Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Noise Depends on Lens?

Will Keir

Will Keir

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
California
Looking over some footage shot in daylight with my 18-50mm RPZ and some night footage shot with super speeds I see the noise at high ISO's different.

The noise in the super speeds at 6400+ is like a film grain. Even pleasing...

The noise in the RPZ at even 2000 ISO dances like flies. Totally distracting, ruined unless crushed.

Different lenses display noise in different patterns/looks?
 
ofcourse there is a difference aesthetically depending on the lens IE - if you are using a sharp modern lens it will display noise patterns differently than a softer vintage lens.

softer lenses will hide more flaws - be it human skin or noise, but naturally it won't change the noise characteristics of the sensor.
 
Other than the difference in max aperture between the RPZ (T3) and the Superspeeds (T1.3), there may be a difference in contrast due to the coatings. Lower con lenses will create images that have comparatively lifted blacks, showing the noise in the shadows more.
 
Will Keir said:
Looking over some footage shot in daylight with my 18-50mm RPZ and some night footage shot with super speeds I see the noise at high ISO's different.

The noise in the super speeds at 6400+ is like a film grain. Even pleasing...

The noise in the RPZ at even 2000 ISO dances like flies. Totally distracting, ruined unless crushed.

Different lenses display noise in different patterns/looks?
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not as silly question as it may sound! :)

The difference of the two lenses is in contrast at high detail level. Super Speeds have very low MTF at high frequency and MTF reaches 0% well before the Nyquist limit of the sensor is reached. They are "soft" lenses. The effect is equivalent of putting a stronger low pass filter. Now, because of the relative absence of high frequency, the codec has much easier task and renders the scene with less digital noise.

If you have a scene with high amount of high contrast detail, like foliage or grass shot with large DOF, the amount of information needed to be compressed increases dramatically. Hence, less digital noise coming from Super Speeds.

But, before you go and buy a 50-year old set of beat-up super speeds for a fraction less than a new set of Master Primes, all is not lost. :)

You can always use a sharp lens with a low-con or other softening filter that will take the edge of the high frequency detail. With careful control, you can still retain perceived sharpness as that is usually obtained by high contrast at larger detail levels.

Or, better still, increase the compression ratio to something like 3:1.

Great point, BTW!
 
Not shooting the same scene on the same day. Different projects, different days.

I should upload some footage with R3D to download. What's a good codex for online REDUSER viewing? I'd like to attach the video in this message. I have my own website and server to host.


Gunleik Groven said:
Hahaha. I have a noisy lens, but that is kinda odd in many ways. If you shot the super open, you would underexpose the18-50
Click to expand...
 
Ya, I believe you are correct Pawel. High frequency noise, especially in tree's, bushes etc..


Pawel Achtel said:
Actually, this is not as silly question as it may sound! :)

The difference of the two lenses is in contrast at high detail level. Super Speeds have very low MTF at high frequency and MTF reaches 0% well before the Nyquist limit of the sensor is reached. They are "soft" lenses. The effect is equivalent of putting a stronger low pass filter. Now, because of the relative absence of high frequency, the codec has much easier task and renders the scene with less digital noise.

If you have a scene with high amount of high contrast detail, like foliage or grass shot with large DOF, the amount of information needed to be compressed increases dramatically. Hence, less digital noise coming from Super Speeds.

But, before you go and buy a 50-year old set of beat-up super speeds for a fraction less than a new set of Master Primes, all is not lost. :)

You can always use a sharp lens with a low-con or other softening filter that will take the edge of the high frequency detail. With careful control, you can still retain perceived sharpness as that is usually obtained by high contrast at larger detail levels.

Or, better still, increase the compression ratio to something like 3:1.

Great point, BTW!
Click to expand...
 
Will is talking about the little wiggly worms dancing in the shadows, not the sensor noise that has different look (more static pattern noise). Or, more scientifically, the digital quantization noise resulting from compression used in Red Code (or any other compression for that matter).

This digital noise is highly dependent on the amount of high frequency signal and a low pass filter (or softer lens) would make this noise lower, sometimes much lower, depending on the compression ratio used.
 
I have done A/B tests with decent and cheap lenses in the same environment, same f/stop and on screen look, and there was definitely more gritty, ugly noise from the cheap lens than the nice.

I like Pawel's explanation and usually turn to him with bizarre lens questions that do my head in! :shocked:
 
I have 2 Epics, I put 2 different lenses , shot at the same point at the same time, I would say the image is very different with same aperture and focal length. Not just noise, even color are not same.
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
Dont think its related with glass.
Click to expand...

It could be something else I'm seeing, I am seeing noise in different ways, same Epic body. Different glass. One 30 years old, one two year old.
 
well everybody is sort of right here. and to reiterate and add to what Pawel is saying. S/N ratio is directly correlated with sensor, processing, codec. the basis for the sensor having the image it does, is light. different lens sets, old to new, optically, take in light differently. those different detail is rendered, different amount is rendered. even light in certain areas are rendered, super speeds are really milky and low con until stopped down quite a bit. thus lifting the low end more on the lens, allowing the sensor to essentially "see more into the shadow" where it originally had a hard time doing with a newer more contrasty lens.

i makes complete sense that noise patterns will look different with varying lenses. it's just all about how the light is hitting the sensor. now does this mean everybody should shoot superspeeds because you could possibly get a cleaner image? well the pros and cons are up to you. but there are plenty aways to achieve a cleaner look without having to give up the nice contrast, look, and sharpness of a modern lens.
 
Tom.Wong said:
there are plenty aways to achieve a cleaner look without having to give up the nice contrast, look, and sharpness of a modern lens.
Click to expand...

Anything you can add? I'm leaning towards a super speeds purchase. :)
 
not a bad choice in the look and feel. it has it's own character, and absolutely amazing when stopped down. not a fan of it wide open at all. problem with speeds these days are that they are difficult to impossible to maintain. parts to repair the lens are hard to come by since they don't make them anymore. which is why so many sets out there are so beat up. getting them serviced is so incredibly hard. they are still a work horse though, but will hit a critical point eventually where once they get damaged, that's it for the lens.

i'd take a set of super speeds over a RPZ any day though... that's just me. but a set of mk III's in good condition is around 40k ish last time i checked, might have gone up since they are getting harder to find in good condition. cheaper sets would be mk I's or mk II's if you can find them. they have even "more character" to them, so make sure you get a full look at the lenses before you take the plunge. each set out there are gonna have their own quirks and you gotta see if it lines up with your taste.

but for 40k ish, there are more options these days, and if you have that kind of cash and can save another 20-30 grand you're in ultra prime territory now... not 1.3's but a t2 is a damn fine workhorse stop these days at the sensitivities we have in modern cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top