Interesting Leica product announcements today ...

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"K W Hart" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic writes:

Chris Malcolm writes:

I think most DSLRs have menu-switchable long exposure noise
reduction.

Noise reduction also reduces image quality.

Mostly, it *improves* image quality.

Just out of curiosity, how does noise reduction know what is noise and what
is fine detail in the photo?

Dunno, the software I use most (Noise Ninja) is proprietary code, and
it's outside my area of expertise anyway. I just know the results are
generally useful on pictures that have significant noise to begin with.
I don't believe it *does* know in any magic and perfect sense of "know";
it just uses reasonably successful algorithms to guess.

Apples and oranges... the basic "long exposure noise
reduction" mentioned above as being menu-switchable in
most DSLR's is significantly different than a generic
"noise reduction" algorithm.

But it's a late additiona to the thread, the original reference was to
the broad general class of noise reduction. (Just typoed that as "nose
reduction".)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Noons writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote,on my timestamp of 17/05/2012 2:47 AM:

No you CANNOT. Not with Tech Pan. THAT is the point. Stop changing
the subject to match your "theories": it won't work.

No, the point is that in general grain is the limiting factor to
"satisfactory" enlargement of film images.

Hence why folks use TechPan-like film when they want much smaller
grain. And why mentioning Tri-X as an "example" for grain of Tech Pan
is inappropriate.

Given that cluming is the mechanism by which different densities are
produced, I wonder how good the tonality can be with Tech Pan, though.

size depended on film ISO. One thing he might have meant is that the
file size of the scanned image as stored on disk is larger for high-ISO
films.

My largest scanned tiffs - on average - are definitely the ones taken
with Ektar 100, Provia 100, Astia, Velvia 50, PanF and Adox CMS. Fuji
400 and 800, Kodak Portra 400 and Tri-x are smaller. But you are
right: it all depends on how much detail any given image has, to start
with. A low-speed film tiff with almost no detail will be smaller than
one with some detail taken with 400ISO film. And that relationship
goes for digital as well, of course. What has to be taken into
account is the nature of the file used to store the image. It is
useless to compare with jpg files: they work by REMOVING detail in the
first place! They cannot ever be employed as a base of comparison of
detail.

Absoutely. That's so ingrained I don't even think of it (and don't
think to mention it to others).

One of my heuristics for picking out the sharper shots (from adjacent
very similar photos) when they look very similar to my eye is to pick
the one with the larger jpeg. Kind of a tie-breaker when I can't find a
reason to prefer one to the other for any other reason.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-05-17 06:45 , Chris Malcolm wrote:

Ah yes, the secret unadmitted RAW processing which some camera makers
are alleged to indulge in. There does seem to be some evidence
that it happens in at least some models by some manufacturers.

Or in the case of Sony the raw processing that they say that they do.

--
"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 5/16/2012 5:04 PM, K W Hart wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
writes:

Chris Malcolm writes:

I think most DSLRs have menu-switchable long exposure noise
reduction.

Noise reduction also reduces image quality.

Mostly, it *improves* image quality.

Just out of curiosity, how does noise reduction know what is noise and what
is fine detail in the photo?



Excellent question.

AFAIK, any difference would be through pattern recognition. Most noise
reduction is based upon some type of color smudging.
I have been able to reduce noise in CS5 by applying a slight surface
blur to a layer.

--
Peter

On 2012-05-17 14:09:17 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/16/2012 5:04 PM, K W Hart wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
writes:

Chris Malcolm writes:

I think most DSLRs have menu-switchable long exposure noise
reduction.

Noise reduction also reduces image quality.

Mostly, it *improves* image quality.

Just out of curiosity, how does noise reduction know what is noise and what
is fine detail in the photo?



Excellent question.

AFAIK, any difference would be through pattern recognition. Most noise
reduction is based upon some type of color smudging.
I have been able to reduce noise in CS5 by applying a slight surface
blur to a layer.

....and you are easily able to apply that selectively with the use of a
layer mask and the selection of an appropriate blending mode
(luminosity).

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/17/2012 5:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-17 14:09:17 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/16/2012 5:04 PM, K W Hart wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
writes:

Chris Malcolm writes:

I think most DSLRs have menu-switchable long exposure noise
reduction.

Noise reduction also reduces image quality.

Mostly, it *improves* image quality.

Just out of curiosity, how does noise reduction know what is noise
and what
is fine detail in the photo?



Excellent question.

AFAIK, any difference would be through pattern recognition. Most noise
reduction is based upon some type of color smudging.
I have been able to reduce noise in CS5 by applying a slight surface
blur to a layer.

...and you are easily able to apply that selectively with the use of a
layer mask and the selection of an appropriate blending mode (luminosity).


Easily in the same sense that Columbus made and egg stand on its end.

--
Peter

On 2012-05-17 15:03:55 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/17/2012 5:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-05-17 14:09:17 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/16/2012 5:04 PM, K W Hart wrote:
"David wrote in message
...
writes:

Chris Malcolm writes:

I think most DSLRs have menu-switchable long exposure noise
reduction.

Noise reduction also reduces image quality.

Mostly, it *improves* image quality.

Just out of curiosity, how does noise reduction know what is noise
and what
is fine detail in the photo?



Excellent question.

AFAIK, any difference would be through pattern recognition. Most noise
reduction is based upon some type of color smudging.
I have been able to reduce noise in CS5 by applying a slight surface
blur to a layer.

...and you are easily able to apply that selectively with the use of a
layer mask and the selection of an appropriate blending mode (luminosity).


Easily in the same sense that Columbus made and egg stand on its end.

Sure! You can do it.
Duplicate the background layer, apply whatever adjustment you choose,
be it the blur you indicate you use, or any other NR or adjustment.
Add a layer mask filled with black by holding the option /alt key when
you select a layer mask from the layers pallet. Then simply paint in
the effect where need, by selecting an appropriate brush in white.
Adjust the layer opacity to taste.
....but you knew all this didn't you?

I only do omelets not circus eggs.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Noons wrote:
On May 17, 7:29Â*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg


I have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at the negatives
with a microscope proves it beyond any doubt. Only wish I had a scanner
capable of much higher rez to show it at its best.
So photograph the microscope output.
Really? Â*Have you ever looked through a microscope at an entire film
image? HOw big was that microscope? Any other pearls of idiocy to
share?

Are you an idiot?
Or are you just trying hard to be one?

For someone who suggested to "photograph the microscope output" as an
answer to "Only wish I had a scanner capable of much higher rez to
show it at its best. ",

To "I have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at
^^^^^^^^^^
the negatives with a microscope proves it beyond any doubt.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Only wish I had a scanner capable of much higher rez to show
it at its best." If you quote yourself, at least try to
quote yourself correctly.


I can't possibly increase the level of idiocy from yours..

s/increase/decrease/


Noone --- except you! --- says you're to photograph the whole
image in one go under the microscope.

Ah, ok. So that would be a solution for "Only wish I had a scanner
capable of much higher rez to show it at its best. " exactly and
precisely how?

What part of "Looking at the negatives with a microscope
proves it beyond any doubt." is too hard for you? You wrote
that sentence yourself! Did you outsmart yourself again?

Oh wait: you mean I should photograph in themicrsocope multiple
fractions of the frame and waste my life stitching them together? I
like photography, not computer playing time in case you haven't
noticed.

Oh wait: Noons rather would not provide any proof, because
then his "easily exceeds 24MP" would be shown as what it is.


So show your own proof.
I have. Â*Many times. Â*Still do, in many places.

Post the URL with the proof, that's less work than that handwaving
of yours.

I did, many times before here and elsewhere. [... blah blah
blah ...]

More hot air.
Not a shred of proof.
Expected as much from such a hot air ballon. All blown up
and belching flames and roaring ...


Google for drum scan service.
That isn't *that* complicated.
Even you can manage that.

I have used google long before it became "trendy" for people like
you.

People like me? People who've been there before there was a
"google", before there was a "www"? What's next, you telling Ansel
Adams how to photograph landscapes in black and white, because
you did it long before it became "trendy" for people like A.A.?

There isn't a drum scanner anywhere near me.

The postal service manages to move even negatives very long
distances to a specific target in quite a short time. Much faster
than that pony express you are used to.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote,on my timestamp of 18/05/2012 2:31 PM:


For someone who suggested to "photograph the microscope output" as an
answer to "Only wish I had a scanner capable of much higher rez to
show it at its best. ",

To "I have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at
^^^^^^^^^^
the negatives with a microscope proves it beyond any doubt.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Only wish I had a scanner capable of much higher rez to show
it at its best." If you quote yourself, at least try to
quote yourself correctly.

Yes. Your point?


I can't possibly increase the level of idiocy from yours..

s/increase/decrease/

s/decrease/getlost/g
See, I can write ed commands too....

Noone --- except you! --- says you're to photograph the whole
image in one go under the microscope.

Ah, ok. So that would be a solution for "Only wish I had a scanner
capable of much higher rez to show it at its best. " exactly and
precisely how?

What part of "Looking at the negatives with a microscope
proves it beyond any doubt." is too hard for you? You wrote
that sentence yourself! Did you outsmart yourself again?

What's that got to do with your statement above, idiot?


Oh wait: Noons rather would not provide any proof, because
then his "easily exceeds 24MP" would be shown as what it is.

I don't have to provide any proof to the likes of you. This is not a court of
law, moron. Get lost!


More hot air.
Not a shred of proof.

From the likes of you.

Expected as much from such a hot air ballon. All blown up
and belching flames and roaring ...

Yes. And with facts to back it up. Unlike you.

People like me? People who've been there before there was a
"google", before there was a "www"? What's next, you telling Ansel
Adams how to photograph landscapes in black and white, because
you did it long before it became "trendy" for people like A.A.?

Make sense, moron. WTH does all that mean?

The postal service manages to move even negatives very long
distances to a specific target in quite a short time. Much faster
than that pony express you are used to.

I won't send any negatives anywhere via post. It would be obvious to anyone else
but you really need to have it detailed, don't you?

John A. wrote,on my timestamp of 18/05/2012 4:15 PM:


It's obvious that he wishes he could scan at higher resolution not to
offer proof of the film's resolution to you or anyone else, but rather
so that he could have digital versions of the photos at the resolution
the film is capable of providing.

Aw, c'mon! You know perfectly well that moronic arsehole trolls like "Wolfgang"
are here with the express intention of distorting and disparaging anyone that
doesn't belong to their little idiot Canon fan-club. Anything else is secondary!


That is why he considers your suggestion of photographing the
microscope output to be idiocy: you totally missed the point of
wanting to scan the film at higher res.

If it was only that the only point this idiot has missed...

What part of "Looking at the negatives with a microscope
proves it beyond any doubt." is too hard for you? You wrote
that sentence yourself! Did you outsmart yourself again?

He unintentionally outsmarted someone.

Narh! Canon fan-boy trolls are untiring in their stupidity.