More on Canon Rebel XT noise at high ISO - 2 main new data points

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:05:52 -0600, All Things Mopar
wrote:


The Rebel XT isn't exactly a paragon of control features, but
if it will allow you to do rapid fire along with bracketing and you
have a decent sized memory card, this could be the best way
to obtain correct exposures for you. Set the camera on "auto"
and enable the other two features. It also allows you to
be on the edge of hand holdability and catch one or two really
sharp shots out of a bunch.
-Rich

Rich dfs wrote:

But honestly, what exactly do you test for when analyzing noise?
Most scenes have a wide latitude of colours and illumination levels,
some of which will likely show some noise.

Of course. I think that if you're going to compare noise, or characterize
it in absolute terms, controlled testing with the methodology laid out is
the only way to go. Beyond that, what I would like to see if considering
a purchase is an examination of what deep shadows look like in *properly*
exposed shots, where "properly exposed" means RAW capture at the brink of
clipping, not "looks good in out-of-camera JPEGs".

--
Jeremy |

Today Paul Furman commented courteously on the subject at
hand

OK well we at least determined your noise isn't all that
bad. Noise looks worse on a monitor than in a print. This
was not as bad as noise can be at ISO 1600 on a D70. Yes it
was available (sodium? bleck) streetlights, handheld at 1/3
second, Auto white balance & I cooled that down in the raw
converted version. I also reduced contrast, applied noise
reduction removed sharpening till after & even then used
less sharpening, reduced brightness & only a bit on the
shadows slider. And the photo was shot at +1EC to overcome
the camera meter's reaction to those hot highlights.

I don't print, I view. On a 21" LCD. At 1280 x 960.

PS I'm not going to any binaries newsgroup to see pictures,
get a web site if you want to share. It probably would be
interesting to plenty of car buffs.

You do whatever floats your boat. Or, don't. This is about the
100th off-topic, useless debate. I've moved a few parsecs pastt
what prompted the start of this thread, and it has not evolved
into anything useful - for me.

PPS Oh & I used a wide angle lens to exaggerate the
proposterous proportions of that old Caddie. Not a great
pic, but relevant to the discussion.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

Today Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) commented courteously
on the subject at hand

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:35:29 -0600, in
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems All Things Mopar
wrote:

Tell you what: you shoot your pictures the way you want,
and I'll do the same. Get this through your
knowledgeble-but-thick head - I do this as a hobby, not to
make money or sell car calendars. What started off as a
simple "why is the XT so noisy at high ISO?" has turned
into a personal vendatta from you against me for no good
purpose I can detect.

Fine. You bought your fancy new car with an automatic
transmission and can't figure out how to know your speed
well enough to keep getting tickets just using the
tachometer. People tell you to use the speedometer, but you
refuse and then get all in a huff when people keep asking
why don't you use the proper tool. To which you provide no
explanation than, I want to use the tachometer. Knock
yourself out.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

Today Stan Birch commented courteously on the subject at hand

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 All Things Mopar
wrote:

I started out using JPGs, since that had worked out very
well with my first point and shoot. But after trying
shooting RAW, I'd never go back to shooting JPGs. I tend
to do at least a little tweaking for anything that's
going to be printed; and if you don't want to do a whole
lot of fiddling, you can batch-process the entire bunch
of photos to JPGs; but most often with paramter changes
will be applied on a group by group basis. I rarely use
Photoshop for anything any more.

Haven't opened the CDs yet, never intend to.

No big deal! You are obviously struggling with obvious
symptoms and vagaries getting OLD! Instead of dealing with,
and resisting the inevitable deficits of getting *OLD*; you
seem to have gravitated toward the less-and-less resilient
and more resistant to change approach to life; and the
rapidly changing state of technology.

With at least a little experience in the rapidly changing
world of technology, I've accepted the fact that little of
what I learned yesterday, will be at all useful tommorrow.
Everything in the digital world is changing SO rapidly!

If PSP 9 can't do it, I don't want it. There is simply no
way, no how, for no reason I will /ever/ shoot in RAW. You
like it, I'm happy for you.

It's hardly a matter of whether PSP can or can't do it.
It's more a matter that, Canon's Digital Photo Pro can do
the majority of this post-processing stuff **FAR** more
easily; and in a far more elegant Canon-specific-manner.
For the most part, I now only use Photoshop to address
rotational corrections. Everything else is most ably
handled with DPP.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

Today Alan Browne commented courteously on the subject at
hand

I was really interested in the problem you and/or your
camera is having. I might even be able to drop a word
of advice. I might even learn something.

Alan, I've done/said nothing to offend you. So, I will politely
ask you a single question: do you or do you not personally own
and use a Canon Rebel XT, current vintage, with a Canon 430 EX
external flash?

Yes, we talk further. No, we stop.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

Today Rich commented courteously on the subject at hand

The Rebel XT isn't exactly a paragon of control features,
but if it will allow you to do rapid fire along with
bracketing and you have a decent sized memory card, this
could be the best way to obtain correct exposures for you.
Set the camera on "auto" and enable the other two features.
It also allows you to be on the edge of hand holdability
and catch one or two really sharp shots out of a bunch.

I appreciate you honesty, forthrightness, and willingness to
come up with new ideas. Let me just say that I have been
braketing exposures since 1963 and I think I know what that's
all about.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre

And please stop wasting bandwidth with reposts with no responses. I
don't know why you persist in doing this - it may be incredibly useful
for your strange methodologies, but for everyone else here it is a
total waste of time, *very* poor etiquette, and yet another pointer to
your selfish attitude.

By the way, I think you have now annoyed every single person who has
posted here. Congratulations.

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Rich dfs wrote:

But honestly, what exactly do you test for when analyzing noise?
Most scenes have a wide latitude of colours and illumination levels,
some of which will likely show some noise.

Of course. I think that if you're going to compare noise, or
characterize it in absolute terms, controlled testing with the
methodology laid out is the only way to go. Beyond that, what I
would like to see if considering a purchase is an examination of what
deep shadows look like in *properly* exposed shots, where "properly
exposed" means RAW capture at the brink of clipping, not "looks good
in out-of-camera JPEGs".

One other thing which I've not seen any testers do, when measuring noise,
is to make some attempt to model the human visual system and include it in
the noise model. For example, which sound we have various things like
A-weighted noise which allow for the varying sensitivity of the ear at
different sound frequencies. For a useful measure of camera noise, we
need something similar for human vision.

David

Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand

And please stop wasting bandwidth with reposts with no
responses. I don't know why you persist in doing this - it
may be incredibly useful for your strange methodologies,
but for everyone else here it is a total waste of time,
*very* poor etiquette, and yet another pointer to your
selfish attitude.

what the hell are you talking about?

By the way, I think you have now annoyed every single
person who has posted here. Congratulations.

Didn't know I had that power, but thank you - I guess. Now, you
go **** Off with your buds like a good boy & girl, OK?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor