Noise in pictures?

W

Woodoo

Messages
18
Edit My Images
No
I am just a beginner so not sure if I do something wrong or my camera is faulty. Almost every picture I take with my new Samsung NX3000 looks like it got bad random noise on darker colors. For example in this picture (ISO-400, time-1/320). Original image is resized due to size limit, but you can see zoomed fragment from this picture. My old cheap Fuji s5800 makes better pictures in daylight. Could someone explain if it's me or my camera? Thanks.

8745-1413774218-b48a8367e723c66b1ffee8d5e05b4427.jpg


8744-1413773686-73b5c0807e03ad4700a40c5ada3347ec.jpg
 
It's zoomed on my computer to show what I mean. And yes you can see individual pixels in this picture and they look terrible. My friend took a picture with Sony Nex 5 in same light, with close setting and there are no such noise in his picture. So I wonder if it's me doing something wrong, bad quality camera or faulty sensor.
 
Last edited:
Different cameras deal with creating images in different ways. Some process more than others and that can look pretty terrible when you zoom right the way in, especially on compact cameras which these days tend to use a lot of processing in order to clean up noise from such ridiculously densely populated but very small sensors. The noise in the example here just looks like it's how that particular camera processes things.

It has to be asked though, is the noise detrimental to your needs? It looks like you've zoomed in here way more than 100% which in reality you're probably never going to need to do. :)
 
Looks like JPEG compression rather than noise. You shooting JPEG?
 
What does the shot look like at a normal final use size - say an A4 print? Pixel peeping is very rarely productive and probably best avoided.
 
Sonsor type of this camera: CMOS, size: 23.5 x 15.& (APS-C), same like used in many dSLR cameras, so I would expect better quality in low ISO settings. As I said even my old cheap Fuji (with few times smaller sensor) produces almost no such noise in same light with same settings. Yes it was JPEG. But I checked pictures saved in RAW with FastPictureViewer and it looks same. It won't affect the picture if you not zoomed in, but when you zoom in 100% you can see some dark and light spots on a picture, same like dead pixels on computer screen (that's not good if I take them in low res, for example 6Mpx). I won't be bothered to much about what, but I just bought it and I can still return it for warranty if that's just my camera. I know friend who bought exactly same camera, so probably will have to wait till I meet him and try to take some pictures on same object with same settings and then compare results. Thanks guys for answers, maybe I am bit too demanding :D
 
Last edited:
The zoomed in section looks like a lot more than 100% zoom, probably closer to 400% and any image shot by any camera is going to look similar when you do that. Or you've dropped the JPG quality when resizing for the web.

Your descriptions are very confusing,it'sdifficult to follow exactly what you're doing. But a few very specific obervations:
  • If you're shooting in JPG at anything less than the maximum quality setting then the problem your experiencing would be normal and not a problem.
  • If you're reducing the JPG quality to less than 100% (or 10/10) when resizing to share the image the problem is normal and not a problem.
  • If you're zooming in more than 100% the problem is normal and not a problem.
  • If you're shooting at reduced resolution (you mention 6MP) then the problem is probably normal and not a problem.
  • If you're under-exposing and boosting the exposure afterwards then the problem is normal and not a problem.
I suspect it's "new camera syndrome" - you've bought a new camera to magically give you better results, but what's happened is that you're trying to use it like your old camera and you need to learn how the new one responds. The first thing a better camer does is magnify all the faults you were making with the old one and suddenly everything looks sh*t (in your opinion, other people may not notice - we're our own worst critics). I changed camera system in January, and in the last couple of months I finally feel that I'm getting somewhere with it and moving beyond where I was with my old camera. It happens to most of us.
 
Alastair I will drop later some uncompressed raw files here, it may be more informative than me trying to describe it :)
 
Last edited:
juggler said:
Doesn't that just display the jpeg embedded in the raw file?
Click to expand...
Probably yes, but I can't see same random dark or light dots on pictures taken with Sony NEX5 or my old Fuji when shooting on ISO400 in same light. It may be just me, will have to wait till my friend borrow his exact camera to compare them. Worst results is when you taking a picture of someones face in cloudy day. After you zoom in 100% you can see some dark dots on face, it looks like i'm taking pictures of dirty person :D Usually I take them as JPG at 6Mpx resolution just to save some space. Always did that with my other old cameras, never had problems. The only way to clear them completely is to take photo at say 20Mpx and then lower resolution to 6Mpx on my computer. I will add more photos today or tomorrow as uncompressed raw files, so you can see what I am trying to explain.
 
Woodoo said:
The only way to clear them completely is to take photo at say 20Mpx and then lower resolution to 6Mpx on my computer.
Click to expand...
Problem, nail, head..

I imagine your also shooting in Fine JPG rather than Super Fine to also save on the space the image takes up on the card and your computer?

Use your camera at the maximum design resolution if you want the best image quality. That means all the pixels available, and if not raw then the maximum available JPG resolution. Page 68 of your manual.
 
Its JPG super fine I am using, just for day to day pictures i don't need it to be more than 6Mpx, even 6Mpx is more than I need for posting them online. I almost never use auto settings for white balance or ISO and speed as pictures looks much better when I play with settings. And probably no one will notice any noise in these pictures, it just me :D But once i found them on low ISO I want to find out if that's just my camera, or all nx3000 samsungs do that.
 
Last edited:
Alastair said:
The zoomed in section looks like a lot more than 100% zoom, probably closer to 400% and any image shot by any camera is going to look similar when you do that. .
Click to expand...

With all due respect... nope.

This is at 400%.

JkjmUP1.jpg


And before you wonder if it's because it's a D800E, then how about this from a D7000 at 400% also.

KACBiWJ.jpg


Clean as a whistle.

I've even looked for images from the crappiest camera I could find, and even this from a 8 year old Canon EOS350D is clean at 400%

xaDUImC.jpg


Even that's not that bad at all, ans still hugely better than the OP image.

That's JPEG compression in the OP.. not noise

@Woodoo

Have you viewed the raws in a decent program like Lightroom or Photoshop? Fastpictureviewer utilities the raw's embedded JPEG preview... you're not looking at the raw at all.

The image of the ducks has been processed. There's no way that's straight off camera.. the colours are just not accurate. So.. either something you are doing in processing is adding the noise/compression, or something the camera is doing to the JPEGs is adding it I reckon.

It's pretty shocking. I know people are telling you that you shouldn't pixel peep, and they're right, but I'd not except that level of quality from a modern digital camera.
 
Last edited:
No haven't tried Photoshop or Lightroom, actually I think Lightroom came with camera, so probably will try it now.

No, image hasn't been processed on a computer. I think settings was: ISO400, exposure time 1/320, White balance: cloudy, not sure about color wizard on camera, it probably was left on Vivid, that would explain why colors so bright.

EDIT:
Same result when viewing with Lightroom

Definitely better results when Color Wizard on camera is set to OFF, but still got some random dark spots. I got almost non of them only if I use ISO100 or ISO200. Strange but there is less or almost none if I use Higher ISO, high Aperture(!) and long exposure settings.

I asked my friend to send me some pictures of his NX3000. Checked his pictures and I can see same random dots. So probably that's all Samsung NX3000, not just mine. Maybe that's why they dropped price almost twice on this camera. Will post some examples tomorrow with different settings in different light so you can judge ;)
 
Last edited:
stop zooming at 400% theres no need....


sorted? :)
 
Just downloaded a sample image from dpreview, and at 400% looks perfectly clean.

aR3EB0k.jpg


aX5uOlc.jpg



Looks like it's just sensitive to lighting conditions. ISO100 when it's dark will not looks the same as ISO100 when it;s brilliant sunshine - do you realise that?

It does look like the raw files are being subjected to some serious compression though.

I know it's only a £350 camera, but I;d still be disappointed with the results you got. However... I'd be happy with how it looks from the sample I downloaded.

It's just not a great low light performer.
 
Have you stopped using 6mpx mode? It could be the camera resizing the image that is causing problems, memory is cheap these days and you will get much better results if you let a extremely more powerful computer do the resizing, it will also allow you some cropping.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It does look like the raw files are being subjected to some serious compression though.

I know it's only a £350 camera, but I;d still be disappointed with the results you got. However... I'd be happy with how it looks from the sample I downloaded.
Click to expand...

David, was your sample image a downsized 6MP file? If you're comparing full resolution samples from DPReview with the OPs downsampled images that would explain the difference you're seeing.

Maybe you missed that bit of information in the rush to point out some 400% that show a bit less pixellation in the shadows than the OPs.
 
Alastair said:
David, was your sample image a downsized 6MP file? If you're comparing full resolution samples from DPReview with the OPs downsampled images that would explain the difference you're seeing.

Maybe you missed that bit of information in the rush to point out some 400% that show a bit less pixellation in the shadows than the OPs.
Click to expand...


Nope.. full size... but I fail to see how the downsized file size would add such artefacts. It's downsized in resolution, not compressed to a smaller file size. If anything, it should have LESS evidence of such artefacts. Unless the camera is downsizing by using a tiny percentage of the sensor (which would be stupid) then down sampling should be HIDING this, not exaggerating it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Nope.. full size... but I fail to see how the downsized file size would add such artefacts. It's downsized in resolution, not compressed to a smaller file size. If anything, it should have LESS evidence of such artefacts. Unless the camera is downsizing by using a tiny percentage of the sensor (which would be stupid) then down sampling should be HIDING this, not exaggerating it.
Click to expand...

Wrong - I have downloaded 1 of the pics on the DPReview site shot at 800 ISO (the butterfly one) and in the full size image you can see evidence of the same artifacts that Woodoo has got (though not the same size as his 400%).

But let's face it if you pixel peep at 400% you're almost bound to find some problems - simple answer - don't pixel peep at 400% - just concentrate on producing better pictures with the camera you have.
.
 
petersmart said:
W just concentrate on producing better pictures with the camera you have.
.
Click to expand...

Out of all the people on here, I'm probably the one least likely to need, or disagree with such advice :) But, for purely technical reasons, I think it's valid to do this however, purely to establish how well equipment performs. If none of this was important, then we should really just buy any camera.. literally anything.. whichever is cheapest. Many people have no interest in pixel peeping their own work, but still do so to establish what lens, or camera to buy, when IMO it's perfectly valid. Many of the same people who suggest we should not pixel peep will obsess over DxO dynamic range figures etc... same deal. You need a measure by which to establish if you're spending your money wisely, and there's more to a camera than just how it feels in the hand, especially if you print work.

petersmart said:
Wrong - I have downloaded 1 of the pics on the DPReview site shot at 800 ISO
Click to expand...

It seems that way.... which is why I said....


Pookeyhead said:
Looks like it's just sensitive to lighting conditions.
Click to expand...


That shot you refer to still seems a lot cleaner though, even at ISO800.. it lacks the compression artefacts.


8XGLG5E.jpg





I am beginning to feel that the problem here lies more with Woodoo's image that he posted rather than the camera that produced it. I think it's over compressed, which isn't helping. The sample pictures online certainly seem to exhibit better quality.
 
Sorry guys for late reply, had no time to take and post uncompressed pictures from my camera as I'm in a bed with 39 temperature and terrible headache :) Hopefully I will feel better tomorrow.

It seems that I will have to live with it. Probably as you said will make pictures at max resolution and then resize them.

EDIT: Just checked some examples on Dpreview, and it seems that some pictures got exactly same different color random pixels. So it's definitely all Samsung NX3000 problem, not just mine.
8816-1414018953-cffb1e90c95979c2d6816f10d81f9401.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ok just a quick example of what NX3000 does with different ISO settings on same object. All pictures taken in low light, with auto white balance, auto exposure time, auto aperture, auto focus, color scheme sRGB, color wizard off, noise reduction off, stabilization off, custom ISO settings and RAW (SRW) format. Camera wasn't used before taking pictures to make sure there is no noise from a sensor heat.

ISO100 looks pretty good:
8867-1414366529-cd493b99680201e2de12be4c6cc37c19.jpg


ISO400 ....
8868-1414366537-b450f9d8b7b808a7fdc852ac36dca775.jpg


ISO800 ?.....
8869-1414366541-e21c30df50d33540c8c506c208c697ee.jpg


ISO1600 looks much better than 400 and 800
8870-1414366549-f2913ddfa72a0ddf1218cc56cab5a085.jpg


I can't understand why I got these results, in theory I should get worst results in ISO1600, also it doesn't look like noise. Checked some pictures from friends NX3000, looks almost same results, so it's definitely NX3000 problem. I was lucky It cost me only £200 quit new with 2 year extended warranty, no way I would pay £350 for it. I have tried to find same results on other cameras, even cheap ones with no luck.

Links of original pictures if you want to have a closer look:
ISO100
http://www.filedropper.com/iso100

ISO400
http://www.filedropper.com/iso400

ISO800
http://www.filedropper.com/iso800

ISO1600
http://www.filedropper.com/iso1600
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top