For RichA - sony A700 noise reduction

Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was a
orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter for
A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in Bibble. The
first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web use) and the
second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a touch of
sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera, I'm
happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was a
orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter for
A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in Bibble. The
first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web use) and the
second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a touch of
sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera, I'm
happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

And I get:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /
g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg on this server.
Apache/2.0.58 (Unix) Server at i.pbase.com Port 80

RichA wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:


image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg


And I get:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /
g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg on this server.
Apache/2.0.58 (Unix) Server at i.pbase.com Port 80

No problems here.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was
a
orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter
for
A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in Bibble.
The
first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web use) and the
second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a touch of
sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera, I'm
happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

And I get:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /
g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg on this server.
Apache/2.0.58 (Unix) Server at i.pbase.com Port 80

--

Strange - it's just a normal public Pbase account

"Alpha User" wrote in message
...
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was
a orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter
for A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in
Bibble. The first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web
use) and the second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a
touch of sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera, I'm
happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

They sure are clean, the second one sharoens up nicely. Do you find the
color accuracy better with Bibble than Sony's RAW convertor?

"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...
"Alpha User" wrote in message
...
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was
a orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter
for A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in
Bibble. The first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web
use) and the second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a
touch of sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera,
I'm happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

They sure are clean, the second one sharoens up nicely. Do you find the
color accuracy better with Bibble than Sony's RAW convertor?

Hi,

I haven't used the supplied Sony software much - it was just too messy and
cumbersome (lot's of little windows floating everywhere

I have tried all the available converters, including the free ones, and for
my money (and I don't buy software lightly) Bibble just romps home with the
A700 files.

Before I parted with my money to Eric Hyman I did a final comparison and
narrowed it down to Bibble and ACDSee. In the end, the bibble (noise ninja)
NR was just 'the best', no question about it in my mind.

This requirement is specific to the A700 files which (imo) are noisier than
they should be for a CMOS chip. With a Canon, perhaps, the Bibble advantage
might not be so clear - but we have to look for specific solutions to
specific problems, and for the A700 raws that means Bibble (again, imo)

I *don't* like the quirky Bibble interface so it's certainly not a matter of
being seduced by sexy software ACDSee was much more modern, and had some
nice features - BUT, although I tried as hard as I possibly could, it was
just impossible to get rid of all the chroma noise on high ISO shots.
Whereas Bibble just magics it away with a simple click - quite amazing,
actually, and it leaves virtually all the detail intact. What noise is left
is transformed into fine luminance grain (well, 99% of it) and the end
result is almost identical to D300 high ISO's

That allows Sony to play it's own trump card, which is the remarkable
preservation of colour at the higher ISO's - in fact, the colour
preservation is so good that you occasionally have to desaturate high
ISO's.

This is another Bibble ISO 5000 shot - which, I think, shows the high ISO
colour retention from the A700

http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg

On Mar 25, 12:49 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:
"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message

...



"Alpha User" wrote in message
...
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This was
a orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter
for A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in
Bibble. The first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web
use) and the second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a
touch of sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000 shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera,
I'm happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

They sure are clean, the second one sharoens up nicely. Do you find the
color accuracy better with Bibble than Sony's RAW convertor?

Hi,

I haven't used the supplied Sony software much - it was just too messy and
cumbersome (lot's of little windows floating everywhere

I have tried all the available converters, including the free ones, and for
my money (and I don't buy software lightly) Bibble just romps home with the
A700 files.

Before I parted with my money to Eric Hyman I did a final comparison and
narrowed it down to Bibble and ACDSee. In the end, the bibble (noise ninja)
NR was just 'the best', no question about it in my mind.

This requirement is specific to the A700 files which (imo) are noisier than
they should be for a CMOS chip. With a Canon, perhaps, the Bibble advantage
might not be so clear - but we have to look for specific solutions to
specific problems, and for the A700 raws that means Bibble (again, imo)

I *don't* like the quirky Bibble interface so it's certainly not a matter of
being seduced by sexy software ACDSee was much more modern, and had some
nice features - BUT, although I tried as hard as I possibly could, it was
just impossible to get rid of all the chroma noise on high ISO shots.
Whereas Bibble just magics it away with a simple click - quite amazing,
actually, and it leaves virtually all the detail intact. What noise is left
is transformed into fine luminance grain (well, 99% of it) and the end
result is almost identical to D300 high ISO's

That allows Sony to play it's own trump card, which is the remarkable
preservation of colour at the higher ISO's - in fact, the colour
preservation is so good that you occasionally have to desaturate high
ISO's.

This is another Bibble ISO 5000 shot - which, I think, shows the high ISO
colour retention from the A700

http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg

That first picture shows Bibble's typical poor de-mosaic engine at
work. The red is bleeding out from the screwdriver handle and the
mosaic faults (artifacts) are visible in the shadow under the bench
top. I couldn't be bothered with the second one.

You've also made a classic error. You are trying to show knowledgeable
people a D grade image to somehow prove your opinion that Sony high
noise reduction doesn't do what that picture shows it does do...
And... That a God Awful RAW converter like Bibble is anything more or
less than just that... Go figure.

Altogether a poor effort to demonstrate anything except how bad Bibble
actually is and how much stupidity exists in this group when someone
post to an International forum but black lists nearly everyone they
make the announcement to so they can't do what I just did... Tell you
truthfully you are completely wrong.

If you really are serious - and I doubt you are, you'd post a picture
like this one:http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm. Same size
image. No artifacts from either DxO Optics Pro converter or from
crappy JPEG handling and over compression.

If you are going to preach to the converted, get converted first. If
you are going to try and pull a stunt like you just tried and failed
to "block" people you don't like, learn a bit about the process before
you realize it simply can't be done to anyone but a rank amateur... Or
is that your target audience?

"Cryptopix" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:49 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:
"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message

...



"Alpha User" wrote in message
...
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This
was
a orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact
is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter
for A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in
Bibble. The first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web
use) and the second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a
touch of sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could
get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000
shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera,
I'm happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

They sure are clean, the second one sharoens up nicely. Do you find the
color accuracy better with Bibble than Sony's RAW convertor?

Hi,

I haven't used the supplied Sony software much - it was just too messy and
cumbersome (lot's of little windows floating everywhere

I have tried all the available converters, including the free ones, and
for
my money (and I don't buy software lightly) Bibble just romps home with
the
A700 files.

Before I parted with my money to Eric Hyman I did a final comparison and
narrowed it down to Bibble and ACDSee. In the end, the bibble (noise
ninja)
NR was just 'the best', no question about it in my mind.

This requirement is specific to the A700 files which (imo) are noisier
than
they should be for a CMOS chip. With a Canon, perhaps, the Bibble
advantage
might not be so clear - but we have to look for specific solutions to
specific problems, and for the A700 raws that means Bibble (again, imo)

I *don't* like the quirky Bibble interface so it's certainly not a matter
of
being seduced by sexy software ACDSee was much more modern, and had
some
nice features - BUT, although I tried as hard as I possibly could, it was
just impossible to get rid of all the chroma noise on high ISO shots.
Whereas Bibble just magics it away with a simple click - quite amazing,
actually, and it leaves virtually all the detail intact. What noise is
left
is transformed into fine luminance grain (well, 99% of it) and the end
result is almost identical to D300 high ISO's

That allows Sony to play it's own trump card, which is the remarkable
preservation of colour at the higher ISO's - in fact, the colour
preservation is so good that you occasionally have to desaturate high
ISO's.

This is another Bibble ISO 5000 shot - which, I think, shows the high ISO
colour retention from the A700

http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg

That first picture shows Bibble's typical poor de-mosaic engine at
work. The red is bleeding out from the screwdriver handle and the
mosaic faults (artifacts) are visible in the shadow under the bench
top. I couldn't be bothered with the second one.

You've also made a classic error. You are trying to show knowledgeable
people a D grade image to somehow prove your opinion that Sony high
noise reduction doesn't do what that picture shows it does do...
And... That a God Awful RAW converter like Bibble is anything more or
less than just that... Go figure.

Altogether a poor effort to demonstrate anything except how bad Bibble
actually is and how much stupidity exists in this group when someone
post to an International forum but black lists nearly everyone they
make the announcement to so they can't do what I just did... Tell you
truthfully you are completely wrong.

If you really are serious - and I doubt you are, you'd post a picture
like this one:http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm. Same size
image. No artifacts from either DxO Optics Pro converter or from
crappy JPEG handling and over compression.

If you are going to preach to the converted, get converted first. If
you are going to try and pull a stunt like you just tried and failed
to "block" people you don't like, learn a bit about the process before
you realize it simply can't be done to anyone but a rank amateur... Or
is that your target audience?



Er, are you an arsehole who happens to be a Troll, or a Troll who happens to
be an arsehole?

Either way, it's **** poor flame-baiting - if your lovemaking technique is
as poor as your trolling, your wife must be ****ing everyone who knocks on
the front door.

No chance of an address, I suppose?.....

Cryptopix wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:49 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:

http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg

The red is bleeding out from the screwdriver handle

What "screwdriver handle"?

and the mosaic faults (artifacts) are visible in the shadow under the
bench top.

What bench?

If you really are serious - and I doubt you are, you'd post a picture
like this one:http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm.

ISO 100 images to demonstrate high iso noise or non-noise?
Clever!

-Wolfgang

On Mar 25, 10:19 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:
"Cryptopix" wrote in message

...
On Mar 25, 12:49 pm, "Alpha User" wrote:



"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message

...

"Alpha User" wrote in message
...
Hi Rich,

I read all the waffling about Sony's NR techniques on the A700. This
was
a orginally concern of mine - but after buying and using the camera, I
couldn't care less *how* they achieve good high ISO results, the fact
is
they *do*, and that's enough for me.

Crucial to the A700 is the use of Bibble - there is no better converter
for A700 files. The following pics are both raw files converted in
Bibble. The first is untouched (except for a drastic down-size for web
use) and the second had the built in Noise Ninja filter applied, plus a
touch of sharpness.

Both of these operations were simple one-click steps, a monkey could
get
similar results - and I think that, given that they are an iso 5000
shot,
they're pretty good for camera selling for less than £700.

Others might not agree - and if they want to buy me a superior camera,
I'm happy to accept it from them

image 1 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646494.fWFhmUNg.jpg

image 2 http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94646497.c4Ne9zCD.jpg

They sure are clean, the second one sharoens up nicely. Do you find the
color accuracy better with Bibble than Sony's RAW convertor?

Hi,

I haven't used the supplied Sony software much - it was just too messy and
cumbersome (lot's of little windows floating everywhere

I have tried all the available converters, including the free ones, and
for
my money (and I don't buy software lightly) Bibble just romps home with
the
A700 files.

Before I parted with my money to Eric Hyman I did a final comparison and
narrowed it down to Bibble and ACDSee. In the end, the bibble (noise
ninja)
NR was just 'the best', no question about it in my mind.

This requirement is specific to the A700 files which (imo) are noisier
than
they should be for a CMOS chip. With a Canon, perhaps, the Bibble
advantage
might not be so clear - but we have to look for specific solutions to
specific problems, and for the A700 raws that means Bibble (again, imo)

I *don't* like the quirky Bibble interface so it's certainly not a matter
of
being seduced by sexy software ACDSee was much more modern, and had
some
nice features - BUT, although I tried as hard as I possibly could, it was
just impossible to get rid of all the chroma noise on high ISO shots.
Whereas Bibble just magics it away with a simple click - quite amazing,
actually, and it leaves virtually all the detail intact. What noise is
left
is transformed into fine luminance grain (well, 99% of it) and the end
result is almost identical to D300 high ISO's

That allows Sony to play it's own trump card, which is the remarkable
preservation of colour at the higher ISO's - in fact, the colour
preservation is so good that you occasionally have to desaturate high
ISO's.

This is another Bibble ISO 5000 shot - which, I think, shows the high ISO
colour retention from the A700

http://i.pbase.com/g3/29/761229/2/94662206.AmgbaRc6.jpg

That first picture shows Bibble's typical poor de-mosaic engine at
work. The red is bleeding out from the screwdriver handle and the
mosaic faults (artifacts) are visible in the shadow under the bench
top. I couldn't be bothered with the second one.

You've also made a classic error. You are trying to show knowledgeable
people a D grade image to somehow prove your opinion that Sony high
noise reduction doesn't do what that picture shows it does do...
And... That a God Awful RAW converter like Bibble is anything more or
less than just that... Go figure.

Altogether a poor effort to demonstrate anything except how bad Bibble
actually is and how much stupidity exists in this group when someone
post to an International forum but black lists nearly everyone they
make the announcement to so they can't do what I just did... Tell you
truthfully you are completely wrong.

If you really are serious - and I doubt you are, you'd post a picture
like this one:http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm. Same size
image. No artifacts from either DxO Optics Pro converter or from
crappy JPEG handling and over compression.

If you are going to preach to the converted, get converted first. If
you are going to try and pull a stunt like you just tried and failed
to "block" people you don't like, learn a bit about the process before
you realize it simply can't be done to anyone but a rank amateur... Or
is that your target audience?

Er, are you an arsehole who happens to be a Troll, or a Troll who happens to
be an arsehole?

Either way, it's **** poor flame-baiting - if your lovemaking technique is
as poor as your trolling, your wife must be ****ing everyone who knocks on
the front door.

No chance of an address, I suppose?.....

There in lies the problem with people who think they are smart but are
just trying to be.
Anyone who thinks they can prevent others from seeing their pictures
by blocking a bunch of IP addresses is about as smart as the dog
forging my name in their posts. Not smart at all.

In answer to your bait: I don't have time to stuff around massaging
your ego when you behave the way you do, If you can't stand the heat,
stay out of the kitchen of cook up something really impressive.
Invented bull**** and 70% JPEG compression of rubbish laying around on
your desk to conceal your **** poor attempt at forging a "real" High
ISO shot is not anymore impressive than blocking your audience from
seeing it. Not even a nice try... Just plain stupid.