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
n4bby - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
agreed. i criticized some earlier reviews, but was holding out for the quality of writing and analysis to improve. that is clearly not happening. even the article synopsis in my anandtech RSS feed was completely wrong:"Not all JPEG processing is created equal, but Noiseware can often fix what camera JPEG processing leaves undone...."
i was truly puzzled by this. noise reduction has NOTHING to do with JPEG compression - that's like saying, "not all gasoline is created equal... let's see how this motor oil performs."
but i guess if it brings in the ad dollars, it's mission accomplished for the site... even though ultimately it's doing the readers a disservice.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
You are technically correct, but it appears you are straining to make your point. Certainly you, and everyone else, understands that noise reduction is one of the processes that usually happens during in-camera "JPEG" processing or during software conversion from RAW to a finished image format which is normally JPEG, but could be TIFF or even another format.In the interest of being more precise in the description I have changed it to:
"Not all image processing is created equal, but Noiseware can often reduce noise that in-camera or software processing leaves behind."
n4bby - Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - link
thank you for fixing that."Not all image processing is created equal, but Noiseware can often reduce noise that in-camera or software processing leaves behind."
so does gaussian blur! ;)
soydios - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Eh, I'd say that your quoted caption is an accurate description of the article. There's on-chip noise reduction that is performed before the RAW file is created, then there's software noise reduction that is performed as part of the image processing engine in-camera. The output of that image processing engine is usually JPEG or TIFF, and the RAW preview image.So, if a camera's processing engine isn't running noise reduction before writing to JPEG, then this software would finish the noise reduction stage of post-processing.
As for the software itself, I don't know about the images at full magnification, but the small previews shown indicate fairly heavy smearing. Lightroom does less smearing, and seems to be extremely capable in my experience at chroma noise reduction, and good enough at luminance.
As for writing quality, I can't do better, so I won't criticize.
n4bby - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
it is NOT an accurate description. image processing has NOTHING to do with the final output format of the file. you said it yourself - the output could be TIFF, so what does it have to do with "JPEG processing"? call it a nit if you will, but anandtech is a technical publication, so such fundamental inaccuracies should be considered anathema.and saying you can't criticize because you can't do any better yourself seems symptomatic of the sort of mediocrity malaise that results in sub-standard institutions like the US Postal Service. ;) if we expected everything in the world to be no better than what we ourselves can accomplish, the world would be a very sad place...
guitargeek27 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
It's kinda unfair to compare the noise of a Nikon D3 to a Canon XSI, as the Canon has a smaller sensor (as well as a few thousand dollars less)If you wanted to be fair, how about comparing the D3 to a Canon 5D (full frame and less expensive than the d3) or the EOS 1D Mark II or III?
Spoelie - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Personally I think there's too much smearing going on, to the point that I like the original picture better. The first picture for example has quite a loss of detail on the windows of the buildings and on the slope of the mountain. In the second picture all the ripples are gone and the boat seems to float above instead of in the water. All non-macro low-iso shots show an incredible amount of smearing (stones on the stairway, vegetation on every background mountain, ripples in water). I don't know how anyone would consider those filtered low-ISO shots an improvement.cparka23 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
I've long been impressed w/ Canon's low noise compared to other makes. Up 'til now, I've always heard/assumed that it was the sensor. So is it possible to determine to what exactly the noise reduction is attributable in many cameras? Is it due to an algorithm or is it really the sensor? I guess we'll never know, since the images are already 'processed' in RAW, will we?cparka23 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
hmm.. after rereading, that first question didn't come across as I had entirely hoped. regardless, the article helped me understand this a bit.Thanks, Wes.
strikeback03 - Monday, July 28, 2008 - link
Canon states that the only noise reduction done to their RAW images is dark noise subtraction. They have plenty of whitepapers on their technology floating around.