The Sigma SD14 Wakeup Call
When Sigma SD14 on Vacation was published, one of the features discussed was photographs that tried to use the noise of the Sigma Foveon sensor at ISO 800 and even 400 as a creative tool. Like others, we assumed this noise issue at sensitivities that are a non-issue with other cameras is a problem of the Foveon sensor.
We received a very interesting email from a Gary Mercer, one of the professional photographers featured in the Popular Photography December 2007 Sigma SD14 promotion. He provided us with useful insight to the SD14 noise "problem" and a suggestion:
"I've been using Sigma DSLRs from the very humble beginning of the SD9 to the current SD14. There is a lot of controversy concerning the low light performance of the SD14 and also higher ISO 400 and up noise issue. I've found that other DSLR systems use in camera noise programs that produce soft, but less noisy images right out of the camera even when shooting raw. The supposedly raw images produced by most Bayer-sensor cameras are in fact heavily edited images prior to downloading them to the computer. The SD14 doesn't do any serious noise reduction in the image coming out of the camera. In fact, the SPP 3.2 and 2.5 versions of the Sigma Software barely address noise after the fact.
So how does someone who wants to shoot at higher ISOs with the SD14 deal with this? Imagenomic's Noiseware program is the best solution I've found to date. It is superb. If you sent me the raw images of the pictures you posted shot at ISO 800, I'm sure that Noiseware would take care of the noise in these images easily, salvaging them for you. I found this out after a helicopter shoot of the Hawaiian Islands with the SD14. We couldn't remove the doors off the helicopter, so I had to shoot through the canopy which lowered the light about two F-stops and also needed to use a polarizing filter which further lowered the light. It was a disaster in the making, forcing me to shoot at ISO 800. But after spending all this money on the helicopter, I was going to try to get my money's worth. When I got back to Florida and post processed the images, I thought the shoot was a complete bust, until a pro buddy of mine suggested Noiseware from Imagenomic. Even Noise Ninja couldn't clean up those images. Noiseware saved my shoot and I was able to save the images and use them in my latest gallery exhibition of my photography at www.pmgallery.info.
Moral of the story? The SD14 works just fine when you know the nature of the best and have the right tools to pull the results you want from this camera. It isn't super speedy, but I've got model test shots I've shot with it and lots of sample images on my SD14 test images website at pbase.com if someone wants to really see what is possible with the SD14 in real life."
Gary certainly has the credentials that persuaded us to try his suggestion and we were frankly astounded at the results we achieved by processing the Sigma JPEG files with Noiseware. The results were so impressive we tried the Noiseware processing with other camera images. Some cameras showed dramatic improvement in noise and others, like Nikon and Canon cameras, showed very little improvement with Noiseware processing. A large selection of images has been Noiseware-processed in the last few weeks. With this experience with a wide range of digital images from a cross-section of cameras, it is time to discuss the impact of Noiseware in more detail.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
61 Comments
View All Comments
mharris - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
If you look at the photos, you'll notice that the unfiltered photos are nearly 10x bigger than the filtered photos. So the loss of details is due to a ridiculously low JPEG compression, not the noise filter.B3an - Friday, August 1, 2008 - link
"If you look at the photos, you'll notice that the unfiltered photos are nearly 10x bigger than the filtered photos. So the loss of details is due to a ridiculously low JPEG compression, not the noise filter."Not it's not. Would have thought this was obvious... the file size is lower because of the lower detail in the noise reduction filtered images. This is because of how JPEG compression works. It's the same with any image after noise reduction has been used, it nearly always produces smaller files sizes 'cause of the resulting lower detail.
Baviaan - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Are you actually serious? You can't be, look at the amount of detail lost in the photos done by Noiseware. You lose all the detail and the photos look very, very smeared.And compare the 3D to a 1DMK3 or 5D, this comparison is useless.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
There is no doubt the Nikon D3 is the low-noise champion, but we weren't comparing it to other PRO cameras like the ID Mark III. The comments were comparing relative photosire size across the spectrum of digital SLR sensors.We do agree the ID Mk III at 10 megaixel with a 1.3X (APS-H) crop factor is more directly comparable in photosite size to the D3. The 5D at full-frame 12.8 megapixels is certainly comparable in photosite size if not speed or high ISO performance.
strikeback03 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
The 5D is only enabled on-camera to ISO 3200, but plenty of users use effectively higher ISOs by deliberately underexposing then pushing the exposure in post-process with decent results.michal1980 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I agree with others.Are you guys blind? some of thos vacation shots are terrible after the noise reduction. I'd rather stick with the noise in some of them. The beach shot looks ok in the foreground, but as soon as you hit the water its all water paiting.
the sail boat on the water is one of the worst, in the original shot you see waves breaking, and caps. The after processing shot destroy's the feel of the water.
IMHO, alot of the pictures looks better just shrunk (which filter the nose by itself), then they did after noise removal.
Jedi2155 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Same here, there noise reduction seriously destroys the detail present in the images. A lot of the areas of high contrast is destroyed after the noise reduction resulting in smearing.I'm neither a professional or even a prosumer, but it was quite noticeable to me that the details were significantly reduced with the noise reduction where I definitely would not consider this software.
I also could not tell the difference in the low ISO shots for the noise reduction although I am on a 6-bit TN LCD panel so that could probably be the reason. Did anyone else see a difference in the low-ISO shots?
B3an - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
From the images it's hardly any better than Photoshops noise reduction filter. Messing around with the settings i can get very nearly as good results.And like all noise reduction filters it makes the image lose detail, messes up some colours, and sometimes over sharpens the edges.
I dont think this is good software or worth the money.
eetnoyer - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Noiseware on images from any of the superzooms? I often find myself to be a little tentative of taking higher ISO setting shots on my superzoom because of the pronounced noise levels. I would be interested to see some results from some of the different brands' superzoom models.Thanks
guitargeek27 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
All in all, I've been pretty disappointed in the Anandtech articles about cameras and image manipulation, the articles gives just a rough idea what noise reduction software does, but does not go into settings, original noise levels, or RAW vs JPEG noise levels (lens, apeture, shutter speed, post processing software).If you're a beginner photographer, or just care about software please read. But if you are seriously interested in photography please try a different site or get your hands on a real book.
I think I'm just disappointed about having an amateur write a review as opposed to a pro.