If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
http://pbase.com/waltdnes/concert20060820
Start off with a free concert on a cloudy evening... and then night falls. Panasonic's high-ISO images are (in)famous. I took a series of 2048x1536 images at ISO 400, with shutter forced to 1/100th or 1/80th sec. The images were brightened and then binned down to 682x512. I've posted jpegs of both the originals and the worked-on versions. One nice side-effect of ImageMagick's "-sigmoidal-contrast" option is that it gets rid of the reddish pallor on under-exposed shots. Where the under-exposure wasn't too gross, I didn't brighten to a specific brightness. Instead, I brightened to the point where flesh tones look close to natural. The first page has hardly any difference. But as it gets dark, the differences really show. -- Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow the instructions at the end of the 550 message. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
http://pbase.com/waltdnes/concert20060820 The images were brightened and then binned down to 682x512. I've posted jpegs of both the originals and the worked-on versions. Could you detail the imagemagick processing (command line?) that you used? BugBear |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:40:29 +0100, bugbear, wrote:
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote: http://pbase.com/waltdnes/concert20060820 The images were brightened and then binned down to 682x512. I've posted jpegs of both the originals and the worked-on versions. Could you detail the imagemagick processing (command line?) that you used? Sure... I used the "-sigmoidal-contrast" option with "convert" to do the brightening. If you want to dig into the guts of things, see IM Examples, Sigmoidal Non-linearity Contrast http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/gr...lor/#sigmoidal for the mathematical formula, and graph plots to see how it works. I took a few shortcuts... - the output filename is the input file name, with an "a" prefixed to it e.g. "p1010465.tif" becomes "ap1010465.tif" - The second part of the parameter is always zero, which causes maximum brightness boost for brightness values near zero. This is the desired behaviour for brightening dark images. The first part of the parameter is a float number usually around 3 or 4, except in the extreme cases of p1010465.tif where I used 25, and p1010466.tif where I used 30. The higher the number, the more brightening. Just like the case in film photography, a lot of brightening causes graininess. Laws of physics don't change. The commandline in both posix (linux, unix, *BSD, etc) and Windows versions looks like so... convert "p1010465.tif" -depth 8 -sigmoidal-contrast "25,0%" "ap1010465.tif" Quotes around the filenames are optional, unless you have filenames with embedded spaces etc, which makes quotes mandatory. Rather than type this out by hand every time, I set up a short script (under linux), which I call "logg". The script looks like so... #!/bin/bash convert "${1}" -depth 8 -sigmoidal-contrast "${2},0%" "a${1}" I don't have a Windows machine handy to test this. I believe the equivalant Windows script would be logg.bat or logg.cmd, like so... convert "%1" -depth 8 -sigmoidal-contrast "%2,0%%" "a%1" ....and both posix and Windows versions are invoked like so... logg p1010465.tif 20 For the binning from 2048x1536 down to 682x512 (factor of 3), the manual process would be to first crop to 2046x1536 (whole number multiples of 3) and then use convert's "-filter box -resize" option... convert -depth 8 source_file.tif -crop 2046x1536 dummy.tif convert -depth 8 dummy.tif -filter box -resize 682x512 output_file.tif With the help of ImageMagick's "identify" command, I've managed to set up a linux script, which I call binn. It will take a randomly sized input file, calculate correct sizes, crop to a whole number multiple, and resize by a desired factor, like so... binn input_file output_file n ....where "n" is a small positive integer to divide the image size by. This is probably impossible as a bat or cmd file. As always, be careful when accepting script files from strangers, especially when the script contains backtick expandos. Here is my ~/bin/binn script... #!/bin/bash calcgeometry() { x=`echo ${3} | sed "s/x.*$//"` y=`echo ${3} | sed "s/^.*x//"` newx=$((${x} / ${bin_size})) checkx=$((${newx} * ${bin_size})) if [[ ${checkx} -ne ${x} ]]; then crop_flag="YES" fi newy=$((${y} / ${bin_size})) checky=$((${newy} * ${bin_size})) if [[ ${checky} -ne ${y} ]]; then crop_flag="YES" fi newgeometry="${newx}x${newy}" } source_file=${1} output_file=${2} bin_size=${3} crop_flag="NO" calcgeometry `identify ${1}` if [[ ${crop_flag} = "YES" ]]; then cropgeometry="${checkx}x${checky}+0+0" convert -depth 8 ${1} -crop ${cropgeometry} dummy.tif source_file="dummy.tif" fi convert -depth 8 ${source_file} -filter box -resize ${newgeometry} ${output_file} if [[ -a dummy.tif ]]; then rm dummy.tif fi -- Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow the instructions at the end of the 550 message. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
For the binning from 2048x1536 down to 682x512 (factor of 3), the manual process would be to first crop to 2046x1536 (whole number multiples of 3) and then use convert's "-filter box -resize" option... convert -depth 8 source_file.tif -crop 2046x1536 dummy.tif convert -depth 8 dummy.tif -filter box -resize 682x512 output_file.tif Thanks for all the detail; (I am an ImageMagick uyser myself). Why do you want to "box filter" AKA nearest neighbour the image? I'd have thought the "best" sampling possible would be desired. This is clearly deliberate on your part, since you're going to substantial effort to do it. BugBear |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:59:25 +0100, bugbear, wrote:
Why do you want to "box filter" AKA nearest neighbour the image? I'd have thought the "best" sampling possible would be desired. This is clearly deliberate on your part, since you're going to substantial effort to do it. It's called "binning". For technical details, see websites... http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/glossary/binning.html http://www.andor.com/library/digital_cameras/?app=320 The "executive summary" explanation of binning goes like so... - take an NxN rectangle of pixels from the source image and average them out to one "super-pixel" in the output image - the signal is linear, and is proportional to the number of pixels used; i.e. signal is multiplied by N^2 - random noise is (by definition) random, and is proportional to the square root of the number of pixels used; i.e. noise is multiplied by N - therefore SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) has gone up by N^2 / N = N Binning a 2048x1536 pixel image down to 682x512 effectively cleans up the signal as if ISO was 1/3rd of the actual value... *WITHOUT LOSING THE ADDITIONAL BRIGHTNESS OF THE HIGHER ISO*!!! E.g. my ISO 400 shots, after being binned in 3x3 grids, have a noise level that you would expect from ISO 133 shots. TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). You're trading off pixels for improved SNR at higher ISO levels. There have been a lot of rants on this forum about the "megapixel madness" inflicted on consumers by digital camera marketing droids. A lot of people here would gladly trade off some pixels for higher SNR. Binning allows you to do so after the fact if you take oversized photos and are willing to reduce them. -- Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow the instructions at the end of the 550 message. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)" wrote in message ... SNIP Binning a 2048x1536 pixel image down to 682x512 effectively cleans up the signal as if ISO was 1/3rd of the actual value... *WITHOUT LOSING THE ADDITIONAL BRIGHTNESS OF THE HIGHER ISO*!!! Yes, noise reduction is one benefit of binning/averaging (it could also be used to add all low level signal in the box), but you also introduce aliasing artifacts. It depends on the image content if it produces visibly annoying artifacts, but the artifacts are e.g. visible in the strings of the standing bass. I doubt you would have gotten very different results with the default Lanczos or the Sinc filter, except for cleaner aliasing behaviour. And because those filters have a larger (weighted) support than Box, noise reduction is also a characteristic of them. Although it by-passes the filters, the '-adapted-resize' function may also deliver the desired results. -- Bart |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
wrote: - therefore SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) has gone up by N^2 / N = N Binning a 2048x1536 pixel image down to 682x512 effectively cleans up the signal as if ISO was 1/3rd of the actual value... *WITHOUT LOSING THE ADDITIONAL BRIGHTNESS OF THE HIGHER ISO*!!! E.g. my ISO 400 shots, after being binned in 3x3 grids, have a noise level that you would expect from ISO 133 shots. TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). You're trading off pixels for improved SNR at higher ISO levels. You _may_ be underestimating the ISO gain from binning. I think doubling the ISO increases noise by a factor of 1.414, not 2.0. Doubling the ISO for the same size pictures reduces the photons counted by a factor of two, but increases the noise by only a factor of 1.414, the square root thereof. In other words, binning 4 pixels together gets you ISO 100 noise from an ISO 400 exposure. I think. Maybe. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:15:31 +0900, David J. Littleboy, wrote:
You _may_ be underestimating the ISO gain from binning. I think doubling the ISO increases noise by a factor of 1.414, not 2.0. Doubling the ISO for the same size pictures reduces the photons counted by a factor of two, but increases the noise by only a factor of 1.414, the square root thereof. In other words, binning 4 pixels together gets you ISO 100 noise from an ISO 400 exposure. I think. Maybe. It's more complex than that in real life. If you can force the histogram over to the right up to, *BUT NOT PAST* the right-hand edge, you get the maximum number of tonal values. Beyond that, you get faster shutter or more DOF, but no more tonal info. Explained better on webpage http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml Most people here are probably fimiliar with the concept, but it's included for the benefit of any newbies reading this post. Life's a series of trade-offs. You want... - the fastest shutter speed (least amount of motion blur) - the smallest aperture (most depth-of-field) - the largest sensor and the lowest ISO (least amount of noise) - the histogram almost to the right edge (for the most tonal info) - a camera+lens at a price that doesn't destroy the average budget Select any 4 g. -- Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow the instructions at the end of the 550 message. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)" wrote: On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:15:31 +0900, David J. Littleboy, wrote: You _may_ be underestimating the ISO gain from binning. I think doubling the ISO increases noise by a factor of 1.414, not 2.0. Doubling the ISO for the same size pictures reduces the photons counted by a factor of two, but increases the noise by only a factor of 1.414, the square root thereof. In other words, binning 4 pixels together gets you ISO 100 noise from an ISO 400 exposure. I think. Maybe. It's more complex than that in real life. If you can force the histogram over to the right up to, *BUT NOT PAST* the right-hand edge, you get the maximum number of tonal values. Oops: you're responding to something other than what you quotedg. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Low-light high-ISO torture-test for Panasonic FZ5
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:59:01 +0900, David J. Littleboy, wrote:
Oops: you're responding to something other than what you quotedg. You're right; I did drift off on a tangent. My point was that under certain conditions, being able to shoot at higher ISO speed (and clean up noise after-the-fact) has major benefits. At other times it's not worth it. -- Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow the instructions at the end of the 550 message. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You use different lenses underwater because the speed of light is different | Prometheus | Digital Photography | 48 | June 2nd 06 03:13 AM |
Light fall off on dSLRs - an experiment | Kennedy McEwen | Digital SLR Cameras | 229 | April 10th 06 12:13 AM |
Trouble Reproducing the Color Purple | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 29 | January 1st 06 08:53 PM |
memory card torture test | gmr2048 | Digital Photography | 17 | August 5th 04 09:21 AM |
Fix bath test | piterengel | In The Darkroom | 8 | February 9th 04 12:42 AM |