BLUE SKYS - Digital Noise in Digital SLRs

[kpy]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

Your problem is luminance noise. In photoshop,select sky area with lasso tool and apply smart blur at default setting. Ken

Thanks, cool

No idea how to do it but ...

Any more detailed tips?

Have photoshop CS and Corel X something or other

[kpy]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

According to DPanswer: Defects, "Noise in digital images is most visible in uniform surfaces (such as blue skies) as monochromatic grain (luminance noise) and/or as colored speckles (color noise)."

Image Noise: Examples and Characteristics


noise ninja?


Nikon D3 is FF, low noise high ISO (up to 6400) and 9 fps.

7D is not FF and noise will decrease with increasing sensor pixel size.

I doubt 1D4 is FF and 1Ds4 has fast fps.

Hey, thanks very much for all of that.

Noise ninja hey - Sounds like I'll have to get it? Im in Australia - I guess buy it from the Internet?

Nikon D3 - they got such rave reveiws - So u reckon no problems with the sky or landscapes or grain really with higher ISOs?? And the autofocus works a treat then? What do u reckon about some of the other high end Nikons? Used to have a Nikon. Its really very very tempting - been giving it very serious thought - though prefer not have to swap canon lens, and love the canon autofocus and canon colour saturation. Hope Canon can catch up soon!

Canon DsMk4 - is that what u mean? have u heard something? is it out soon?

[kpy]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

The problem of red noise in blue skies is fundamental to Bayer sensors (which effectively means anything other than Sigma DSLRs). Each individual sensor site is particularly sensitive to one primary color, and the camera uses a "demosaicing" process to detemine the color for each output pixel. ......
[*]Use a good noise-reduction tool, select the blue sky, and reduce the noise in the sky. Go easy on this. You'll never remove all of the noise. You just want to remove enough noise to get good prints (or whatever your output medium is).[/LIST]

yep, ta, some speckles were even redish

the daylight skys here tend to be naturally very blue/azure blue anyway, and yeah for this ISO and with this digital defect giving the polarizer a miss sounds worth it, and the speckle seem more noticeable in the prints when the blue sky was deeper too, so ta (my Canon also give rich colour saturation normally anyway so yeah).

no idea how to do noise reduction but, or noise reduction for this particular type of noise

- any tips on practical steps to use in Photoshop CS please? [Gonna try and get CS4, but dont have it yet]

[kpy]

Would actually replacing the blue sky be worth a try / too involved / easy to try ????
guess not??? or maybe?? worth a go?


in most of these particular pix, its just the main subject and the blue sky, and the main subjects are pretty clear and well outlined and often turned out fine, this option seems very tempting, but not sure how pheasible, and my PS skills are negligable, but seems its time to learn


seems worth an experiment at least, but no idea how to do this / try it but?


had already snapped some ISO 100 experiment samples on the 40D of similar blue sky, with and without filter, and the sky is noticeably better


but could also snap some slide film shots of sky on the Eos 3 as well, if this option is a potential goer.

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by kpy

Nikon D3 - they got such rave reveiws - So u reckon no problems with the sky or landscapes or grain really with higher ISOs?? And the autofocus works a treat then? What do u reckon about some of the other high end Nikons? Used to have a Nikon. Its really very very tempting - been giving it very serious thought - though prefer not have to swap canon lens, and love the canon autofocus and canon colour saturation. Hope Canon can catch up soon!

From a pro:

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

FWIW, I like Canon for most things, but Canon will never compete with Nikon until they make a full framed sports camera. Show me a FF Canon that shoots higher that 5 FPS. It just ain't gonna happen.

So there it is. I like Canon for most things, but when I shoot sports (which is 80%), I HAVE TO use Nikon.
So don't tell me there are comparable models across brands. That's just not true, sorry.

How true...I'm a Canon user as you can see. If Nikon came along and offered to trade me body for body and lens for lens, I'd switch to the D3, but just my luck, Canon will come out with something better than the D3 in the near future. Nikon had to do something to get their Nikon turned Canon users back and the D3 seems to have worked.

Originally Posted by kpy

Canon DsMk4 - is that what u mean? have u heard something? is it out soon?

Canon may announce the 1D4 in 2010. 1D Mark IV in 2010? [CR2] | Canon Rumors

BTW, Canon 1D3 has AF problem. 1Ds3 and 5D2 are too slow (fps) for sports.

[kpy]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

From a pro:


Canon may announce the 1D4 in 2010. 1D Mark IV in 2010? [CR2] | Canon Rumors

BTW, Canon 1D3 has AF problem. 1Ds3 and 5D2 are too slow (fps) for sports.

ta very much )

maybe I'll have to go and have a proper field test out of one or two of the top Nikon's, trying not to but, cuz if it goes off a treat, will probably want one!

so hoping a new canon D 4 sports comes soon and its FF - cant find that link btw (at least not working for me where I am at the moment anyway)

from what I read in that other sites thread I posted even the FF Canon 5D II has this blue sky noise problem, weird

curious, what is the AF problem with the current Canon D MkIII sports model?

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by kpy

from what I read in that other sites thread I posted even the FF Canon 5D II has this blue sky noise problem, weird

5DII is 21 MP FF while Nikon D3 is only 12 MP FF. They have different pixel density.

Originally Posted by kpy

curious, what is the AF problem with the current Canon D MkIII sports model?

Rob Galbraith DPI: May 29, 2009 update

Now you why Canon put the old 5D AF system in the new 5DII.

[kpy]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

5DII is 21 MP FF while Nikon D3 is only 12 MP FF. They have different pixel density.

Rob Galbraith DPI: May 29, 2009 update

Now you why Canon put the old 5D AF system in the new 5DII.

well ta, yeah, wasnt up on that one, and its a wee bit scarey about the DIII AF system, and very important to know, thank you

so u mean with lots more megapixels / pixel density - u mean there can more risk of noise?

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by kpy

so u mean with lots more megapixels / pixel density - u mean there can more risk of noise?

Yes. You can compare the noise of D3x,D3,1DsIII and A900 at Nikon D3x Review: 17. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review.

[kpy]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

5DII is 21 MP FF while Nikon D3 is only 12 MP FF. They have different pixel density.

Rob Galbraith DPI: May 29, 2009 update

Now you why Canon put the old 5D AF system in the new 5DII.

Thanks, and well your certainly getting me thinking on this Nikon swap thing a lot more now

So like with Nikon u have -

Nikon Australia | Digital SLR Cameras, COOLPIX Digital Compact Cameras, Lenses & more

D3x - FF - 24.5 mega pix - 5 or 7 fps - 51 pt autofocus
D3 - FF - 12.1 mega pix - 9 or 11 fps - 51 pt autofocus - raw sequence no./buffer?

The D3 is fairly new right? Guess Nikon are less likely to upgrade it too soon??

What do u reckon about say some of these Nikons for the ISO/noise issue and autofocus etc?

D700
D300s
D300
D90

etc

How do u reckon the nikon pro/L type lens compare to the Canon's?- effectiveness
- cost??