Professional Web Applications Themes

A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel - Photography

I've loaded the hacked code into my dRebel and it works fine, so far. When I set ISO to 3200, is this done by bit shifting or og amplification ? In some usenet group someone said that 800 _might_ be the fastest native speed of the sensor, and that 1600 was done by shifting bits, not by amplification. I'm sure I don't understand the pros and cons of either aproach. Amplification may just increase noise, shifting is at th eexpense of dynamic range, and still picks up noise. Right ? Comments ? -- a d y k e s p ...

  1. #1

    Default A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel

    I've loaded the hacked code into my dRebel and it works fine, so far.

    When I set ISO to 3200, is this done by bit shifting or og
    amplification ?

    In some usenet group someone said that 800 _might_ be the fastest
    native speed of the sensor, and that 1600 was done by shifting bits,
    not by amplification.

    I'm sure I don't understand the pros and cons of either aproach.
    Amplification may just increase noise, shifting is at th eexpense of
    dynamic range, and still picks up noise. Right ?

    Comments ?









    --

    a d y k e s p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
    Al Dykes Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel


    "Al Dykes" <adykespanix.com> wrote in message
    news:cq6udm$sbb$1panix5.panix.com...
    > I've loaded the hacked code into my dRebel and it works fine, so far.
    >
    > When I set ISO to 3200, is this done by bit shifting or og
    > amplification ?
    >
    > In some usenet group someone said that 800 _might_ be the fastest
    > native speed of the sensor, and that 1600 was done by shifting bits,
    > not by amplification.
    >
    > I'm sure I don't understand the pros and cons of either aproach.
    > Amplification may just increase noise, shifting is at th eexpense of
    > dynamic range, and still picks up noise. Right ?
    I think it's a shift left which doubles the binary value and that would
    equal one f-stop. I have a 300D (not hacked) and have not found ISO 1600 to
    be all that useful. It's noisy and ISO 3200 would be worse. I also know
    that some DRebel users like ISO 1600 and 3200 and get decent results with
    noise reduction software ... just not to my liking.


    Charles Schuler Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel

    Al Dykes wrote:
    > I've loaded the hacked code into my dRebel and it works fine, so far.
    >
    > When I set ISO to 3200, is this done by bit shifting or og
    > amplification ?
    >
    > In some usenet group someone said that 800 _might_ be the fastest
    > native speed of the sensor, and that 1600 was done by shifting bits,
    > not by amplification.
    >
    > I'm sure I don't understand the pros and cons of either aproach.
    > Amplification may just increase noise, shifting is at th eexpense of
    > dynamic range, and still picks up noise. Right ?
    Pretty much. I don't know how many stops of pre-A/D gain there are. Bit
    shifting (up) will 'noisify' shaddow detail and put high dynamic detail at risk
    of obliteration. You will get more quantization noise (the pattern created by
    unfiltered digital amplification) which may make smooth/dark areas look lumpy.

    Beyond the mechanics above, the s/w in the camera is also optimizing its
    conversions from the sensor reading when converting to JPG (and in the PC when
    converting from RAW to TIFF/JPG, etc.) These are very privy to the OEM.
    Minolta for example have something in the camera called: "CxProcess™ III Image
    Optimization" and there's no telling specifically what goes on in there...
    ogous signal processing takes place in pretty much all digital cameras.

    From the Minolta site: "Konica Minolta’s exclusive CxProcess III technology
    brings out the best from the Maxxum 7D’s 6.1-million effective pixel APS-C size
    CCD. CxProcess III optimizes color saturation, edge sharpness, and
    highlight/shadow contrast to ensure that colors are rendered true-to-life.
    CxProcess III also suppresses noise during slow-shutter imaging, and assures
    rich textural detail and spatial perspective for vivid yet natural reproduction
    of skin tones, clouds, and other subjects with delicate surface textures."

    Cheers,
    Alan
    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm[/url]
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: [url]http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm[/url]
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: [url]http://www.pbase.com/shootin[/url]
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel


    "Alan Browne" <alan.brownefreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
    news:cq7l2i$5cs$1inews.gazeta.pl...
    > Al Dykes wrote:
    >
    > From the Minolta site: "Konica Minolta’s exclusive CxProcess III
    technology
    > brings out the best from the Maxxum 7D’s 6.1-million effective pixel APS-C
    size
    > CCD. CxProcess III optimizes color saturation, edge sharpness, and
    > highlight/shadow contrast to ensure that colors are rendered true-to-life.
    > CxProcess III also suppresses noise during slow-shutter imaging, and
    assures
    > rich textural detail and spatial perspective for vivid yet natural
    reproduction
    > of skin tones, clouds, and other subjects with delicate surface textures."
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Alan
    > --
    If you ever find yourself in one of those rare instances when you get the
    Minolta and a pair of Canon (20D and 1D,II) DSLRs together at the same time
    to compare the quality of output, you might discover a major contridiction
    in the quoted text.


    Ryadia Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel

    "Al Dykes" <adykespanix.com> wrote in message
    news:cq6udm$sbb$1panix5.panix.com...
    <snip>
    .....
    >
    > In some usenet group someone said that 800 _might_ be the fastest
    > native speed of the sensor, and that 1600 was done by shifting bits,
    > not by amplification.
    >
    > a d y k e s p a n i x . c o m
    ---------------
    You might want to look at the D70 review in Dpreview where there are side
    by side comparisons of the resulting noise output between the D70 and the
    300D (with normal firmware) are displayed. The "character" of the noise at
    1600 is described as "blotchy" vs. more fine grained for the D70.
    This *might* confirm the comment made about the 800 native speed
    limitations.
    Regards,
    Don F



    Don Farias Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel

    In message <RuqdnZ6vjpBtolrcRVn-swcomcast.com>,
    "Charles Schuler" <charleschulercomcast.net> wrote:
    >I have a 300D (not hacked) and have not found ISO 1600 to
    >be all that useful. It's noisy and ISO 3200 would be worse. I also know
    >that some DRebel users like ISO 1600 and 3200 and get decent results with
    >noise reduction software ... just not to my liking.
    One reason why quality nose-dives at the higher ISOs is not just the
    noise itself; higher ISOs are often used in environments with poor
    *quality* lighting, not just low quantity lighting. There tends to be
    more shadows and highlights in indoor lighting, especially when the
    walls, floors and ceilings are dark, or spotlights are used.

    If you shoot ISO 1600 outdoors with good lighting, you might not even
    notice the noise until close inspection.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPSno.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    JPS@no.komm Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: A question about ISO on a hacked Canon dRebel

    In message <cq6udm$sbb$1panix5.panix.com>,
    [email]adykespanix.com[/email] (Al Dykes) wrote:
    >I've loaded the hacked code into my dRebel and it works fine, so far.
    >When I set ISO to 3200, is this done by bit shifting or og
    >amplification ?
    3200 uses shifting.
    >In some usenet group someone said that 800 _might_ be the fastest
    >native speed of the sensor, and that 1600 was done by shifting bits,
    >not by amplification.
    That may have been me. I remember getting the same values from my 10D
    in the RAW data that I got for ISO 3200. I have better means of
    verifying this now, and will give more exacting details. I was going by
    DCRAW's output, which is kind of funky. Now, you can take a test shot
    in RAW mode, convert it to an uncompressed Adobe DNG, and look at the
    RAW data in all its rawness.
    >I'm sure I don't understand the pros and cons of either aproach.
    >Amplification may just increase noise, shifting is at th eexpense of
    >dynamic range, and still picks up noise. Right ?
    >Comments ?
    I suppose that at the highest amplifications, amplification artifacts
    become so strong that one stop of amplification might be worse than one
    stop of quantization, so above ISO 800 or 1600 they switch to the
    shifting, to make the "experience" of using different ISOs a smooth
    transition. I don't know why they didn't use intermediate values other
    than powers of two; say an amplification of 24x and multiply the numbers
    by 1.333. Maybe that causes banding in the shadows, or the computation
    takes too much time, but if the numbers were left alone, it could be
    compensated better in a RAW converter where there would be no
    intermediate posterized data.

    Personally, I would like a custom function that turned on pure
    amplification mode, and let *me* do the under-exposing, including
    intermediate ISOs above 800, where things tend to change fast.

    UPDATE:

    I just took blackframe and super-overexposed white wall images at ISOs
    800, 1600, and 3200 on my 10D. I converted them all to uncompressed DNG
    files, and looked at the RAW data in a hex editor (set to look at the
    data as decimal numbers, assuming 16-bit unsigned data). The data
    patterns are the same for the 1600 and 3200, and both are a little
    strange. You get a long string of even numbers, then a long string of
    perfectly alternating odd and even numbers, then a long string of odd
    numbers, then a long string of alternating numbers again. I don't know
    if it's the camera or the DNG converter that is doing this to the data
    (adding or subtracting one to blocks and striped blocks), but it's quite
    clear that there are only 11 bits used for both ISO 3200 *AND* ISO 1600.
    Here is some sample data from the ISO 1600 blackframe:

    [url]http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/38034746[/url]

    Note how only the vertical stripes marked have odd numbers.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <JPSno.komm>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    JPS@no.komm Guest

Similar Threads

  1. File Size Question . . . .Canon 300D
    By Wayne Cattanach in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 20th, 05:20 AM
  2. Question - Flash Devices - Hacked
    By Wantomeeto in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 19th, 03:25 AM
  3. Canon Battary Question.
    By Mark Handy in forum Photography
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 13th, 05:58 PM
  4. Question on currency of some Canon EF lenses
    By Alan F Cross in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 12th, 07:04 AM
  5. Canon S400 question
    By C3 in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 11th, 01:23 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139