D80 - high ISO noise

cjcampbell wrote:
frederick wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

No EXIF? No real idea where this is from


I don't know why you can't read exif - seems to be intact. Of course
there is no "proof" it isn't forged.


Exactly. Anyone can change EXIF data.

To be sure. However I would expect that the EXIF be intact in the
presented image. It is not (at least as far as PS E 3 can tell. Forged
or otherwise (there is a risk to "forging" as well as one might put in a
giveaway that it is a forgery).

Without further evidence that these photographs are genuine and
untampered with they should be simply dismissed out of hand.


Yep.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Alan Browne :

frederick wrote:

ISO 1600 sample image he
http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archi...0/d80_1600.JPG
d80 / a100 samples at various ISO he
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html


No EXIF? No real idea where this is from


Download the image and check it out.

From the one whose URL was given first:

I did. And in PS E 3 ... no EXIF data. May be an issue with PSE 3,
however.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

According to Bill :
DoN. Nichols wrote:

And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.

Well yes and no.

I went back and checked - if you click on the thumbnail it takes you to
a bitmap file. The first sky scene is a 28.7meg file.

But if you right-click on the thumbnail and save the target image, it's
a jpg...very weird behaviour.

I have both here and I've compared them - they're the same image, just
two different formats.

Including the same resolution? (Obviously not the same size,
given how poor BMP is at compressing -- that is, it doesn't. :-)

I'm not even sure that my system could *display* a BMP image
with my browser, since BMP is native to Windows, not to unix. I do
have programs which can render the images, but as I said, I'm not sure
about the browser (Opera, FWIW.)

The first image I just downloaded directly using "wget" (no
browser involved). The second one (the one with a tower in a gridwork
as the central part) I clicked on the thumbnail, then selected to save
the resulting image to my system to check -- and both of those were
JPEGs, and both with full exif data. I don't *think* that my browser
would download a BMP and convert it to JPEG -- and miraculously preserve
the exif data, which I don't think can even be included in a BMP image.
:-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Bill wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:

And yes -- they *are* JPGs, not BMPs as was suggested earlier.

Well yes and no.

I went back and checked - if you click on the thumbnail it takes you to
a bitmap file. The first sky scene is a 28.7meg file.

But if you right-click on the thumbnail and save the target image, it's
a jpg...very weird behaviour.

I have both here and I've compared them - they're the same image, just
two different formats.


Are you using IE? If so, it's likely your temporary internet folder is
full. Just clear it and the correct .jpg suffix will return. Or use a
better browser, Firefox.

According to Bill :
Jeff R. wrote:

Clear out your cache.
The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.

See my other posts...

Is it possible that the server is looking at the browser's
signatures, and if it sees IE, it serves up a converted BMP instead of
the original JPEG? A crazy thing to do, given the extra download time
needed for the BMP, and the additional resources needed at the server
end to run the conversion.

But with Opera as a browser on Sun's Solaris OS and UltraSPARC
hardware, I get nothing but JPEGs.

Perhaps your browser is locally converting to BMP for whatever
strange reasons may lurk at the bottom of Microsoft's hard hard heart?
That might take almost as long as downloading the full thing in BMP from
the server? After all -- BMP is the native image format of Windows
machines, so it may be necessary to convert it to display on such a
machine -- and for whatever reason, it decides to save it as BMP instead
of the original JPEG.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Bill wrote:
Jeff R. wrote:

Clear out your cache.
The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.

See my other posts...

See this:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810978

According to frederick :
Bill wrote:
Jeff R. wrote:

Clear out your cache.
The jpg listed above is indeed a jpg.

See my other posts...

See this:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=810978

Bingo! Just as I suggested in another branch of this thread --
except that there is at least a fix posted.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article 1155181010.174568@ftpsrv1, says...

ISO 1600 sample image he
http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archi...0/d80_1600.JPG
d80 / a100 samples at various ISO he
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Regardless of the validity of the image having come from a D80, I'm surprised
that no one has commented on the UFO's that appear in the sky area.

BTW most of the EXIF data shows up in the JPG image (downloaded with IE) and
opened in PS CS2.

Hunt

In article , says...

Hunt wrote:

ISO 1600 sample image he
http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archi...0/d80_1600.JPG
d80 / a100 samples at various ISO he
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Regardless of the validity of the image having come from a D80, I'm
surprised
that no one has commented on the UFO's that appear in the sky area.

I thought it was odd at first too, then I realized that it's not a real
sky at all - it looks like an artificial sky painted on the canopy or
roof over the area.

Yes, it looked like someone painted some of the covered entree plates, you
know the ones with the hole in the center, that the waitstaff all lift in
unison, when being served at a fine-dining restaurant. Heck, I though I had a
scoop for FOX News - oh well.

Hunt

In article ,
Bill wrote:
Hunt wrote:

ISO 1600 sample image he
http://www.photo-cafe.jp/scoop/archi...0/d80_1600.JPG
d80 / a100 samples at various ISO he
http://photo-cafe.jp/scoop/index.html

Regardless of the validity of the image having come from a D80, I'm surprised
that no one has commented on the UFO's that appear in the sky area.

I thought it was odd at first too, then I realized that it's not a real
sky at all - it looks like an artificial sky painted on the canopy or
roof over the area.


It is indeed a fake sky. It is the basement of the Shin Yokohama
Ramen Museum in Yokohama City in Japan. I've been there a few times
ten years ago. That area was pretty dark.

http://www.raumen.co.jp/home/index.html

--- Allen