# General > Member's Lounge > Photography >  ASA1000 picture too grainy?

## benny

The above picture is taken at ASA1000 setting and using flash. Uncropped but sized down for posting to 600 X 400 pixels.

Do you guys think it's too grainy?

Cheers,

----------


## FND

I find it's fine. May I know wat is your settings?

-FND-&amp;gt;

----------


## juggler

Looks really good!
But, since you sized down to 600x400, it could have remove the grainy look.
Try to take one in 640x480 or smaller at the same settings and see how it compares.

----------


## naturetan

Computer screen can only show up to the maximum of 72dpi. DPI stands for dots per inch. That's the amount of datas that will be able to show on our monitor screen. More information will not be shown and it's consider &amp;quot;redundant&amp;quot; datas. Too little &amp;lt; 72 dpi, software will interpolate those missing information, ie, it get an average of what's there to fill up those empty one.

I would say computer screen is not a good way to judge its image quality, since it requires the least picture information of all media.

So if you will to use it for screen display purpose, I would say your picture look good. The graininess is not that perceptible for the untrained eye. 

To make a good comparison, you may consider printing it out at its orignal size, and you'll see the difference. You should be able to see those &amp;quot;grains&amp;quot; in print. If not, take another image of ISO 100, and make a comparison of it. Another easier way is to zoom in using an image editing software, and see the details. Graininess will be magnified.

----------


## rain

the picture looks good 

dont have to be so concerned with this noise thing unless you want to make prints. 
and anyway for digital images can always use programs like Neatimage if you really want a &amp;quot;clean&amp;quot; picture.

----------


## lsz

the picture looks good 

dont have to be so concerned with this noise thing unless you want to make prints. 
and anyway for digital images can always use programs like Neatimage if you really want a &amp;quot;clean&amp;quot; picture.

----------


## spilopterus

May I reiterate that the picture looks good?

Anyway, where to get this neatimage thing? Never heard about it before.

----------


## hwchoy

can't tell at this resolution benny, you need to put up the big pic  :Wink:  but shouldn't think it would be a problem for the D60 CCD. On my G5 at low light it may be a problem (that's why I'm taking in RAW mode).

any photoshop enhancements done?

btw, great pic as usual.  :Razz:

----------


## naturetan

The graininess will show up at the most obvious area where high contrast is. That means the highlight where bright color is, against another very dark area. That's also the psychological colors where bright color becomes extremely perceptible and virtually move forward.

For this image, take a look at the background. The light green color against the dark gray. Look around that area, see those grains that I perceived? However, it's still not that grainy for that given detail, and definitely looks good as mentioned earlier.

----------


## hwchoy

> ----------------
> On 9/20/2003 3:43:59 PM 
> 
> For this image, take a look at the background. The light green color against the dark gray. Look around that area, see those grains that I perceived? However, it's still not that grainy for that given detail, and definitely looks good as I mentioned earlier.
> 
> ----------------


those look more like bokeh than grainess to me  :Smile:

----------


## loupgarou

what is bokeh? (boleh okeh?)

----------


## hwchoy

sorry chris, was trying to use some bombastic jargon seeing that I have to justify being &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to moderator and not knowing a whole lot about photography [ :Knockout: ] [: :Smile: ] 

Basically *bokeh* (as I understands it) refers to the quality of the blurring of an out-of-focus subject or background. so good bokeh is a pleasing smooth blend of blurriness while poor bokeh has the blurriness brokened into little light rings or flares.

try and find some pics to illustrate what I mean…

----------


## hwchoy

here a nice short article of what Bokeh is.

here is an interesting interative demo of bokehs generated by different lens geometry.

here you have a list of lenses and their bokeh charateristics.

----------


## naturetan

> ----------------
> On 9/20/2003 5:13:56 PM 
> 
> those look more like (good) bokeh than grainess to me  
> ----------------


Not that rough for good bokeh. :Smile:

----------


## lsz

if there are grains, they will show up most prominently in places of highlight (eg skys) and also shadows. FOr this pic the first place i looked at is the dark space right above the fossil wood, where &amp;quot;noise&amp;quot; is non existent

----------


## naturetan

That's strange. That's where I see those noise, as stated previously. Maybe try zooming in to see? 

Anyway, doesn't really matter, not that easy to tell. I think depending on what Benny wants in his end result, then he's in the best position to decide and experiment further.

----------


## hwchoy

if you're zooming beyond 100% than those would be extrapolation noise. Noise should be checked at standard resolution i.e. 100%. Maybe ask Benny to provide the full res image.

----------


## naturetan

hwchoy, actually zooming in beyond 100% does not make the computer give you extra noise for an image. What is there will be displayed in magnification. Unless you increase the dpi or size of the image, then extra noises will be added according to software algorithm.

Zooming in is an easier way to check for image quality if we really want to know how's a particular camera or setting performance. Read www.dpreview.com? Or other photographic website? Many of their comparison/reviews of photo quality are based on image displaying at a specified magnification. 

This is basically the same as using a magnifying glass to see a photo print for any quality test. We see what is clearly there. That's also how people compare the cameras CCD technology, to put it simply.

For this image, 100% you can still see some noise, but not that clear. Viewing somewhere around 150%, you'll see things clearer. Usually good quality image will have a smoother and gradual color transition, and not that coarse. Then I would suggest Benny to take another photo at ISO100, then make the same comparison. 

It would be better not to do any compression and image at RAW setting. No compression better since the comparison will be highly accurate. This goes to the same for anyone online whom like to test out their camera quality. 

I usually test it out with several of my friends with different brands of digital camera, to find out how's that particular brand quality. :Razz:

----------


## hwchoy

actually it depends on the view you're using. once you zoom beyond 100% most viewer will do extrapolation rather than show pixellation. in any case for odd zooming percentages there will always be extrapolation errors since it cannot even show you the expanded pixel &amp;quot;as is&amp;quot;.

No doubt zooming beyond 100% allows better viewing of any artifacts, but more would have been added by the display algorithm. In any case Benny's pic was already resized so it wouldn't be a very good source for discussing &amp;quot;noise at ISO100&amp;quot;, let's get him to post the full-res JPEG.

RAW mode uses lossless compression so it is not compression per se that is undesirable but rather &amp;quot;lossy&amp;quot; compression. The G5 RAW mode produces images of approximately 4-5MB which clearly is compressed since 5 Mpx requires about 15MB if uncompressed. But the point being that no information is lost during compression. I didn't like the JPEG produced by the G5 under some situation, that's why I'm using RAW because I the JPEG produced by off-cam RAW processing has better quality (4MB vs 1.5MB).

----------


## naturetan

Yes, to certain extent, it's right to say there might be some errors at odd zooming percentages. But I can safely say that the error is too negligible to be detected by our eyes. At least I can say for Photoshop. 

200% zoom will display one pixel to become 4 same pixels. Less than that in odd, it would alternate, and 1 pixel difference is difficult to tell. There will not be extra noise added, just the choice of which pixel to put or duplicate.

If it's inaccurate to judge a display in magnification, then I'll be in great trouble. I've too many works that depends on such magnification function to produce. Some can be meant for very high quality printing. Without this accuracy, I will make too many errors and it would be very tough to complete those projects.

BTW, I'm not sure whether individual monitor plays a role? I'm using a 21 inch Sony monitor meant for professional artist. Quite sharp for its display to see those flaws and details.

So you finally bought G5? Wow! Thought you going for G4...[ :Grin: ] Yep, any lossless compression like TIFF or RAW, are best for quality evaluation. This is because one can omit the factor due to the loss of data compression.

----------


## benny

WOW! Gone for a weekend and this has become quite a discussion!

Will try to post the settings and a cropped section of an unsized down portion of the picture later.

Choy, the picture was color corrected, USM was applied and some sediments were removed manually. All in all, the above should not reduce the grainy effect of a ISO 1000 setting. If anything at all, the USM feature should amplify the grain of the picture.

Till later.

Cheers,

----------


## benny

> ----------------
> On 9/19/2003 4:07:10 PM 
> 
> I find it's fine. May I know wat is your settings?
> 
> -FND-&amp;amp;amp;gt;
> ----------------


Hi FND,

Here's the detailed setting...


File Name
IMG_3154.JPG
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS D60
Shooting Date/Time
9/19/2003 1:39:35 AM
Shooting Mode
Manual
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/250
Av( Aperture Value )
22
Metering Mode
Evaluative
ISO Speed
1000
Lens
100.0mm
Focal Length
100.0mm
Image Size
3072x2048
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
On
Flash Type
External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
0
Red-eye Reduction
Off
Shutter curtain sync
1st-curtain sync
White Balance
Auto
AF Mode
Manual Focus
Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Normal
Color saturation Normal
Color tone Normal
File Size
3369KB
File Number
131-3154
Custom Function Settings
02:Shutter button/AE lock button
0:AF/AE lock
03:Mirror lockup
0 :Smug: isable
04:TV,AV and exposure level
0:1/2-stop
05:AF-assist beam/Flash firing
0:Emits/Fires
06:Shutter speed in Av mode
0:Auto
07:AEB sequence/auto cancellation
0:0 =&amp;gt; - =&amp;gt; +/Enabled
08:Shutter curtain sync
0:1st-curtain sync
09:Lens AF stop button Fn, switch
0:AF stop
10:Auto reduction of fill flash
0:Enable
11:Menu button return position
0:top
12:SET button func, when shooting
0 :Smug: efault
13:Sensor cleaning
0 :Smug: isable
14:Superimposed display
0:On
15:Shutter release without CF card
0:Possible without CF card
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting

This is the first time I ever looked at it and it's quite interesting that the camera records every detail setting. Very convenient! Now I don't need pen and paper beside me anymore when I shoot. Actually, I never bothered.

Cheers,

----------


## benny

Hi guys,

Here's the cropped but not sized down picture.



Grain is VERY evident here.

For comparison again, the sized down picture..



So, in my opinion, if you have enough resolution to size down the picture, the final result will be fairly acceptable for screen as well as 4R prints. Otherwise, don't shoot at the ISO 1000 setting.

Cheers,

----------


## hwchoy

benny, sibeh grainy  :Smile:

----------

