Noisy picture

[Hikaru Sulu]

Does anyone have an issue with noisy pictures? The camera was on full auto. Obviously the lighting was poor at sunrise. Even the unphotoshoped version is grainy.

 

[With The Birds]

Under exposure and possibly ISO.

What were the exposure settings?

 

[bsartist]

Following this thread. I have a P4S and am it thrilled with the noise in the still pics even with plenty of light. So I’m considering an upgrade to the P4P due to its better sensor. But if it’s still noisy I may reconsider.

 

[Hikaru Sulu]

That particular one was manual. f2.8 iso 100. Full auto ones at 800 were not any better. I would expect such an expensive camera to shoot better in low light.

 

[bsartist]

That particular one was manual. f2.8 iso 100. Full auto ones at 800 were not any better. I would expect such an expensive camera to shoot better in low light.

AFAIU, the sensor chip is better than the models below it. It it still ain’t no DSLR though. Still probably like a real good cell phone camera. With probably a better lens. For me, I’d be happy with high quality non grainy photos in daylight that I can actually get a sharp decent sized print out of.

 

[Hikaru Sulu]

Following this thread. I have a P4S and am it thrilled with the noise in the still pics even with plenty of light. So I’m considering an upgrade to the P4P due to its better sensor. But if it’s still noisy I may reconsider.

Attached here are samples of the noise level. The one with more sky is full auto ISO 800. The wider shot that shows more of the sunrise was auto ISO 100. Both are f2.8.

 

[With The Birds]

Expensive camera? Take the AC and remote out of the equation. It’s a cheap camera and great for what it is. Compare it to a high end phone camera with a professional security camera lens fitted. 20mp on a 1” sensor doesn’t allow for very large photosites and this is the principal determinate for noise, SNR and high ISO performance. You can’t make comparisons to current SLR gear. Notwithstanding it fairs well against the Canon 1D Mark 2 (DXOmark scoring) so it’s very good for what it is.

 

[Hikaru Sulu]

AFAIU, the sensor chip is better than the models below it. It it still ain’t no DSLR though. Still probably like a real good cell phone camera. With probably a better lens. For me, I’d be happy with high quality non grainy photos in daylight that I can actually get a sharp decent sized print out of.

Totally agree. I don't see myself printing these. I was even reluctant to post on Facebook. I think you're right though, it's a better phone camera.

 

[Hikaru Sulu]

Expensive camera? Take the AC and remote out of the equation. It’s a cheap camera and great for what it is. Compare it to a high end phone camera with a professional security camera lens fitted. 20mp on a 1” sensor doesn’t allow for very large photosites and this is the principal determinate for noise, SNR and high ISO performance. You can’t make comparisons to current SLR gear. Notwithstanding it fairs well against the Canon 1D Mark 2 (DXOmark scoring) so it’s very good for what it is.

I guess I got spoiled.

I did expect more from it. I guess I should expect better results only in optimal lighting conditions. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Meta4]

I did expect more from it. I guess I should expect better results only in optimal lighting conditions. Thanks for the feedback.

In low lighting situations, you have options to get enough light for proper exposure and each has it's own limitations.
1. Open the aperture - (but F2.8 won't be enough in very dark situations)
2. Slower shutter speed - (but this won't be useful for moving subjects and can give blurred results if the air is not still)
3. Increase sensitivity (ISO) - unfortunately using high ISO values will also give you noisy images, but there's no way around that.

If you want to keep noise levels down, try to keep the ISO setting down at 400 or below.
Take a little more control rather than leaving it up to the camera to make all the choices.
Your subject matter wasn't moving so a slow shutter speed may have helped you to shoot at a lower ISO setting.

Sometimes there's no noiseless option.
Like this fast moving ship shot 20 minutes before sunrise @ 1/60th ISO 1600 and f2.8
It was a lot darker than the photo would have you believe.
There's noise but there was no way to shoot without noise.
Even with noise, it's still a pleasing image. I just won't have it printed to 40 inches like some of my daylight images.

 

[Meta4]

I would expect such an expensive camera to shoot better in low light.

To shoot better in low light, you need a larger sensor like a Nikon D800.
Investigate the cost of putting one of those in the air and you may reconsider how expensive the P4 pro camera is.

 

[WV. Rootman]

You can try stacking the pictures to make a better low light shots. Of course good lighting makes some good still shots, but video is where it excels.

 

[Hikaru Sulu]

In low lighting situations, you have options to get enough light for proper exposure and each has it's own limitations.
1. Open the aperture - (but F2.8 won't be enough in very dark situations)
2. Slower shutter speed - (but this won't be useful for moving subjects and can give blurred results if the air is not still)
3. Increase sensitivity (ISO) - unfortunately using high ISO values will also give you noisy images, but there's no way around that.

If you want to keep noise levels down, try to keep the ISO setting down at 400 or below.
Take a little more control rather than leaving it up to the camera to make all the choices.
Your subject matter wasn't moving so a slow shutter speed may have helped you to shoot at a lower ISO setting.

Sometimes there's no noiseless option.
Like this fast moving ship shot 20 minutes before sunrise @ 1/60th ISO 1600 and f2.8
It was a lot darker than the photo would have you believe.
There's noise but there was no way to shoot without noise.
Even with noise, it's still a pleasing image. I just won't have it printed to 40 inches like some of my daylight images.

All good info. Thank you.

Gorgeous picture!!!

 

[Hikaru Sulu]

You can try stacking the pictures to make a better low light shots. Of course good lighting makes some good still shots, but video is where it excels.

I’ve heard the term before. What’s stacking?

 

[With The Birds]

I’ve heard the term before. What’s stacking?

You take a number of images, 5 or more for best results, align and stack them followed by a median blend. The theory is simple. The noise you are trying to remove is random so by doing a median stack a lot of it is disregarded in producing the resultant image.

 

[Tomas Wangen]

Easist way to get acceptable results is: shoot at iso 100 or max 400. Use aggressive color-noise reduction and moderate luminance noise reduction. About 50/30 in Lightroom will normally do the trick. Also for video, noise reduction will vastly improve the result.

 

[bsartist]

To shoot better in low light, you need a larger sensor like a Nikon D800.
Investigate the cost of putting one of those in the air and you may reconsider how expensive the P4 pro camera is.

And remember...

One-Inch Sensors

 

[WV. Rootman]

And remember...

One-Inch Sensors

So most sensors are sold with honest size claims — except "one inch sensors." To say it’s one inch is fraud. All to make a buck. The world is nothing but deception. There is honesty, it’s just deception is doing its best to hide it.

 

[DNASH]

That particular one was manual. f2.8 iso 100. Full auto ones at 800 were not any better. I would expect such an expensive camera to shoot better in low light.

Expensive camera? I just purchased a single camera lens that cost more than the entire P4P setup. Not trying to brag, just saying. Even some of the top DSLR's struggle with noise at low light. Factor in the fact your bird doesn't sit as still as a DSLR or equivalent on a tripod and your low light exposure is going to be longer (unless at a real high ISO which adds noise anyway) and you have a mess. These things are fun but really don't have the capabilities yet to produce quality images in low light IMO, unless you look at the images on a small scale (see Instagram) where the flaws can't be noticed.

 

[Tomas Wangen]

So most sensors are sold with honest size claims — except "one inch sensors." To say it’s one inch is fraud. All to make a buck. The world is nothing but deception. There is honesty, it’s just deception is doing its best to hide it.

It is not deception per se, merely a historic leftover.
citing Image Sensor Sizes:

‘When the vidicon tube was invented in the early 1950s, the glass tubing used to make the first units had a nominal exterior diameter of one inch. These were referred to as "One-inch tubes". After allowing for the space taken up by the interior metal structures needed to control the electron beam, the portion of the photoconductor on the front glass accessible for scanning had a diameter of about 5/8 inch. Early television used a raster aspect ratio of 4:3 so the corresponding scanned area was 1/2 inch horizontal by 3/8 inch vertical - the canonic 3:4:5 right triangle. After a while, the image size assumed the name of the tube and a 5/8 inch diagonal raster became commonly called the 1-inch size. 5/8 inch is 15.875 mm and so 16 mm became the designated metric diagonal for 1-inch tubes.”

And the main issue with the sensor is not the size but rather the (color) noise which is quite easily mitigated as per my previous answer.