# Issue with Color noise @ 1000 Iso Canon 5D MarkII, 50mm f1.4, jpg.



## elrafo (Jan 18, 2009)

Hello there,


Here is a sample of a picture I did this WE, I have updated the Firmware of the camera to the 1.0.0.7 because I heard about some bending problems on the 5D.

It was shooten in JPG Large size, If you look on the background, on the dark Out of focus part of the picture, you can see clearly a strange noise problem with greens, and reds colors. I am not found of that , particularly for a 3,000$ camera...Is is normal??

here is a crop:






and full resolution:
http://raphael.lacoste.free.fr/thephotoforum/IMG_7097.JPG

Are there some Canon users down here? do you think it is a normal issue with this condition of lighting ?


thanks!


----------



## elrafo (Jan 18, 2009)

oh a detail, there was a negative exposure bias value, do you think it can play a role there ?


----------



## schumionbike (Jan 18, 2009)

elrafo said:


> oh a detail, there was a negative exposure bias value, do you think it can play a role there ?


 

Yeah, you want to overexpose when you're shooting high ISO, it'll cut down on the noise.


----------



## elrafo (Jan 18, 2009)

oh thanks,

but do you know if there was earlier versions of the 5D that had troubles with high iso? was is only a firmware issue or hardware? I am affraid now to have a bad model


----------



## schumionbike (Jan 18, 2009)

I never shot on a 5D before so I don't know.  But I can tell you that sometime my picture at 1600 ISO is cleaner that a shot a 800 ISO just because I underexpose badly at 8000 like by a stop or so but then again, I don't know anything about the 5D.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 18, 2009)

If you have no noise reduction turned on, that's probably what it looks like.


----------



## elrafo (Jan 18, 2009)

Hey,

I had Standard NR I think... it is not enough ?

while playing with Digital Photo professional I found nice results with chroma NR, still, I don't like much this noise, maybe it is a normal issue but it looks like I miss some tones to blend close colors together.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jan 19, 2009)

I think in a crop that big, that's about how much noise you should expect. I mean when are you going to need to use the pictures at that size? Probably only when editing them and looking for noise. That's less noise than my 40d has at ISO 400! 
P.S. I realized my post sounds nasty, but it's not supposed to be, I mean I do the same thing. I look at the pictures big, and then see the noise and freak out trying to get rid of it, but then I realize that you can't even see it unless I am viewing the pictures at like 100%. Oh and I also agree with slightly over exposing Jpegs so that the shadows don't have quite so much noise.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 19, 2009)

I'll bet there is significantly less noise if you shoot raw, but I haven't seen any side by side comparisons.It's probably worth looking into though.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 19, 2009)

That is actually a small amount of noise and it will not turn up in a print less than 3 feet wide.  You are pixel peeping, so don't do that 

Also, Expose Right


----------



## elrafo (Jan 19, 2009)

oki oki I am too picky 
but I thought the 5D would do better a 1000 iso!


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 19, 2009)

Have you compared it to any other cameras in that ISO range?  I think you will find that this is pretty clean.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 19, 2009)

Do we really need a HUGE out of focus jpg in this thread? Probably not (the crop is fine), how about you edit that out to save bandwidth and keep the site accessible for everyone.

5Dmii 'noise' is acceptable at ISO 2500, sometimes 3200 IME.  Conditions such as light and temp will produce variable results.  Please experiment a bit before your next review.

-Shea


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

elrafo said:


> oki oki I am too picky
> but I thought the 5D would do better a 1000 iso!



You should have went to a D700... lol

I know, that is unneeded rib poking (please don't take it as anything more).

I feel that this camera is better than most at over ISO  800 (though there are others out there that are cleaner) but perhaps your expectations are a little above what this camera can do?  

Of course, a few things that you can do to reduce noise will help:

- you have to nail the exposure precisely.
- Underexpose and the darks will show much more noise.  
- Overexpose and your brighter transitional areas will show increased noise.
- oversharpening brings out any noise that is in the picture, so sharpen only modestly at higher ISOs.

Don't be averse to using noise removal software, however you should be aware that as you increase ISO over 400, your dynamic range drops,  as does contrast and saturation.   The 5D does have issues with chroma noise that your pics do show, though.  Chroma noise is that red/green pixelation and you can do a good job cleaning it up in post.  *Your profile does clearly state that you do not want anyone to edit your images*, however I wanted you to see a before and after with noise reduction software.  If you tell me to remove the examples, I will apologize and also take out the pictures immediately.

I used a small crop to show you a before/after below:











As you can tell, a good amount of it can be cleaned up, but you should also be aware that any and all noise removal programs will remove noise... but also remove detail, more as you increase the strength of the noise removal, as you can tell.  The noise reduction downsides are more obvious here as we are applying them to an 8-bit JPG and not a 12 or 14-bit RAW file (you are working in 16-bit format files for best results, I hope?).

PS, in the future, PLEASE do not post full sized/resolution pics... its not considered very polite to anyone who doesn't have a fast internet access.  You could have easily accomplished the task with a 100% crop of a section of your picture (thanks so much!).


----------



## elrafo (Jan 19, 2009)

Ls3D said:


> Do we really need a HUGE out of focus jpg in this thread? Probably not (the crop is fine), how about you edit that out to save bandwidth and keep the site accessible for everyone.
> 
> 5Dmii 'noise' is acceptable at ISO 2500, sometimes 3200 IME.  Conditions such as light and temp will produce variable results.  Please experiment a bit before your next review.
> 
> -Shea



you speak like a mod 

image reduced, sorry for the 21mp jpg


----------



## elrafo (Jan 19, 2009)

Jerry,

thanks a lot for this example, Actually no problem to edit this picture, I send the high resolution so feel free 

I also tried from my side to play in the canon photo editor and quite removed all the chroma noise in the raw file. 
I will do some other tests and check if I still get this kind of artefacts.
I also see that NR has a big impact on details, and it is quite hard to keep hairs while removing noise...
I think I like to keep luminance noise, it reminds me the film grain, so that is quite good for me, thanks for your test!

Raph


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

My NR application on your pic had some very negative effects, but I just cranked the settings up to full on purpose so you could see the worst case scenario.  Second, they were done on a 8-bit JPG, not the 16-bit RAW, and that never helps. 

In real life, if I was doing something important like a large print for a client or family member, I would be working on the 14-bit RAW or 16-bit TIFF file and use about 10-30% of the maximum strength settings so that I had reduced noise with as little  drop in detail as possible.  My in camera NR would be completely turned off (software NR is always superior... at least today).  Mike had a very valid point... it would not be too visible to spot this level of noise on a print, but you could improve it a little without any loss of detail, if needed.

You can also do a pretty good job on a 16-bit image manually by going into ProPhoto space and reducing the noise in the A and B channels or using a gaussian blur in photoshop before outputting it to a JPG.  For those that have PS CS3/4, but not a good NR software, this is the "poor man's" way of getting the job done.


----------



## elrafo (Jan 19, 2009)

sure, and regadring NR tools don't you think that the best is to edit the noise from the Real dedicated camera image editor with raw files ?


----------



## K_Pugh (Jan 19, 2009)

there seems to be a lot of green and purple 'fringing' sort of effect all around the photo, too.. lens issue I'm guessing.

or is it just me.

pity about the noise though.. 

so, people say it's better to overexpose with high ISO's? by how much do yous generally overexpose? and by overexposing i'm guessing you'd have put the ISO up (generally) in the first place as you needed a fast shutter speed and/or you were already wide open - SO, does the advantage on going up another ISO solely for the purpose of overexposing really have any benifit over staying with the lower ISO to keep a 'proper' exposure? hope that makes sense.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

elrafo said:


> sure, and regadring NR tools don't you think that the best is to edit the noise from the Real dedicated camera image editor with raw files ?



You always, always, always want to edit in the highest quality file you can.  You should also set PS to *NOT* convert it into 8-bit mode as it imports (which is the default action, BTW!).

You want to work on a 12-bit or, even better, a 14-bit RAW file, or a 16-bit TIFF or a 16-bit PSD file... that's it, that's all.  Once you are finished and happy with the photo... THEN output a nice 8-bit JPG file.

If you were to draw out your workflow from A-Z... the word "8-bit" appears NOWHERE in the workflow except at the last and final step.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 19, 2009)

K_Pugh said:


> so, people say it's better to overexpose with high ISO's?


Not quite.  
You want to "expose to the right", not overexpose.  Now I've talked about that before, and I do not call it "expose to the right"... I call it making a PROPER exposure.  The term "expose to the right" comes from film... and may "conceptually" work, but in fact, the BEST way to expose in the digital world is to expose for the midtones, and not for the highlights... *another* difference of technique from the film days.



K_Pugh said:


> by how much do yous generally overexpose?


You never, ever overexpose.. thats bad.  Overexpose = blown highlights = bad.

How much do you add to the exposure?  No fixed answer, however the answer comes from:
- what is the scene you are shooting now?
- what are your camera settings?
- how good is your camera at higher ISO settings?
- does your camera underexpose to help save you from blowing out highlights?

That's just for starters.  There are other factors to consider too... like histograms, and I am not taking JUST the luminance histogram, but the RGB ones as well.



K_Pugh said:


> and by overexposing i'm guessing you'd have put the ISO up (generally) in the first place as you needed a fast shutter speed and/or you were already wide open - SO, does the advantage on going up another ISO solely for the purpose of overexposing really have any benifit over staying with the lower ISO to keep a 'proper' exposure? hope that makes sense.



Yeah, it kinda-sorta does make sense.  
But no, you don't "shoot to the right" only by raising ISO.  You do it by increasing shutter times or widening the aperture.

Raising ISO can be used, but it is a tool of LAST RESORT, to be used ONLY when all else fails.  Why?  Because *ALL* cameras shoot with their widest dynamic range and best final results at their base ISO setting over any other higher setting.

Personally, I am of the school of "get your exposure right in camera based on your needs" train of thought using the Zone System for my exposure settings.  The concept of pushing it in camera and then lowering it in PP becuase it is too bright has not really showed me any advantages.  Not with my D200 and certainly not with my D700.


----------



## K_Pugh (Jan 19, 2009)

yeah i used the term 'overexpose' as that's what was used, relatively, to your desired exposure.. not actually overexposed and losing highlight detail 

Yeah I think I didn't make much sense. I know raising the ISO is a last resort thing (I still use a D200, c'mon ) hence that's why I said that the user would already have used the widest aperture possible and the slowest shutter speed possible and hence why he needed to increase the ISO anyway, therefore if he wanted to 'overexpose' he'd have to increase the ISO further. Just asking if the compromise of further increasing the ISO to 'overexpose' and reduce noise was actually better than shooting at the 'desired exposure' on the lower ISO. 

lol doesn't matter, I'm the same, tend to get exposure for my subject right in camera rather than adjusting in software later.


----------



## itsjustme2 (Jan 21, 2009)

Hi,
Your noise is most definitely not normal.  I'm experiencing the same thing - it popped up out of nowhere a few days ago.  A bunch of chroma noise and an overall loss of detail and sharpness.  Mine is a bit worse than yours though.

After some exhaustive tests, micro adjustments, settings, etc, I've come to the conclusion that my brand new camera needs some service.

When it's working well, the MKII's noise reduction is fantastic and I didn't see much, if any visible chroma noise until I hit ISO 1600 and even then I'd really have to be looking for it. 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's probably just going to get worse :/



elrafo said:


> Hello there,
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of a picture I did this WE, I have updated the Firmware of the camera to the 1.0.0.7 because I heard about some bending problems on the 5D.
> ...


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 21, 2009)

ISO 4000

No NR, RAW, completely acceptable.

Compare.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 21, 2009)

Thats a HUGE difference between this pic and elrafo's.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 21, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Thats a HUGE difference between this pic and elrafo's.


 
Yeah, there's a ton of color noise in his at ISO 1000 and there shouldn't be. It could be the JPG conversion in camera, but then the noise reduction should take care of it and make it look plasticy. What could have happened is that it was underexposed and whatever program he uses to browse/edit bumped up the exposure to get an acceptable histogram, which in turn created more noise from the photo.

I'm just posting a photo that was taken as a 5D MKII RAW file at 4000 ISO with no noise reduction and no editing besides the conversion from Canon RAW to JPG.


----------



## elrafo (Jan 21, 2009)

hey there,

Have seen that some other people are having noise issue, must be exposure problem, or lens aperture/iso?

here is on aother forum: 5D Mark II noise... - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Also, here is another picture I did at 3200 iso, with 85mm f/1.8 lens, there is less chroma noise that my 1000 iso picture... lighting condition exposure and lens must have a big part in the problem...






and the full size picture:
http://raphael.lacoste.free.fr/thephotoforum/IMG_7345.JPG


----------



## elrafo (Jan 21, 2009)

Hey Village Idiot , (sounds like I am insulting you lol)

Did you turn off also NR in Digital Photo Professional Editor before exporting? seems like there is a default value (4-luminance 5-Chroma) if you don't even use NR in the camera settings. If I really turn off these settings to 0 and Apply on a raw file in the editor, I can clearly see green and red dots.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2009)

elrafo said:


> Hey Village Idiot , (sounds like I am insulting you lol)
> 
> Did you turn off also NR in Digital Photo Professional Editor before exporting? seems like there is a default value (4-luminance 5-Chroma) if you don't even use NR in the camera settings. If I really turn off these settings to 0 and Apply on a raw file in the editor, I can clearly see green and red dots.


 
I use Adobe Photo Shop CS4.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 22, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Not quite.
> You want to "expose to the right", not overexpose.  Now I've talked about that before, and I do not call it "expose to the right"... I call it making a PROPER exposure.  The term "expose to the right" comes from film... and may "conceptually" work, but in fact, the BEST way to expose in the digital world is to expose for the midtones, and not for the highlights... *another* difference of technique from the film days.
> 
> 
> You never, ever overexpose.. thats bad.  Overexpose = blown highlights = bad.



Watching you dance around exposing the right is almost humorous.  Jerry, thousands of digital photographers expose to right as common practise.  Thousands of digital photographers call this EXPOSING TO THE RIGHT.  Your stubborn attempt at renaming/rebranding this technique is lunacy.

An overexposed image does not = blown highlights.  An image can be overexposed with clipping highlights.

The more you push ALL THE TONES to the right WITHOUT CLIPPING (grayscale, RGB) = MORE TONAL DATA RECORDED BY YOUR SENSOR. 
 :banghead::banghead::banghead:

THIS MEANS LESS DATA LOST

THIS MEANS MORE DATA FOR POST PROCESSING

THIS MEANS LESS NOISE


Go here : https://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml


----------



## elrafo (Jan 22, 2009)

PEACE DearLeader ! 

I think you are saying the same things with different words...
if you could on film push exposure by 4 stops, we have to be carefull now in Digital not to clip our HL informations. underexposing is also coming with noise issue.
IMO, taking right pictures with films is easier, except that we don't have a live preview, and a 3200 Iso film is way to grainy


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 22, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Watching you dance around exposing the right is almost humorous.  Jerry, thousands of digital photographers expose to right as common practise.  Thousands of digital photographers call this EXPOSING TO THE RIGHT.  Your stubborn attempt at renaming/rebranding this technique is lunacy.



Having a bad day?  You seem to be going from thread to thread targeting me specifically.  Not that I mind a fan club or anything... but I'm sorry, nothing you say has any meaning to me and I find your outbust humorous at best.

I am not "rebranding"  anything.  You may continue doing things as you wish, and I shall as well in my own way.  If you prefer to use jurrassic methods to get your prints, you are more than encouraged to do so.  Me, I will do it my way, and shall be quite happy with it as well.

I hope your day gets a little better... seems you really need it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2009)

Why's it always gotta be about dinosaurs?


----------



## elrafo (Jan 22, 2009)

this guy is not a Dino: http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/
he is one of the best photographer of the 21th century, and still shooting with a Sinar 8x10 film


----------



## Garbz (Jan 22, 2009)

ISO1000 says it all. If you wanted a low noise image for high ISOs you should have looked at cameras with low pixel densities, and not high ones. The Canon 5D MkII has almost the same pixel density as the noise horrid D200.


----------



## elrafo (Jan 22, 2009)

I owned a D200, and I can tell you that up to 640-800 Iso, my pictures were useless. Noise at 1600 was terrible.

I have seen some great shots done at Iso 3200 on a 5d Mark II, maybe I have to spend more time adjusting my cam image profile, or get a better copy of this model ...

...and yes maybe I would have been better to wait for the D700x


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 22, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> If you prefer to use jurrassic methods to get your prints, you are more than encouraged to do so.  Me, I will do it my way, and shall be quite happy with it as well.




If you consider a shooting technique that maximizes your sensors tonal ability to render an image to be jurrassic then yes.... we are very far apart...

oh well...:coffee:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2009)

Garbz said:


> ISO1000 says it all. If you wanted a low noise image for high ISOs you should have looked at cameras with low pixel densities, and not high ones. The Canon 5D MkII has almost the same pixel density as the noise horrid D200.


 
Did you not see my 5D MKII shot at 4000 ISO a few post up? It looks better than most APS-C sensor cameras at 1600 ISO.

The D200 also has a CCD sensor which is horrible for controlling noise in comparison to a CMOS sensor. That's why Canon was always praised as the leader in high ISO performance between Canon and Nikon. Nikon started using CMOS sensors and you can see an improvement.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 22, 2009)

Garbz said:


> ISO1000 says it all. If you wanted a low noise image for high ISOs you should have looked at cameras with low pixel densities, and not high ones. The Canon 5D MkII has almost the same pixel density as the noise horrid D200.



Someone's had their head in the sand.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 23, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Did you not see my 5D MKII shot at 4000 ISO a few post up? It looks better than most APS-C sensor cameras at 1600 ISO.



No, but given the high megapixels noise is also less visible. It may look just the same if zoomed at 100% but I am guessing here. I haven't seen them.



Village Idiot said:


> The D200 also has a CCD sensor which is horrible for controlling noise in comparison to a CMOS sensor. That's why Canon was always praised as the leader in high ISO performance between Canon and Nikon.



Just plain wrong. Sensor type has nothing to do with SNR. It's all about implementation.



tsaraleksi said:


> Someone's had their head in the sand.


 Yeah quite possibly. Or maybe the fact that most ISO1000 image I have seen after noise reduction looks like the OP's post lead me to that conclusion. That and the fact that RAW images from the camera at ISO1000 still exhibit noise, and that poor noise reduction algorithms lead to colour blothches like that. 

To the OP, what noise reduction are you using? In camera NR? The one with Canon's software? Photoshop? Try using a different noise reduction software, or try turning it off completely before you start blaming your camera.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 23, 2009)

You're shooting at ISO1000, that's why you have noise, I shoot on a D700 and when I set it to ISO 1000, I also get noise, Go Figure!!

I think you're being way too critical, you print that picture anything smaller then 20x30 and you wont' see the noise unless you're 2 inches away from it, and if you're scrutinizing the detail THAT much, shoot LF film.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 23, 2009)

Garbz said:


> No, but given the high megapixels noise is also less visible. It may look just the same if zoomed at 100% but I am guessing here. I haven't seen them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Apparently you just post and don't read...



Village Idiot said:


> ISO 4000
> 
> No NR, RAW, completely acceptable.
> 
> Compare.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 23, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Apparently you just post and don't read...



Why is always about reading?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 23, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Why is always about reading?


 
Ken Rockwell is a joke. That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 23, 2009)

Ok, I have a question for y'all... 

I remember on the 40d etc. when they came out, and we were able to set the camera to half stop ISO's and the like the off ISO's (such as 600, rather than the 100,200,400,800,1600 etc.) were noisier. Is that still the case or has that been fixed with the camera?

At the time I believe a 1200ish shot would have more noise than a 1600 shot... thus I'm wondering if this could be part of the "problem"

I don't know about this, but I wanted to throw it out there.


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut (Jan 23, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> Ok, I have a question for y'all...
> 
> I remember on the 40d etc. when they came out, and we were able to set the camera to half stop ISO's and the like the off ISO's (such as 600, rather than the 100,200,400,800,1600 etc.) were noisier. Is that still the case or has that been fixed with the camera?
> 
> ...



No way! I need to find out of this is true. Got some evidence or do I have to do loads of boring test shots on charts?

I have to say I'm dubious...


----------

