Show Me: Dark Rides & Shows (Really)

[jann1033]

Mark a question..is that a 70-200 IS f2.8 lens you are using for those with a longer focal length?

nice photos all...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Those of you showing an ISO of 1600 - you ARE running the photos thru Noiseware, aren't you? Or are you going to tell me that when you use a dSLR and shoot at ISO 1600 you don't get noise?

In my case, I honestly don't recall. I often batch up shots greater than ISO 800 and run a pass of Neat Image.

What you might also be seeing is the noise reduction inherent in downscaling the images. When you drop the resolution substantially, you also lose a lot of noise. That's because the downscaling routine can use several pixels to determine the correct value for each pixel it keeps.

If you're really, really curious, pick out an image and I'll reprocess it without any NR and post the original size so that you can see the untouched noise levels.

Mark a question..is that a 70-200 IS f2.8 lens you are using for those with a longer focal length?

Yes. I used the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 for the shorter shots on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens for the longer shots. I also brought a Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 lens and a 50mm f/1.8 lens on the trip. I didn't use either of those very much.

 

[ukcatfan]

Those of you showing an ISO of 1600 - you ARE running the photos thru Noiseware, aren't you? Or are you going to tell me that when you use a dSLR and shoot at ISO 1600 you don't get noise? Those photos are perfect!

They likely did some NR, but for your reference, I did some test shots with my S2 and K100D. The 1600 on the DSLR is much cleaner than the 400 on the S2. Actually, the 3200 was pretty much the same as the 400 on the S2. I didn't test this level, but I would guess that the 1600 on the DSLR is similar to the 200 on the S2.

Kevin

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Here are some more MGM shots:

Great Movie Ride. ISO 1600, f/3.2, 1/80, 70mm

Tower of Terror. ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/4, 63mm

Little Mermaid. ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/20, 125mm

Osborne Lights. ISO 1600, f/4.0, 1/5, 19mm

 

[diznylnd]

DL Map during the 50th
Taken with my Canon A70.

 

[diznylnd]

Spectromagic. Taken with Canon 10D. EXIF not present. I can go look it up if anyone is dying to know.

Great pic!

 

[Amy]

They likely did some NR, but for your reference, I did some test shots with my S2 and K100D. The 1600 on the DSLR is much cleaner than the 400 on the S2. Actually, the 3200 was pretty much the same as the 400 on the S2. I didn't test this level, but I would guess that the 1600 on the DSLR is similar to the 200 on the S2.

Kevin

Yeah, that's what I figured - the dSLR's could produce better pictures at higher ISO's than I can get on my S3. Oh well; like GrumpyOne said, at least I'll be lugging around a lot less stuff!

 

[HarambeGuy]

Still learning my way around my new S3. I won't be able to hang with the DSLR crowd, but I did coax some decent shots out of the critter. The first two were taken using a mini-tripod set on the wall adjacent to the Cantina in Mexico. I used the 2-second delay so I wouldn't jiggle the camera pressing the shutter release. The third pic was via monopod, using manual shutter release. I think they were all on full zoom (forgive me, for I have sinned - I took pictures in the dark at full zoom). I haven't gotten around to doing any processing on these, and the resizing seems to have added some fuzz. Also, I used the wrong metering mode on the first two (I think). Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Italy, just before Illuminations
Flash used: No
Focal length: 40.3mm
CCD width: 0.97mm
Exposure time: 0.800 s
Aperture: f/3.5
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: center weight

American Adventure, just before Illuminations
Flash used: No
Focal length: 16.8mm
CCD width: 0.97mm
Exposure time: 1.000 s
Aperture: f/3.5
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: center weight

Festival of the Lion King.
Flash used: Yes (manual)
Focal length: 48.6mm
Exposure time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/3.5
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: center weight

 

[ukcatfan]

Italy, just before Illuminations
Flash used: No
Focal length: 40.3mm (35mm equivalent: 1489mm)
CCD width: 0.97mm
Exposure time: 0.800 s
Aperture: f/3.5
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: center weight


American Adventure, just before Illuminations
Flash used: No
Focal length: 16.8mm (35mm equivalent: 621mm)
CCD width: 0.97mm
Exposure time: 1.000 s
Aperture: f/3.5
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: center weight


Festival of the Lion King.
Flash used: Yes (manual)
Focal length: 48.6mm (35mm equivalent: 1796mm)
Exposure time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/3.5
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: center weight

I am betting that you just copied the 35mm equiv from some program, but you might want to check those b/c the entire range of the S3 in 35mm equiv is 36 - 432mm. Having a shot like that at 1796mm would be completly amazing as it would require a 4X converter. If I am wrong, please let me know.

Kevin

 

[DueyDooDah]

Those of you showing an ISO of 1600 - you ARE running the photos thru Noiseware, aren't you? Or are you going to tell me that when you use a dSLR and shoot at ISO 1600 you don't get noise? Those photos are perfect!

In Mark's case, just remember. He is using a camera with an image sensor the size of a cereal box. I don't think he gets noise. In fact, I think it's called quiet on his system.

Mark, I'm envious except for the weight you carry with that thing. But, I'm sure you work out.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What do all of these exposure numbers mean to me and my camera? How can I see what settings I would need to take the same shot?

ISO, aperture, and shutter speed are universal standards. A combination of the three represents the correct exposure for a certain light level. If those settings worked for someone, they will work for you in the same light level. You can also play with those settings to match your camera's capabilities.

Here are scales for ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. If you move down the scale on one, you must move up the same amount on one of the other scales. In other words, if you move two steps down on ISO, you must move either two steps up on shutter speed or two steps up on aperture (or one each on shutter speed and aperture) to get the same exposure.

ISO
6400
3200
1600
800
400
200
100
50

Aperture
f/1
f/1.4
f/2
f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11
f/16
f/22
f/32

Shutter Speed
1 minute
30 seconds
15 seconds
8 seconds
4 seconds
2 seconds
1 second
1/2 seconds
1/4 seconds
1/8 seconds
1/15 seconds
1/30 seconds
1/60 seconds
1/125 seconds
1/500 seconds
1/1000 seconds
1/2000 seconds
1/4000 seconds
1/8000 seconds

So if you see the settings "1600, f/2.8, 1/60s" and you wonder how that would work at ISO 400, you can do the translation. ISO 400 is two steps down on the ISO chart, so you have to go up two steps on the shutter speed and/or aperture. If you keep the aperture the same, that means that you need to increase the shutter speed from 1/60s to 1/15s.

What if your lens could only go to f/5.6 and you find shots above ISO 800 objectionable on your camera? Then then "ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/60s" shot would be one step down on the ISO scale (1600 to 800) and two steps down on aperture scale (f/2.8 to f/5.6), so you would need to move up the shutter speed scale three steps to make up for those changes. That would give you a shutter speed of 1/8 seconds.

These rules are the same for everyone. They don't vary based on camera brand or quality. ISO 400 means roughly the same light sensitivity on a camera phone as it does on an $8,000 full frame DSLR. The cameraphone will show A LOT more noise at ISO 400, but the exposure level is the same.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Incidentally, if you've ever wondered why your camera has an obsurdly fast maximum shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, or even 1/8000), it's generally not used because you need to eliminate motion blur on bullets whizzing past you. It's because you sometimes need that to make everything else fit on the scales I posted. On a bright sunny day, you may have so much light that you use ISO 100 on your camera. You may be taking a portrait on want really shallow DOF, so you use f/2.8. That might force you to use a 1/4000s shutter speed just to keep from overexposing. Another alternative is to put a neutral density filter (like sunglasses for your camera) on your lens.

 

[HarambeGuy]

I am betting that you just copied the 35mm equiv from some program, but you might want to check those b/c the entire range of the S3 in 35mm equiv is 36 - 432mm. Having a shot like that at 1796mm would be completly amazing as it would require a 4X converter. If I am wrong, please let me know.

Kevin

I just copied and pasted the exif data from photobucket. Everything else looks correct...all I can say is I had the optical zoom maxed out, and did not use any digital zoom. I don't have any idea how photobucket came up with those equivalent focal lengths. Sorry for the confusion, I'll take them out.

 

[SharonLowe]

Here's another from Buzz Lightyear:

 

[Groucho]

There is noise reduction done on my SpectroMagic shots, but even at 1024x768, it's virtually impossible to tell the difference before and after. There is a SpectroMagic thread from a month or two ago in which I posted before-and-after shots. Actually, to save digging around for that old thread, here's one of the comparison I did. ISO 1600, F1.7.

Can you guess which is which?

At 100%, you can see the noise, but even then it's not too terrible. In fact, I think next trip, I might venture into ISO 3200 territory more often for really tricky situations, and see how the noise-reduced shots look.

Since we're talking Buzz, I'll toss my shot in... this was tricky as I didn't want to use my 50mm (too narrow) so my next choice was my old Sigma 28mm F2.8, which is manual focus. The line was moving steadily enough where I was having a hard time getting good focus, and as soon as I did, I'd have to move again. This ended up being my best shot IMHO. ISO 400, F2.8, 1/45th second. In retrospect, I think I would have been better with my kit lens and ISO 1600. Maybe even exposure compensation of +1/3 or +1/2 - not too much, as it's so easy to blow out the details or get unrealistic colors. (Actually, this one may benefit from some white balance adjustment.) No post-processing done on this one.

Oh yeah, in the Spectro warmup shot above, the first shot is "as shot", the second is after Noiseware had its way with it.

 

[cpbjgc]

Here's a few using my old P&S. Let's start with Fantasmic:

Camera model: Canon PowerShot S1 IS
Focal length: 11.0mm (35mm equivalent: 103mm)
Exposure time: 0.125 s (1/8)
Aperture: f/3.1
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix

Camera model: Canon PowerShot S1 IS
Focal length: 11.0mm (35mm equivalent: 75mm)
Exposure time: 0.125 s (1/8)
Aperture: f/3.1
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix

Playhouse Disney show (I know, I know, even the animatronics have their eyes closed in my pictures!)

Camera model: Canon PowerShot S1 IS
Focal length: 20.0mm (35mm equivalent: 136mm)
Exposure time: 0.017 s (1/60)
Aperture: f/3.1
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix

And one from the DCL Wonder show, Hercules the Muse-ical

Camera model: Canon PowerShot S1 IS
Focal length: 34.7mm (35mm equivalent: 237mm)
Exposure time: 0.040 s (1/25)
Aperture: f/3.2
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: matrix

For some reason there is no ISO info recorded with the pictures, but I am guessing they would all be at 400 which is the maximum setting on the S1.

 

[jann1033]

.... I don't think he gets noise. In fact, I think it's called quiet on his system.

....

slightly ot but recently i asked about sharpness differences in 30d and above...maybe what i am seeing could be noise differences that actually make the photo look less "grainy" hence "sharper"...

 

[boBQuincy]

Incidentally, if you've ever wondered why your camera has an obsurdly fast maximum shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, or even 1/8000), it's generally not used because you need to eliminate motion blur on bullets whizzing past you. It's because you sometimes need that to make everything else fit on the scales I posted. On a bright sunny day, you may have so much light that you use ISO 100 on your camera. You may be taking a portrait on want really shallow DOF, so you use f/2.8. That might force you to use a 1/4000s shutter speed just to keep from overexposing. Another alternative is to put a neutral density filter (like sunglasses for your camera) on your lens.

One thing that is not well known about absurdly fast shutter speeds is that the shutter does not actually move that fast, not even close. Most shutters have a maximum speed of about the same speed as the flash sync, often about 1/200 second. For anything faster than that the shutter still moves at 1/200 second but instead of the entire sensor being exposed it is a slit that moves across the sensor.
How this works is for up to 1/200 the first curtain opens and the second curtain follows after the first has finished it travel across the sensor opening. For faster shutter speeds the second curtain starts before the first has finished, reducing the time any portion of the sensor is exposed but still taking 1/200 total time.

So does this matter? Maybe, if the image of the subject is moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the shutter it could cause some odd exposure effects where the subject receives the full 1/200, or in the opposite direction the subject might receive almost no exposure.

How likely is this to occur? Rarely, but if it ever happens at least you know it isn't a problem with the camera.

 

[Master Mason]

Oh yeah, in the Spectro warmup shot above, the first shot is "as shot", the second is after Noiseware had its way with it.

to be honest, I like the first one better. I am not a serious pixel peeper, and the noise wear stuff tends to make the images softer in my opinion.

Also, I guess I am strange in this respect, but I liked high ISO film, because of the grain, I almost never used anything below 400 film. People that didn't have a problem with film grain, now expect digital to be perfect, not sure why, To me the grain and noise make it a living breathing thing...

 

[Groucho]

I don't disagree, I think I do prefer the original. The skin is a little too "plastic" in the de-noised version, and there certainly aren't objectionable levels of noise in the original.

Some of my photos are not optimized (to say the least ) just because I was trying to go through my 2,500 shots and get them online in a reasonable period of time. The Specto shots pretty much automatically got noise reduction, etc... some day I'll devote some time to going back and trying to bring out a little more quality. Who knows, maybe I'll even be able to at least make the finals of one of the weekly contests.