Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

cause its a pimped notebook chip. > > The best (virtual) lens/camera upgrade in years! > > Toine > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023, 21:22 Paul Stenquist, > wrote: > > > Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest > > version of ACR that is said to u

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

s said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very > nice job. Still trying to decide if it looks natural, but it can certainly > save a noisy shot. > > Paul > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRI

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

While packing up I ran across a Nikon "Film Camera" book. On 4/25/2023 4:00 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: There's a thread on the RangeFinder Forum in which the topic of Nikon F and F2 cameras is being discussed. It made me nostalgic for my old Nikon F Photomic FTn, which I owned and lived

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

Classic beauty. Dan Matyola *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery * On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 4:00 PM Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > There's a thread on the RangeFinder Forum in which the topic of Nikon F > and F2 cameras is being discussed. It made me

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

. fun fun fun… G > On Apr 25, 2023, at 1:12 PM, Alastair Robertson > wrote: > > Very impressive. I guess the DNG files are much bigger than a jpg, but with > noise recovery like this on offer it would be tempting to keep the output > set to DNG. I read somewhere that jpg

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

Very impressive. I guess the DNG files are much bigger than a jpg, but with noise recovery like this on offer it would be tempting to keep the output set to DNG. I read somewhere that jpgs may be supported by lightroom's denoise function in the future. Alastair On Wed, 26 Apr 2023, 8:00 am

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

There's a thread on the RangeFinder Forum in which the topic of Nikon F and F2 cameras is being discussed. It made me nostalgic for my old Nikon F Photomic FTn, which I owned and lived with constantly from 1969 to about 1976 or so. Which drew me to thinking about the early Nikon F plain prism

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

On 4/22/2023 6:12 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Apr 22, 2023, at 2:53 PM, Comcast wrote: Of course. But it’s also important to note that Adobe doesn’t hold one’s files for ransom. Just the ability to access the work that you’ve done, and make updates later. For people who use photoshop

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

ll the extra features I need such >as focus stacking, panorama, HDR and has excellent tools for sharpening and >noise reduction. However, many of my lenses are not in the LR database. It >appears that Adobe is making these days a lot of progress steps compared to >competition with subject rec

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

rthday party. > > I basically did the processing the day before I moved, so I just narrowed > the sets down to “proof” level. One of my final steps was to do a mass > application of noise reduction. Some photos (wide angle) were taken with > the K-1, the tighter shots were t

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

stacking, panorama, HDR and has excellent tools for sharpening and noise reduction. However, many of my lenses are not in the LR database. It appears that Adobe is making these days a lot of progress steps compared to competition with subject recognition, improved noise reduction and now Firefly AI

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

I used the latest LRC to process a bunch of photos I did of a friend’s CD release/birthday party. I basically did the processing the day before I moved, so I just narrowed the sets down to “proof” level. One of my final steps was to do a mass application of noise reduction. Some photos (wide

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

PM, Bill wrote: > > I found a K5 file shot at ISO 51200. I doubt very much if I had in camera > noise reduction turned on. > The first image is the raw file at whatever defaults Lightroom opened it > with. > The second is with Denoise used, no other changes. > I left a small am

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

> On Apr 22, 2023, at 3:12 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > ... > For people who use photoshop $10/month is a great deal. For people who only > use lightroom, it’s not such a good deal, as much or more as we were paying > for annual upgrades, and we simply lose the ability to continue using an >

ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction Photos

I found a K5 file shot at ISO 51200. I doubt very much if I had in camera noise reduction turned on. The first image is the raw file at whatever defaults Lightroom opened it with. The second is with Denoise used, no other changes. I left a small amount of noise in to give the skin some texture

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 10:52 AM Comcast wrote: > I don’t know what “ransomware” is, but photoshop online has been a great > deal. It’s installed on my box and faster than the last CC version. It > costs ten bucks a month and includes bridge, ACR, photoshop, Lightroom and > more. It upgrades

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

> On Apr 22, 2023, at 12:09 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > > Am 22.04.23 um 18:51 schrieb Comcast: >> I don’t know what “ransomware” is, but photoshop online has been a great >> deal. It’s installed on my box and faster than the last CC version. It costs >> ten bucks a month and includes

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Sounds reasonable. I have never used Lightroom for more than a few minutes, so I’m not aware of it’s peculiarities. Paul > On Apr 22, 2023, at 6:12 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >  > >> On Apr 22, 2023, at 2:53 PM, Comcast wrote: >> >> Of course. But it’s also important to note that Adobe

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

> On Apr 22, 2023, at 2:53 PM, Comcast wrote: > > Of course. But it’s also important to note that Adobe doesn’t hold one’s > files for ransom. Just the ability to access the work that you’ve done, and make updates later. For people who use photoshop $10/month is a great deal. For people

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Of course. But it’s also important to note that Adobe doesn’t hold one’s files for ransom. Paul > On Apr 22, 2023, at 4:09 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > It seems very easy for people to forget that what works, or doesn’t work, > for them is not a universal answer. > > >> On Apr 22, 2023,

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

It seems very easy for people to forget that what works, or doesn’t work, for them is not a universal answer. > On Apr 22, 2023, at 12:11 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > > Am 22.04.23 um 20:53 schrieb Godfrey DiGiorgi: > >> Anyway, I continue to be glad it's working well for you. It really

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

I don’t use Lightroom, but I know the Adobe photo package comes with a cloud version and an installed version. I use ACR and photoshop, save all my pics on two external drives and back them up on Dropbox. Paul > On Apr 22, 2023, at 3:09 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > > Am 22.04.23 um 18:51

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Am 22.04.23 um 20:53 schrieb Godfrey DiGiorgi: Anyway, I continue to be glad it's working well for you. It really doesn't matter what sort of software you use as long as you're happy with it and it gets the job you want done properly. :) Amen to that. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher -

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Am 22.04.23 um 18:51 schrieb Comcast: I don’t know what “ransomware” is, but photoshop online has been a great deal. It’s installed on my box and faster than the last CC version. It costs ten bucks a month and includes bridge, ACR, photoshop, Lightroom and more. It upgrades automatically so I

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

> On Apr 22, 2023, at 8:29 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > > Am 22.04.23 um 16:48 schrieb Godfrey DiGiorgi: >> Ralf, I'm glad ON1 is working so well for you. >> >> I tested it pretty thoroughly some time back and found that it was near to >> unusable for my work. It seems to never stop

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

aight shot of the side of her... > > ann > >> On 4/22/2023 5:31 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: >>> Am 21.04.23 um 21:22 schrieb Paul Stenquist: >>> >>> Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest >>> version of ACR that i

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Am 22.04.23 um 16:48 schrieb Godfrey DiGiorgi: Ralf, I'm glad ON1 is working so well for you. I tested it pretty thoroughly some time back and found that it was near to unusable for my work. It seems to never stop processing and be finished with a job, no matter how small the number of files

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Yes and no.  I'm remembering an older shot I think, without the people on the beach.. and yes I mixed up the names .. the people on the beach and the light house make the shot for me that I was confused about...  I just generally find straight shots of the side of a large modern day ship

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

are. > On Apr 22, 2023, at 2:31 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > > Am 21.04.23 um 21:22 schrieb Paul Stenquist: > >> Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest >> version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very >> ni

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

The latest update of LR Classic incorporates this "AI noise reduction" as well. I'll have to go backwards in time to find some older photos that need it, that I have already processed in older versions of LR and saved as TIFFs, so see what difference it makes. In general, none of

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

The latest update of LR Classic incorporates this "AI noise reduction" as well. I'll have to go backwards in time to find some older photos that need it, that I have already processed in older versions of LR and saved as TIFFs, so see what difference it makes. In general, none of

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Am 22.04.23 um 15:56 schrieb ann sanfedele: I"m guessing ON1 is something I can't afford :-( The regular price for a perpetual license is around 90 dollars but it drops as low as fifty-odd towards the end of the year. I have sooo many slides..  LIke this shot of the Pride of Bruges .. more

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

This one : https://www.fotocommunity.com/photo/pride-of-bruges-fotoralfbe/45950975 maybe your email software stripped what I was replying to? ann On 4/22/2023 10:01 AM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: "LIke this shot of the Pride of Bruges" Which shot? Dan Matyola

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

"LIke this shot of the Pride of Bruges " Which shot? Dan Matyola *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery * -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

04.23 um 21:22 schrieb Paul Stenquist: Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very nice job. Still trying to decide if it looks natural, but it can certainly save a noisy shot. All major

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Am 21.04.23 um 21:22 schrieb Paul Stenquist: Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very nice job. Still trying to decide if it looks natural, but it can certainly save a noisy shot. All

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 7:09 PM Comcast wrote: > Do you like the results? > > Paul > Yes, very much. I don't shoot a lot of high ISO, but this will be a great tool for those who do. I'll post a comparison image tomorrow at some point. bill -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

ce every decade and wanted to > future proof myself as much as possible. > Denoise runs about 20 seconds on my K1 files. > > bill > >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 2:37 PM Comcast wrote: >> >> My computer is a 2015 iMac, but it has a 4 GHz i7 4-core. So while it’s >>

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

K1 files. bill On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 2:37 PM Comcast wrote: > My computer is a 2015 iMac, but it has a 4 GHz i7 4-core. So while it’s > not as fast as today’s best, it handles the ACR noise reduction in about a > minute on a 33 MH dng. > > Paul > > > On Apr 21, 2023,

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

and get usable results. bill On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 1:22 PM Paul Stenquist wrote: > Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest > version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very > nice job. Still trying to decide if it looks natural, b

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

My computer is a 2015 iMac, but it has a 4 GHz i7 4-core. So while it’s not as fast as today’s best, it handles the ACR noise reduction in about a minute on a 33 MH dng. Paul > On Apr 21, 2023, at 4:08 PM, Toine wrote: > > Yes, I tried it. It does a very good job and a no brainer

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

recreating some weird looking noise. > > Toine > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 21:22, Paul Stenquist > wrote: > >> Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest >> version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very >> n

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Denoise is recreating some weird looking noise. Toine On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 21:22, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest > version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very > nice job. Still trying

Re: ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

It uses AI for noise reduction, not SI. Fat finger typo. > On Apr 21, 2023, at 3:22 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest version > of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very nice job. &g

ACR Enhanced Noise Reduction

Has anyone else on the list tried this? It’s a function in the latest version of ACR that is said to use SI for noise reduction. It does a very nice job. Still trying to decide if it looks natural, but it can certainly save a noisy shot. Paul -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List

Re: K3-iii noise reduction always on

Am 29.04.21 um 19:33 schrieb Larry Colen: I found this thread discussing how even when noise reduction is turned off, the K3-iii demonstrates that NR is being applied. Pentax have a history of messing around with noise reduction. When the K-7 first came on the market, its noise reduction per

Re: K3-iii noise reduction always on

On 4/29/2021 11:33 AM, Larry Colen wrote: I found this thread discussing how even when noise reduction is turned off, the K3-iii demonstrates that NR is being applied. I haven’t delved deeply into the math> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4571492 It also says, that it manages to

K3-iii noise reduction always on

I found this thread discussing how even when noise reduction is turned off, the K3-iii demonstrates that NR is being applied. I haven’t delved deeply into the math> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4571492 It also says, that it manages to do this without a loss of det

Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z)

l.net> > Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 1:08:34 PM > Subject: Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z) > > Dan, At least I provided a (sand) bar where you could rest! And a log to sit > on even. Next you’ll be asking for sipping’ whiskey or some such… &g

Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z)

quot; <pdml@pdml.net> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 1:08:34 PM Subject: Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z) Dan, At least I provided a (sand) bar where you could rest! And a log to sit on even. Next you’ll be asking for sipping’ whiskey or some such… But

Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z)

, the results depend quite a bit on the precise exposure, and b) these are unprocessed images, compressed into jpegs. To get anything definitive from this you would need the DNG files to import and play with using the noise reduction processes of your choice. But I thought this first-cut simple

Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z)

I tried to look at all the image, but my mind became water logged. Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote: > I think the K-5ii did it best. But I don’t have one to “test”, so I offer >

Re: GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z)

Thanks for doing this, Stan. Exposure is a huge factor in noise generation, and your K-3 shots are underexposed, whereas the others are all a bit overexposed.That pretty much makes comparison of the K-3 shots impossible, but the K-1 and 645Z exposures seem roughly the same. (I know from my own

GESO: Making Noise (Comparing ISO noise on K-3, K-1, and 645Z)

I think the K-5ii did it best. But I don’t have one to “test”, so I offer for your amusement and edification a series of roughly parallel shots with the three cameras I do have. Equipment: K-1 with D FA 70-200/2.8 K-3 with FA 50-135/2.8 + 1.4 extender.

Re: K-1 noise levels: Holy Cow!

Mark Roberts wrote: While fiddling with the settings on the K-1 I ended up accidentally taking a couple of shots at ISO 2000. Sweet cracker sandwiches! I can hardly believe how low the noise levels are! I originally saw this post while grabbing a bite to eat. When I left the restaurant, I

Re: K-1 noise levels: Holy Cow!

ng with the settings on the K-1 I ended up accidentally >> taking a couple of shots at ISO 2000. Sweet cracker sandwiches! I can >> hardly believe how low the noise levels are! > > Now try it with another digit, or two, on that number. > > -- > Sent from my Android ph

Re: K-1 noise levels: Holy Cow!

On June 14, 2016 2:53:16 PM PDT, Mark Roberts <postmas...@robertstech.com> wrote: >While fiddling with the settings on the K-1 I ended up accidentally >taking a couple of shots at ISO 2000. Sweet cracker sandwiches! I can >hardly believe how low the noise levels are! > Now t

K-1 noise levels: Holy Cow!

While fiddling with the settings on the K-1 I ended up accidentally taking a couple of shots at ISO 2000. Sweet cracker sandwiches! I can hardly believe how low the noise levels are! -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com --- This email has been checked for vir

Re: [Unimportant] Pentax K-1 produces more noise than K-5 or K-3

Har! It was this subject line from one of the threads: "K-1 noise reduction" that inspired me for the post. Igor Bulent Celasun Fri, 10 Jun 2016 01:12:03 -0700 wrote: I liked the tag :) The problem is, this one may apply to the majority of our messages. On Thu, 9 Jun 2016,

Re: [Unimportant] Pentax K-1 produces more noise than K-5 or K-3

I liked the tag :) The problem is, this one may apply to the majority of our messages. Bulent - http://patoloji.gen.tr http://celasun.wordpress.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/

[Unimportant] Pentax K-1 produces more noise than K-5 or K-3

... on PDML and other forums. But you know that already, don't ya? Please return to your regularly scheduled activity. ;-) Cheers, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link

Re: K-1 noise reduction

Dunno. I just set it to "auto" and have no noise problems. Ignorance is bliss. Paul via phone > On Jun 8, 2016, at 7:23 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: > > On page 50 of the K-1 manual (the pdf anyways) there is a menu for setting > noise reduction

K-1 noise reduction

On page 50 of the K-1 manual (the pdf anyways) there is a menu for setting noise reduction at various ISO sensitivities. Is that in the raw file, or just the JPEG? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net

Re: In-body lens aberration correction, noise reduction etc. Yes or No?

allow you to disable the lens corrections. Nor should you, because such cameras and lenses are designed to be used with lens correction as part of the total imaging system and won't perform as well without it. Noise reduction in-camera usually means two things: - "Long exposure nois

Re: In-body lens aberration correction, noise reduction etc. Yes or No?

the lens corrections. > Nor should you, because such cameras and lenses are designed to be used with > lens correction as part of the total imaging system and won't perform as well > without it. > > Noise reduction in-camera usually means two things: > > - "Long e

Re: In-body lens aberration correction, noise reduction etc. Yes or No?

with lens correction as part of the total imaging system and won't perform as well without it. Noise reduction in-camera usually means two things: - "Long exposure noise reduction" is most typically dark frame subtraction where beyond a certain exposure length the camera makes th

Re: In-body lens aberration correction, noise reduction etc. Yes or No?

I think you have it right. I don't know if I turned those corrections off, but I figure since I shoot RAW it doesn't matter. I think noise reduction affects RAW but not sure. I leave it on "auto." I think the Pentax engineers are smarter than me. Paul via phone > On May 14, 201

In-body lens aberration correction, noise reduction etc. Yes or No?

A couple of days ago Bob Sullivan said this: > Yes, the K-1 came with lens corrections turned on, but it doesn't seem > to effect processing time in camera. Then yesterday in his eNewsletter Tim Grey strongly advocated for the use of in-camera noise reduction for long exposures. Well, e

Re: Noise

Yes, we're fine. American Canyon, the nominal epicenter, is 75 miles north of us. We had a bit of shaking, Felipe woke up and awakened me. Blinds were moving. That's it here. Godfrey On Aug 24, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote: yayayay! and looks like you,

Re: Noise

On 24/8/14, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: Yes, we're fine. American Canyon, the nominal epicenter, is 75 miles north of us. We had a bit of shaking, Felipe woke up and awakened me. Blinds were moving. That's it here. Sure it wasn't your snoring ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty

Re: Noise

Cotty, are you saying Godders and Brooksy are related??? ann On 8/24/2014 13:05, Steve Cottrell wrote: On 24/8/14, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: Yes, we're fine. American Canyon, the nominal epicenter, is 75 miles north of us. We had a bit of shaking, Felipe woke up and

Re: Noise

I saw one report that a winery owner has apparently lost their entire 2011 and 2012 vintages. California wine lovers, it is time to stock up now before this becomes the justification for price increases. :\ On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote: Cotty, are you

Re: Noise

Now I must go wash out my brain with bleach... On 8/24/2014 1:19 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Cotty, are you saying Godders and Brooksy are related??? ann On 8/24/2014 13:05, Steve Cottrell wrote: On 24/8/14, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: Yes, we're fine. American Canyon, the

Re: Noise

Save some of the for me.. Godfrey On Aug 24, 2014, at 11:11 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Now I must go wash out my brain with bleach... On 8/24/2014 1:19 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Cotty, are you saying Godders and Brooksy are related??? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss

Re: Noise

Two of my friends own a winery that's within 10 miles of the epicenter. I sent a 'checking in' note, one texted me back that they were cleaning up a lot of glass. Godfrey On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: I saw one report that a winery owner has

Re: Noise

Sure thing, you want normal strength or extra cleansing. On 8/24/2014 2:14 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Save some of the for me.. Godfrey On Aug 24, 2014, at 11:11 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Now I must go wash out my brain with bleach... On 8/24/2014 1:19 PM, Ann

Re: Noise

California wine lovers, it is time to stock up now before this becomes the justification for price increases. Or buy Michigan's. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Noise I saw

Experiments with focusing and noise removal

This is a link to my first set of images doing manual focus after getting the KatzEye split image focusing screen installed. Playing around with camera settings before starting to shoot I accidentally left ISO on 12800, so I had an opportunity to try out suggestions regarding noise reduction

Re: Experiments with focusing and noise removal

All very nice, Eric! Well done noise abatement. Jack - Original Message - From: Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net To: PDML pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:13:13 AM Subject: Experiments with focusing and noise removal This is a link to my first set of images doing manual

Re: Experiments with focusing and noise removal

On Jun 18, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: All very nice, Eric! Well done noise abatement. Thanks, Jack. Maybe I’ve learned something? Maybe I can learn some more? -- Eric Weir

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

, K30 is very un-noisy compared to K100D. I just took a look at my written reviews and sample images of both cameras. K30 images at ISO3200 are quite OK. K100D images do have visible digital noise and (depending on lighting conditions) may even have visible horizontal bands. There are also big

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

Sorry for a late reply, K30 is very un-noisy compared to K100D. I just took a look at my written reviews and sample images of both cameras. K30 images at ISO3200 are quite OK. K100D images do have visible digital noise and (depending on lighting conditions) may even have visible horizontal

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

On Feb 19, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Margus Männik mar...@eol.ee wrote: Sorry for a late reply, K30 is very un-noisy compared to K100D. I just took a look at my written reviews and sample images of both cameras. K30 images at ISO3200 are quite OK. K100D images do have visible digital noise

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Glen Berry g...@glenvision.com wrote: So, how good is the K-30 with regards to high ISO noise, Probably miles above my D2H, that POS. Dave and try to compare it to an older model like the K-100D if you can. I'm hoping the K-30 will let me shoot a few stops

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

visible digital noise and (depending on lighting conditions) may even have visible horizontal bands. There are also big differences in color accuracy and dynamic range. I'd say that Pentax K-r was the first to have greatly improved image quality at high ISO values. And K30 is a bit better than K

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

I'm impressed! I think that looks as good as my K100D, when it's set to ISO 800. On 2/9/2014 3:45 AM, Larry Colen wrote: With the K-5, I often shoot in excess of ISO 6400. This set of a burrowing owl was shot with the K-5 at ISO 10,000. I consider it much better than merely satisfactory.

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

Thanks everyone, for all the very helpful comments! The more I research it, the more I believe buying a used K-30 is the camera that will give me the most value for my money. I've seen reviews that said the video mode had some limitations, but I'm not buying a DSLR for video. Any little

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

and orgasmic. Dxomark shows the high ISO of the K30 in the same range as the K5 and the Kx. One of the things that bugs me the most about the older cameras like the K-100D, is the very noticeable noise at higher ISO's. With every step above ISO 200, I can notice additional noise in the image. I

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Glen Berry g...@glenvision.com wrote: So, how good is the K-30 with regards to high ISO noise, and try to compare it to an older model like the K-100D if you can. I'm hoping the K-30 will let me shoot a few stops higher ISO without sacrificing quality. Would

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

On Sat, Feb 08, 2014, Glen Berry wrote: So, how good is the K-30 with regards to high ISO noise, and try to compare it to an older model like the K-100D if you can. I'm hoping the K-30 will let me shoot a few stops higher ISO without sacrificing quality. Would that likely be correct? Yup

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Glen Berry g...@glenvision.com wrote: I'm hoping the K-30 will let me shoot a few stops higher ISO without sacrificing quality. Would that likely be correct? Yes, unequivocally. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net

K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

This is going to be a difficult question to answer without showing comparison images, but can anyone give me some sort of idea how noisy a K-30 is, compared to the much older K-100D? One of the things that bugs me the most about the older cameras like the K-100D, is the very noticeable noise

Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?

an 8x10 recently at 6400 and I have to look pretty darn close to see the noise and that was with noise reduction turned off in lightroom from when I processed the file. The noise also looks semi-organic and is not displeasing. This is from a k-5, but I am to understand that the k-30 has basically

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. Cheers, --M. Boris

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

Bill wrote: On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bill wrote: On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in

Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail

On 20/11/13, Miserere, discombobulated, unleashed: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >