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Jerry

    Skip M Guest

    Not much grain in an enlargement from 4x5, either....
     
    Skip M, Sep 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    No, there isn't but just enough.

    John


     
    John Doe, Sep 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Jerry

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "John Doe"
    Reality doesn't have grain. When I look up at a blue sky I don't see little
    black dots all over the place.


    A more correct claim might be that film grain makes images look more like you
    are used to seeing them as photographs.
    Your preference for grain is a result of years of seeing it in your pics. When
    it isn't there you feel something is missing, just as vinyl fans took a while
    to get used to the lack of noise in digital recordings.
    Some of them still haven't.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 13, 2004
    #14
  15. Jerry

    John Doe Guest

    Good point. We will see I should have my 20D next week. So we will see.

    John
     
    John Doe, Sep 13, 2004
    #15
  16. Jerry

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "John Doe"
    I eagerly await the arrival of mine as well.
    Canon is supposed to start shipping them to dealers today (9/13) so we'll see.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 13, 2004
    #16
  17. I don't mind the lack of grain in colour photos... infact I prefer the
    clarity of digital over film grain at equivilent ISO's.

    Where I do miss the grain is in BnW and will often add a little noise
    back in and blend it with an original layer...

    Probably just me, but I think it adds a "texture" to the finished
    product especially when printed A4 or larger on matte paper. My big
    problem is trying to convey that grain on smaller webified examples,
    its nearly impossible to get it just right to show the grain yet not
    overwhelm the shrunk photos.

    Perhaps in 10 years or so as digital photographs become more
    entrenched in the high quality art world the perception of grain
    almost being a requirement of BnW will be lessened and then grain will
    not be seen as an important, even an integral requirement, part of the
    photographic style.

    After all if you look back at the early adopters of colour film the
    "true colours" are way out in comparison to todays "true colour"
    films... It seems as tho each channel in the RGB has been "punched"
    when the colours are close to the primarys, but any partial mix of the
    three is mucky and wrong. (does that make sence?) So now it looks so
    naff and dated and just plain wrong... but BnW always looks right :)
     
    Jonathan Wilson, Sep 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Jerry

    Skip M Guest

    That's interesting, because, typically, B&W has less grain than its color
    ISO equivalent. If you want texture, try a printing screen, there are some
    digital ones available. My wife's:
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/wishing.html
     
    Skip M, Sep 15, 2004
    #18
  19. I love that shot and the way it has a texture. Having never really
    used film, I forget there is more to the process than the film and
    paper and items such as screens and the like can be used over and
    above just exposing the paper to the negative.
     
    Jonathan Wilson, Sep 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Jerry

    Skip M Guest

    Here's another one, with a little more texture showing, this screen is one I
    got from my dad, it dates back to the late '40s.

    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/CleopatraContemplatesHerFuture.html
    (Caution: Nude Warning!)

    There are some of these that are available as programs to use digitally, the
    one that my wife did is actually a digital image. Funny thing is, although
    we have a loving, sharing relationship, she refuses to tell me where she got
    the screen, or how she applies it. It sure ain't in Photoshop... :-/
     
    Skip M, Sep 17, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.