K
Kennedy McEwen
Read this article which not only shows grain, but how it is exaggeratedMarjolein Katsma said:
by the scanning process.
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
by the scanning process.
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
R
Roger S.
Hi Marjolein,
Here's a place to start- Les Sarile uploaded scans from a LS-5000 from
a variety of films to this site:
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid={DB62658B-ABF8-465C-A4D2-DADCCE1C253C}&inv=083F985536715B3&userid={DB62658B-ABF8-465C-A4D2-DADCCE1C253C}&albumid={AFE90978-3A08-4B52-A120-1841BB0520A7}&inv=083F985536715B3
If that address is too long, start from here and click on his home
page:
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=696354
I don't think noise from this scanner is visible ordinarily, so this
should give you an idea of what the film actually looks like.
Here's a place to start- Les Sarile uploaded scans from a LS-5000 from
a variety of films to this site:
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid={DB62658B-ABF8-465C-A4D2-DADCCE1C253C}&inv=083F985536715B3&userid={DB62658B-ABF8-465C-A4D2-DADCCE1C253C}&albumid={AFE90978-3A08-4B52-A120-1841BB0520A7}&inv=083F985536715B3
If that address is too long, start from here and click on his home
page:
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=696354
I don't think noise from this scanner is visible ordinarily, so this
should give you an idea of what the film actually looks like.
Marjolein said:
R
Roger S.
Thanks, Kennedy, very interesting.
It's too bad he doesn't have a 2700 dpi vs 4000dpi film scan example as
well. I've never seem grain exaggerated that badly with my 4000dpi
Canon scanner. Even the 1600 film I was working on yesterday looks
more like the crisp 6000dpi print scan he shows than the horrid film
scan next to it.
It's too bad he doesn't have a 2700 dpi vs 4000dpi film scan example as
well. I've never seem grain exaggerated that badly with my 4000dpi
Canon scanner. Even the 1600 film I was working on yesterday looks
more like the crisp 6000dpi print scan he shows than the horrid film
scan next to it.
S
Surfer!
Marjolein Katsma said:
I scanned some cheap negative film and reckon I could see grain, not
noise, in it. One thing is that the colours in noise are pretty random,
but in the grain I think I saw it was shades of the 'ground' (water
actually) colour. Plus it was a bit less random than noise...
M
Marjolein Katsma
Roger S. ([email protected]) wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Thanks - that gives me at least some idea. Although... I downloaded one
full-size image that I thought has some "obvious" grain, intending to
look at it with higher magnification in PSP. But even at 2:1
magnification, what I really see is JPEG artifacts... so what are my
eyes really seeing at 1:1? Grain, or 'averaged' JPG artifacts?
That said, it looks, I think, different from what I thought was noise
(seen both from scanning a 'thin' negative (Nikon LS-50) and in images
from a 2 megapixel (phone) camera).
A 'mental image' is finally beginning to form...
Thanks - that gives me at least some idea. Although... I downloaded one
full-size image that I thought has some "obvious" grain, intending to
look at it with higher magnification in PSP. But even at 2:1
magnification, what I really see is JPEG artifacts... so what are my
eyes really seeing at 1:1? Grain, or 'averaged' JPG artifacts?
That said, it looks, I think, different from what I thought was noise
(seen both from scanning a 'thin' negative (Nikon LS-50) and in images
from a 2 megapixel (phone) camera).
A 'mental image' is finally beginning to form...
M
Marjolein Katsma
Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote in (e-mail address removed):
Very interesting article, thanks! That interaction is certainly something
to watch out for.
Very interesting article, thanks! That interaction is certainly something
to watch out for.
M
Marjolein Katsma
Surfer! ([email protected]) wrote in view.co.uk:
I haven't tried yet scanning all types of (negative) film I've used over
the years, but that would be a good test.
And it reminds me that when I seriously start scanning (working on more
systematically archiving my negatives and background information now), I
should store the film type used as part of the meta data. I was
definitely less critical 20 years ago than I am now.
(And I'm faced with having to choose a new negative film type, now that
Agfa is no more... I've been using first Agfa Optima and then Agfa
Portrait for years now. Apart from 'taste', grain is a factor, but so is
exposure latitude.)
From the examples I've seen so far (thanks to Roger and Kennedy) I tend
to think that 'grain' shows more as more-or-less random small areas of
variation in color, while noise is more like single pixels of randomly
different color than 'expected'. That's still a rather vague
description, but the best I can come up with so far.
I haven't tried yet scanning all types of (negative) film I've used over
the years, but that would be a good test.
And it reminds me that when I seriously start scanning (working on more
systematically archiving my negatives and background information now), I
should store the film type used as part of the meta data. I was
definitely less critical 20 years ago than I am now.
(And I'm faced with having to choose a new negative film type, now that
Agfa is no more... I've been using first Agfa Optima and then Agfa
Portrait for years now. Apart from 'taste', grain is a factor, but so is
exposure latitude.)
From the examples I've seen so far (thanks to Roger and Kennedy) I tend
to think that 'grain' shows more as more-or-less random small areas of
variation in color, while noise is more like single pixels of randomly
different color than 'expected'. That's still a rather vague
description, but the best I can come up with so far.
D
Don
In a nutshell, grain looks like "bubbles" composed of clusters of
pixels (depending on resolution, of course). An area which should be
smooth shows a distinct "texture" when viewed at 100%. For example,
you must have an area of blue sky in one of your slides. Compare that
(at 100%) to a picture of a sky you took with a digicam and you'll
notice a definitive difference. The scan will look quite "lumpy" when
compared to the (by comparison) smooth sky from a digicam image. Those
soft "lumps" are grain.
Noise, by contrast, looks much "sharper". It's individual pixels
(rather than grain "lumps" which are clusters of pixels). These
individual noisy pixels are randomly colored. For example, if you look
at a dark area of an image which is, say, dirty and dark black/brown.
Noise will be demonstrated by occasional single pixels which are
bright red or green, etc. Radically brightening up a dark noisy scan
will show the noise much better. Now, scan again with boosted AG, say,
+2.0 or +3.0 and then look at the same area and you'll see it's
smooth, without any "random" pixels. For a better comparison, brighten
up the dark scan (the one with the noise) and you'll see the
difference quite clearly.
Don.
K
Kennedy McEwen
You won't - the higher resolution scanners alias less because they are
sampling closer to the film's limits. Significant reduction of grain
visibility was the main reason that I upgraded from 2700ppi to 4000ppi
scanning years ago.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable description of both effects to me.Marjolein Katsma said:
;-)
M
Marjolein Katsma
Don ([email protected]) wrote in
That assumes pixels are smaller than grains - but that will depend on a
number of factors (at least the resolution of the scanner in proportion
to the size of the grains).
I agree though that what "grain" I've seen so far doesn't look like
individual pixels, and there isn't as big a constrast in hue.
I think you are referring to scanning a positive (slide) here.
I've commented on this before - but the same "dark" area in a negative
image is actually light (a "thin" area in the negative) although the
scanner's preview will show it as dark; the scanner will also show the
same values and controls for AG but actually does the *opposite* (less
light rather than more); so boosted AG will/should lead to *more* noise
rather than less on a negative.
That assumes pixels are smaller than grains - but that will depend on a
number of factors (at least the resolution of the scanner in proportion
to the size of the grains).
I agree though that what "grain" I've seen so far doesn't look like
individual pixels, and there isn't as big a constrast in hue.
I think you are referring to scanning a positive (slide) here.
I've commented on this before - but the same "dark" area in a negative
image is actually light (a "thin" area in the negative) although the
scanner's preview will show it as dark; the scanner will also show the
same values and controls for AG but actually does the *opposite* (less
light rather than more); so boosted AG will/should lead to *more* noise
rather than less on a negative.
E
Evo2Me
Sorry to answer late and to a message much later in the thread than
your original question.
I have two good examples saved as JPEG, which are still very large
(4.79 and 4.10 MB); just give me a valid e-mail address and I can send
them.
One is Tri X Pan (5063), the other first generation Ektar 125. While
the colour film shows grain as you describe it, the Tri X, saved in
greyscale, has no colour info in the grain. Interestingly this helps
to suppress noise.
M
Maris V. Lidaka Sr.
Marjolein said:
Konica Impressa 50 was a joy to scan, even at 2700ppi on the Nikon LS-30.
It's not sold anymore :-(
I've posted a scanned photo with what I consider noise, and the same photo
cleaned up, at
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=534459
Maris
D
Don
That's why I wrote "depending on resolution, of course". Also, grain
is analog and therefore not of uniform size like pixels.
Yes, because that's where the noise is the easiest to spot. This is
due to slides having a much wider dynamic range than negatives. (The
image on the negative has a compressed dynamic range.)
Therefore it's more likely that a slide will have a part of the
dynamic range which the scanner will not cover adequately. Don't
believe the "theory" because according to that a scanner with about
12.5-bits of dynamic range should cover all possible dynamic range of
slides. But it doesn't. Even your 14-bit scanner with 1.5 bits of
overhead for noise still can't penetrate dark areas without noise
(anything below about 32 on the histogram after gamma is applied).
In addition to compressed dynamic range mentioned above, reversal is
another problem why noise is more complicated to explain with
negatives. It can be done, but it's much more straightforward to take
a dense slide and experiment with that.
Don.
M
Marjolein Katsma
Don ([email protected]) wrote in
Straightforward only if you actually *have* any slides, and dense ones in
particular. I don't.
Straightforward only if you actually *have* any slides, and dense ones in
particular. I don't.
M
Marjolein Katsma
Maris V. Lidaka Sr. ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:
I may actually go back to Fuji Reala which I used before switching to
Agfa Optima (one roll already in the fidge), but to be "fair" to myself
I want to test a few other films as well.
I'm not looking forward to the testing exercise but feel I really should
spend the time and effort to find a film again I feel comfortable with.
Interesting - was that scanned from a negative or from a slide?
The cleaned up result is very pleasing although I note that some of the
detail is lost in teh darker areas (not a problem for this image,
though). I'd be interested in what techniques/filters you used to clean
up the noise.
I have a few heavily underexposed negatives that I want to get the most
out of - documentary more than artistic, so I want all the details I can
get out of them.
I may actually go back to Fuji Reala which I used before switching to
Agfa Optima (one roll already in the fidge), but to be "fair" to myself
I want to test a few other films as well.
I'm not looking forward to the testing exercise but feel I really should
spend the time and effort to find a film again I feel comfortable with.
Interesting - was that scanned from a negative or from a slide?
The cleaned up result is very pleasing although I note that some of the
detail is lost in teh darker areas (not a problem for this image,
though). I'd be interested in what techniques/filters you used to clean
up the noise.
I have a few heavily underexposed negatives that I want to get the most
out of - documentary more than artistic, so I want all the details I can
get out of them.
M
Marjolein Katsma
Evo2Me ([email protected]) wrote in
No problem - anmd now I'm back late myself, being kinda busy... (getting
my travel/photography archive organized in preparation for scanning 20
years' worth of photographs!)
I don't think a whole image is needed, just a small crop that shows the
grain should do - and preferably in a lossless format (I've been
confused several times by JPEG artifacts already)
I've been bombarded with spam to email addresses used on (archived)
newsgroups, so I don't use an actual email address in that context any
more. I made a temporary address though:
GKUNTHTYHSBL [at] spammotel.com
I'll keep that active for a week or two, so if you could send your
pictures (preferably lossless crops) there, I'd be quite obliged!
No problem - anmd now I'm back late myself, being kinda busy... (getting
my travel/photography archive organized in preparation for scanning 20
years' worth of photographs!)
I don't think a whole image is needed, just a small crop that shows the
grain should do - and preferably in a lossless format (I've been
confused several times by JPEG artifacts already)
I've been bombarded with spam to email addresses used on (archived)
newsgroups, so I don't use an actual email address in that context any
more. I made a temporary address though:
GKUNTHTYHSBL [at] spammotel.com
I'll keep that active for a week or two, so if you could send your
pictures (preferably lossless crops) there, I'd be quite obliged!
S
Surfer!
Marjolein Katsma said:
Saw some slides a well-known Scottish guy took last Monday evening, the
later ones on Fuji Superia - they were excellent (artistic!), though
they were projected 'as is' not scanned.
R
rafe b
Reala scans like a charm. Fuji also
have two new C41 emulsions, Pro-160C
and Pro-160C which I am very interested
in trying -- as soon as my existing
stock of Reala runs out.
Many of (my own) samples on my "scan snippets"
site are from Reala.
Ultimately, whether the noise is grain
or electronic (sampling) noise, is
irrelevant, IMO.
The *only* disadvantage to shooting C41,
for my purposes, is the noise. Personally,
I call it a good tradeoff, considering the
other benefits of C41, including but not
limited to:
* better latitude (exposure range)
* lower Dmax (easier to scan)
* better acutance
If I was a "pro" working in a studio --
where I could control the scene's lighting
and contrast -- I would shoot chromes.
If I had paying customers demanding
"objectively accurate" color, I would
shoot chromes.
Obviously, there are commercial/professional
situations where only a chrome will do.
rafe b
scan snippets:
www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
R
Roger S.
Try Noise Ninja- I use it as a plug-in and then clip some of the blacks
with levels. You can also do a gaussian blur of some of the shadow
areas and desaturate slightly to make the noise less offensive.
with levels. You can also do a gaussian blur of some of the shadow
areas and desaturate slightly to make the noise less offensive.