Upload Presets Utility is a small and easy to use utility that allows Leaf medium format back users to upload their custom presets to the Compact Flash card. When the CF card is in its slot, Leaf Custom presets will automatically appear in the Camera settings menus on the back, allowing you to use custom tables while shooting portable.

Download Upload Presets Utility

Instructions

• Download and open the utility.
• From the selection box, choose the Compact Flash card you wish to use in order to upload custom presets. If no Compact Flash cards are displayed, insert a card and click ‘Refresh’.
• From the custom presets selection box, select the custom preset you wish to upload. You can use the Select All and Select None buttons for quick selection.
• Click the Upload button to upload the selected custom presets to the Compact Flash card.

Supported Backs

• Leaf AFi
• Leaf AFi-II
• Leaf Aptus-II

Notes

• Formating the card in the back will erase all setting from the card.
• The utility loads all Leaf Tables but not ICC “Color Look” or “Color Space” profiles.

Change Log

1.1 Added support for Aptus-II and AFi-II family
1.0 Release

Dynamic range

A desired improvements is more dynamic range. To test this we photographed a special 41 transparent step chart with 13.6 EV stops of dynamic range. We define dynamic range as the number of steps between maximum saturation where the sensor can no longer capture light and the floor noise at the 1db limit. This means that dynamic range is limited by noise. We estimate a margin error of 0.15EV in our measurements.

The chart bellow shows the dynamic range in EV of each channel in each of the ISO settings.

As you can see, the green channel, which is the main channel, has about 0.3EV more dynamic range at 200ISO, the base ISO setting for the Nikon D300. It is interesting to note that the Nikon D200 gains some dynamic range at 200ISO in the green channel but loses some in the red channel. Comparing the base ISO setting of both cameras, the Nikon D300 gains 0.6EV more dynamic range in the green channel, which is not bad at all.

Because noise limits dynamic range it is no surprise that the Nikon D200 has only 7.6EV of dynamic range at 1600ISO while the Nikon D300 shows an excellent result of 8.6EV.

As for the long debate of 14bit vs. 12bit, we can clearly see a small advantage to having more bits in dynamic range. Sometimes having more accuracy means better signal to noise ratio at the low signal parts of the image.

Signal to noise ratio

To test signal to noise ratio we used the same data from the previous test. This time however, we calculated the signal to noise ratio from the 2 brightest stops of the chart. The results represent the ability of the sensor to gather light and are less relevant to the electronic side effect noise of the image. This is because the sensor is overwhelmed with photons and the extra electronic charge has very little effect on the overall charge.

The higher the result the better the sensor is capable of capturing light. The pixel size of the Nikon D300 is approximately 5.54 µm while the pixel size of the Nikon D200 is 6.09 µm. That alone should give the Nikon D200 slightly better performance. But there are many more factors to consider, such as the density of the microlenses and the spectral distribution of the color filters on top of each pixel.

The results are very interesting indeed. At seems that in most cases at low ISO settings the Nikon D300 has a better signal to noise ratio, even though the pixel size is slightly smaller. This means that Nikon (or shall I say Sony?) has done a very good job.

Noise floor

Noise floor is calculated by using the same data used in the previous tests. But this time we calculate the standard deviation values at the lower two EV steps. These results indicate the overall performance of the system. In most cases the last two stops contain some signals from light, but also contain some electronic noise that should not have been added to the image. Lower results are better.

From these results there is no doubt that the Nikon D300 is a big improvement on the Nikon D200. This is probably due to Nikon’s better handling of the electronics in the D300 but it is more likely due to the fact that CMOS sensors can separate non photon noise from light signal and subtract that noise from the each pixel. This is something CCD sensors can’t do. The result is a much less noisy RAW file. Once again, we see a small advantage to 14 bit accuracy which reduces the rounding (upwards or downwards) of signal and noise.

Noise reduction improvements

The following is for the JPEG shooters among you. While the improvements above were all about RAW files and sensor SNR, here we will discuss improvements Nikon has made to their noise reduction algorithm. The low SNR and low noise of the Nikon D300gives us a better starting point for noise reduction algorithms, so we will try to highlight some improvements in the Nikon D300 that bothered us in the Nikon D200.

All the crop images below are taken from our studio setup with the same 50mm Nikon lens (at f8) at 1600ISO. All crops are 100% of our studio setup.

Chroma noise and pleaseing grain

One thing the Nikon D200 was free of is chroma noise in flat areas. This is not different in the New Nikon D300. Only when setting the noise reduction setting to the OFF setting there is some chroma noise.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Grain is one of the most important aspects of noise reduction – get grain right and people will accept your image as pleasing (something that adobe seems to miss). By clicking the Luma view you can see that the Nikon D300 has a little less visible grain. I do not particular like that, and I much prefer the Low result of the Nikon D300 for grain.

Shadow grain

Grain in the shadows was one of the most problematic issues with the Nikon D200. While most of the tone range filtered well, the dark tones contained too much grain. This made images with mostly dark tones look very grainy and noisy.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Here the shadows are filtered much better. This helps the image look more pleasing and appealing overall. I do feel that the Normal NR setting filters a bit too strongly, I much prefer the Low setting as it leaves some nice looking grain which makes the image look a bit more natural.

Details

One of the common misconceptions photographers have about noise reduction is the loss of detail. Performing noise reduction does not necessailry mean losing details. In many cases, details that are otherwise hidden by noise can be “extracted” by detecting fine edges. On the other hand, if the algorithm is incapable of detecting those fine edges some unneeded filtering may occur. In reality, there is always a tradeoff that needs to be made between details and filtering. If the algorithm is very good, this tradeoff is small as it is possible to filter noise and detect fine edges as well. But even then, there will be a small tradeoff which in many cases the camera maker lets the user choose.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

The Nikon D300 has a small advantage over the Nikon D200 when it is set to Normal NR. But once again, using the Low setting shows those nice little details. I am quite pleased with the Low setting.

Shadow detail

Details in the shadows is yet another issue that bothers us with the Nikon D200. We are happy to see that Nikon has improved this issue.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

As you can see, there is good progress here. The Nikon D300 shows better results in every setting. I prefer the Low setting as it gives good balance between edges and grain.

False colors

False colors are a side affect of noise reduction. Those are little color noise leftovers nikon left behind on edges. I am happy to say there is a good progress on this issue too.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

Nikon D200 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Normal NR	Nikon D300 Low NR
Nikon D300 High NR	Nikon D300 OFF NR

As you can see only when the Nikon D300 is set to OFF some false color artifacts appear. There is also very faint false color with the Low setting. This problem seems to be handled very well now.

Final words

Both in our lab tests and in real world the Nikon D300 shows over all less noise than the Nikon D200. This is very true for RAW files that are now more usable then ever. When using JPEG files from of the Nikon D300, we see some very good progress on Nikon’s ability to reduce noise (performance which many different RAW converters can only dream of). The big breakthrough was accomplished with the Nikon D200, but now all of those image processing problems in the Nikon D200 have been solved or improved. The main noise reduction improvement stems from the fact that Nikon can now filter dark tone more strongly than highlights or mid tones.

I much prefer the Nikon D300 1600ISO JPEG results when it is set to Low NR setting. There are more details with not too much extra color noise, but more important the monochromatic grain with the Low setting looks more pleasing. As a results, the whole image looks more pleasing and detailed.

We have already established that Canon’s current noise reduction system is excellent. However, you can only take advantage of the new system by using JPEGs produced internally by the camera (As of today the EOS 40D, the EOS 1D Mark III and the EOS 1Ds Mark III are using Canon’s new noise reduction system).

Many of us use RAW these days, and some of us prefer to use DPP due to the excellent picture style system. You should be aware however, that the results you get out of DPP with high ISO images are not as good as the JPEG out of the camera. There is a quick fix you can do to produce better results, but it is really something Canon should address back in Tokyo.

Noise reduction and user controls

DPP allows you to define three intensity levels for both Luma filtering and Chroma filtering separately. By default, these controls are set to OFF, this does not mean there is no noise reduction at all, just that the intensity of filtering is somewhat reduced.

You can set noise reduction to Low and High settings, while there are some advantages to the Low setting in low ISO image, at high and medium ISO images it is best to set both controls to the high setting.

The example below is a 100% crop from our studio scene which we captured using the EOS 1D Mark III at 3200ISO. Move your mouse between the buttons to view the results.

100%
DPP OFF	DPP Low	DPP High

Next to the camera

Most photographers would think that RAW will always produce better image quality than the JPEG file of the camera. In some cases, depending on the RAW software being used, the results are better. The example below shows the difference between the original JPEG out of the EOS 1D Mark III and DPP set to high.

100%
DPP High	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON

As you can see, DPP is able to produce sharper results than the camera. However, on flat areas (areas that do not contain edges) and dark areas, DPP does not produce results that are as pleasant as the JPEG out of the camera. The flat areas of the image contain many small bright “dots” that disturb the viewer. Those “dots” may produce the illusion that there are more details in the image, especially when viewing the image with small enlargement percentage.

This is only an illusion, as you can see from the example below, DPP does not show more details than the JPEG out of the cameras.
You must distinguish between details and sharpness. A sharper image does not mean it holds more details, it means the large dominant edges are simply sharper.

100%
DPP High	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON

When looking closely (300%) at the DPP results, you can see that some pixels are brighter than the environment they are in. In other words, they are brighter than the average and some are darker than the average. This phenomenon will be very familiar for those of you who tuned or designed noise reduction algorithms and it is called “filtering holes”. These “holes” are small pixel groups that were not filtered.

300%
DPP High	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON

This phenomenon takes place when thresholds that are set to distinguish between pixels that need to be filtered and pixels that do not need to be filtered (or filtered differently) are too low.
In this case, if the average of a group of pixels exceeds the threshold value, no filtering will occur. The results below in 300% view shows how well the EOS 1D Mark III is tuned compared to DPP.

Both the noise reduction system and the edge enhancement (sharpening) system could produce such poor results. To understand which system is responsible, we conducted a simple test.

By closing the sharpening setting completely in DPP but leaving the noise reduction settings on high, we took the edge enhancement algorithm out of the equation. We then applied an unsharp mask filter using Photoshop with the following settings:

Amount: 150
Radius: 0.7
Threshold: 0

We applied the same filter on the JPEG out of the EOS 1D Mark III to understand which file was filtered better. You can view the results below.

300%
DPP High	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON

From these results we conclude that DPPs noise reduction thresholds are probably configured lower than the noise reduction thresholds of the EOS 1D Mark III. Assuming of course that the noise reduction algorithm is the same. Ultimately it is likely that both DPPs edge enhancement and noise reduction thresholds require improvements.

It is to be expected that Canon should try to extract more details or to produce a sharper image with DPP. But I feel that the price Canon and all Canon’s users are paying is too high. I generally prefer the results from the EOS 1D Mark III JPEG file rather than the results from DPP with high ISO images.

Since there is no way for the user to tune thresholds, the best thing we can do for now is to lower the sharpening level to 1 or even 0, while keeping the noise reduction setting on high for high ISO images. By doing so, the results won’t be as sharp as before, but the flat DC areas will appear more pleasing with less filtering holes.

By toggling between the images below you can see that as the sharpening level is reduced, less filtering holes appear.

100%
DPP NR High sharpening 3	DPP NR High sharpening 1	DPP NR High sharpening 0	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON

Final words and recommendation

It is expected for RAW software to produce more details and sharper edges. But the way this is implemented in DPP is not good enough. There are improvements to be made, and I think Canon can improve the results easily by simply improving the tuning of the algorithms.

Furthermore, I think canon underestimates the importance of defaults values. With the current DPP defaults values, high ISO images are not as good as the EOS 1D Mark III JPEG file. I would like to see DPP configured to its best for each ISO setting and for each camera model. The same way it is done with DIGIC III for each camera Canon has made. The user should then tune the image according to his preferences by using the controls.

Compared with the camera DPP does produce more detail in some very specific areas. It is most likely that the internal sharpening of the EOS 1D Mark III is reduced when the camera is set to high ISO levels. Therefore, by sharpening the JPEG of the EOS 1D Mark III, we can see how well the internal noise reduction is configured, as the images below show.

100%
DPP NR High sharpening 3	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON + Photoshop USM	EOS 1D Mark III JPEG NR ON

As you can see by toggling between the images, the JPEG file could be sharpened to produce sharper edges but without introducing artifacts at flat areas. This means that the configuration of the noise reduction algorithms inside the EOS 1D Mark III is probably better for flat areas. It’s worth noting that DPP seems to filter Chroma edges slightly better.

Recommendations for Canon

* Configure thresholds and algorithms to exceed or match the image quality of the camera, while producing pleasing grain.
* Configure the default values of both sharpening and noise reduction to match the camera. Do not keep noise reduction levels OFF while the camera clearly is configured differently.
* Improve edge detection in order to extract more details and improve edge sharpening while making sure the flat DC areas are not affected so as to give an unpleasing result.

Recommendation for DPP users

For now, I would recommend to set the sharpening level in DPP to 0 or 1 in order to avoid emphasizing the flittering holes with high ISO images. It is also possible to set noise reduction to HIGH (both) and set the sharpening level to 0. Then, use solutions such as Noise Ninja to “fix” the filtering holes Canon left behind. The last stage should include sharpening using your favorite tool.

Download Focus Finder droplet (Mac / PC)

Focus Finder is a Photoshop droplet that can find the focus point in your images. Just drag and drop any image on the droplet and Focus Finder will attempt to find the strongest most detailed part of the image. A red circle will mark the focus point.

Focus Finder was specifically designed to test focus tracking with images taken by the Canon EOS 1D Mark III camera. However, Focus Finder can find the focus point on any 8 megapixel or larger image.

There are a few drawbacks:

With the limited Photoshop tools available it is not possible to determine how sharp the image is. Focus Finder will always find the strongest edges in the image, even if those edges are very weak.

Focus Finder will mark the most detailed part of the image. In some cases where there is a detailed background that is a part of the focus plain, Focus Finder might mark the background as the focus point. This can happen even if the subject is perfectly sharp, but has less detail than the background.

The image above is a good example. The horses head is the subject and it is perfectly sharp. However, the ground is also a part of the focus plane and has much more details than the head. Consequently, Focus Finder has marked the ground as the focus point.

Focus Finder is not very suitable for bird photography, but it might work well when the subject fills the frame.

Guidelines for focus tracking testing with Focus Finder

Make sure your subject has some strong hard edges. For example, if you choose to test your camera with a human subject try to use a shirt that has some large text printed on it. A shirt with many strong textures is preferred.

Do not add artificial pixels (text, squares, marks, etc…) to the image before running Focus Finder.

Try not to include the ground in your images. If the subject has many strong edges Focus Finder might find the subject as well as the ground (As the first example below show).

More examples

Whenever you hear the word Leica, say the word Leica, or even think the word Leica, you think of quality. The quality of the product, the quality of the lenses, the quality of the image and surprisingly, also the quality of the colors. But why is it that when you think “Leica”, you think that the colors should be breathtaking. What does Leica know about colors? They’ve never designed color previously; all they did was to let you load any color look you wanted inside their film cameras.

Once camera makers started to switch to digital, color suddenly became a top priority. This was some task because there is not a single camera that reproduces colors faithfully by default. This is not because of technical limitations, but is a way of thinking.

Back to the Leica M8. When I loaded Leica’s M8 colors to our color transformation database, I was excited to learn what Leica has done with the colors. By looking at JPEG images from the M8 I noticed that when the WB is correct (which does happen from time to time) the colors are quite unique. I am now able to describe with words and numbers what I have noticed from the real world images I took. Below you’ll find the same LAB and delta C plots from our color database.

Apparently, Leica has engineered the colors so that most of the colors are close to real life colors, somewhat more than other DSLR cameras on the market. However, yellow and orange are twisted towards the greens and are brought close together. Browns however, are turned more to the oranges. I find this to be very interesting! Those colors are usually not twisted that much in other DSLRs.

Next are the greens. Greens are one of the colors camera makers generally twist and saturate. Deep greens and yellow green are slightly saturated in the M8, but not very twisted. More pure Green colors get twisted towards the blues; this is not something we often see in digital cameras.

So surprisingly, we may infer that Leica knows what they are doing with colors. I find their color decisions quite brave. I can’t imagine Canon or Nikon giving us colors like that by default. And there is probably a very good reason for that, Nikon and Canon are trying to please as many photographers as possible, so the colors are tuned to be something most users might like. Leica on the other hand, thinks differently

Getting the white balance correct is essential to get those colors. The auto white balance isn’t something to be proud of. For our color database, we struggled with the custom white balance to try and get a possibly good balance . So there you go, The M8’s colors are distinctive, no other camera has such interesting colors. Enjoy.

Leica M8 colors vs. Nikon D200

In order for you to decide whether you like the Leica M8 colors or not, we compared the colors to the Nikon D200 Mode I colors. Personally, I just love Nikon Mode I colors, which you can get with the Nikon D2x/h and Nikon D200 cameras. But I do feel the Leica M8 should be somewhat more unique and distinctive.

In order to compare colors we needed to make sure the white balance, exposure and sensitivity of those cameras are the same. This is essential in order to receive genuine output colors that are written into the camera’s color table (LUT). Color tables (assuming Leica uses them), or color lookup tables can only be compared when the chromatic balance and input level that insets into the table are the same.

Before taking the images below with both cameras at the same time, we custom measured white balance off a white card. Even if the image we took was not at the same color temperature as the white card when we measured it, the white balance from both cameras should be the same. So the result will be genuine to the color LUTs (but not for the scene of course, which does not matter).

Leica M8	Nikon D200

Well, as you can see, the Leica M8 really renders green and blues more yellowish. Interestingly, skin-tones are more real to me than with the Nikon D200, which look as if the skin was painted a bit to look more human. You can also take a look at our color database with those two cameras here.

But wait

But wait, there is one more essential to get those colors: you have to use the JPEG file of the camera. Frankly, the image quality of the JPEG file is also not something of which to be proud. So if you want to get those distinctive colors with RAW, you have a little problem.
That problem is with the way the DNG file is designed. Adobe, being no camera maker, haven’t left room for the DNG using camera maker to design colors as they wish. All there is for the camera maker to work with are two color matrices, which might be not good enough for flexible color reproduction. But, if Leica know what they are doing and if the color components are not twisted in an extreme manner, two color matrices might just do. For the record, I think Adobe should really rethink about colors with DNG.

Fortunately, there is one RAW software that has been designed by a camera maker and also supports the Leica M8. The Phase one Capture One is clearly designed by someone who understands how a Raw software should work from the image processing aspect. With Capture One you’ll get an ICC file that describes the M8 colors, it also installs other camera profiles for other cameras. This is how all RAW software should work. Technically, with ICC color and LUT support, Capture One should easily match the Leica M8 colors exactly. However, this isn’t exactly the case.

Capture One

The plot below maps colors from the M8 JPEG files and the colors from Capture One using the supplied Leica M8 ICC profile. The file was processed under Capture One LE with Film extra shadow setting, because there are far too many Gamma differences between Capture One and the JPEG file with the standard setting.

An average of delta C 5.25 between the JPEG file and the C1 ICC is okay. By looking at the LAB plot you can see that all the orange and yellow colors have ‘lost their charm’. They seem to be a bit off. Lets see how ACR 4.0 is doing (remember that we processed the file under default settings in ACR).

Adobe Camera Raw 4.0

• ACR Default
• ACR with Gamma correction

Leica M8 sRGB JPEG Adobe ACR 4.0 ColorChecker 24 reference

Leica M8 sRGB JPEG Adobe ACR 4.0 with gamma correction ColorChecker 24 reference

When looking at the results you have to remember that Leica is the one that designed the two color matrices of the DNG files. Because of that, ACR will perform very differently when using M8 DNG files than when using other Raw images. This is because Leica, the camera maker, has designed the colors.

Matrices are very limited in comparison to color LUTs, it’s like trying to cover your self with a small blanket. Pull to one side and the opposite side retracts. I am sure Leica would like some more freedom to tune DNG colors more freely.

ACR is the only software that lets us manipulate the Gamma curve quite freely. As gamma has a large affect on colors, using ACR we could correct the default gamma to the gamma of the Leica M8 JPEG. You can see the results by clicking on the “ACR with gamma correction” tab above the plot.

By looking at the results it could be seen that orange yellow, yellow green, foliage and green are all twisted towards the yellows, this will make any nature containing image look yellowish, even more yellowish than Leica has designed in the jpeg file (short blanket?). Other colors look a bit more saturated than the M8 jpeg file. When using our gamma correction we could get closer to the M8 JPEG colors with most of the non green and yellow colors. You can download the XML file containing the Gamma correction file for ARC 4 here. Please note that the exposure index shifts as a result.

Let’s look at Apple Aperture next.

Aperture

Aperture seems to be quite close in terms of the relationships between the colors, only that the entire space needs to be rotated a bit. This is called “hue” as in hue, saturation and brightness. There are some colors that need some more shifting to fit.

RAW color comparison

We thought it would be nice to come up with some way to display Leica M8 colors of various RAW software applications, so they could be compared. This should help you evaluate which color of which RAW software you like best. So we gathered up a few images in various situations and color temperatures. All of those images were processed with default settings, Capture One images were processed with Film extra shadow and ACR GC images were processed with our special gamma correction configuration. Click the tab below to show the images.

Click here for RAW color comparison

Choose first color images	Choose second color images
M8 JPEG ACR ACR GC C1 LE Aperture	M8 JPEG ACR ACR GC C1 LE Aperture

It is interesting to see that Apple Aperture and Adobe Camera RAW with our gamma correction are quite similar. This means they both use some of Leica’s DNG matrices, but Apple has tuned their Gamma to be more similar to the Leica M8 native JPEG. So there you go, just pick witch software you like best. I think I’ll go for Capture One. Note that you may, of course, twist and change colors inside each software to a limited extent. But frankly, how many colors do you think you can handle? Three? Four? Picking the colors you like best from a software will shorten your workflow considerably.

A word on Raw and color

Most photographers think that with RAW, colors can be manipulated to fit whatever the photographer wants or needs. While this is true in some extent, there are a few problems. Firstly, at present there is no true flexible tool that allows the user the manipulate colors to a very fine resolution. Capture One goes as close as possible, and I suggest trying their color editing tool. However, their tool is quite hard to work with.. Photographers never used to tune colors in the past. That was the job of the chemists. Today, the color tuning work has been transferred to the engineers, who have the tools and knowledge to truly implement what a photographer requires. This brings us to the second problem: what exactly does a photographer wish the colors to be? Does a photographer know what he or she wants? Photographers were never required to design colors, and only a very few could design a good color scheme for a camera. A painter? maybe. Photographer? Just a few of them.

So the task of colors lies on the camera makers and RAW software makers, which should bring to the photographers a basic color scheme that they can then adjust, using the available tools on the market (Photoshop for JPEG – RAW software for RAW).

Color is tough

Color is one of the most problematic issues in digital imaging. Mainly because it is easily misunderstood. I don’t think that even the experts (RAW software makers) really understand how to approach colors. Leica, however, does know how to approach colors. Mathematically I can see that they didn’t just throw in some fancy LUT’s and hoped for the best. I am really happy that Leica has chosen not to fall in to the “colors should be faithful” cult, but chose to create a really unique combination of faithful and twisted colors for the Leica M8. If you do not like those colors, by using RAW you can change the colors to some extent to your liking.

RAW is the next issue I’d like to talk about. It is seems that Leica could not fit the colors of DNG to match the M8 JPEG, it’s a short blanket as I said. However, Capture One, which is the software that is compatible with the Leica M8 should be able to reach the same color as the Camera (using ICC). As of today, Capture One’s colors are not very similar to those of the camera, nor is the Gamma that is being used. I think it’s in Leica’s best interest to make sure these two match. After all, most of us are using RAW with the Leica M8 and some of us are using Capture One. Moreover, both Nikon and Canon are tying to match their RAW software to the camera colors. After all, we bought those cameras to also get those colors. So Leica, please note.

The Canon EOS 1D Mark III is Canon’s latest DSLR, using the most advanced 10.1 megapixels CMOS sensor and DIGIC III image processing chip. The 12.7 megapixels Canon EOS 5D uses Canon’s last year technology coupled with last year’s DIGIC II image processor. It will be interesting to compare the two, especially as the EOS 5D has been considered one of the highest image quality camera of all times.

Test Notes – Field of view

The EOS 5D uses a full frame 35 mm sensor where the EOS 1D Mark III uses a sensor with a 1.3 crop factor. To achieve the same field of view with our 50 mm lens, we had to move the EOS 5D slightly forward. This is the most common act the photographer would do in real life. The full frame advantage is fully utilized in this comparison.

Noise Reduction

The new DIGIC III chip inside the EOS 1D Mark III has two Noise Reduction modes. With C. Fn II-2 set to OFF the EOS 1D Mark III reduces noise in a similar way to DIGIC II. However, when C. Fn II-2 is set to ON the new noise reduction produces a very different result. You can read more about the new noise reduction here.

C. Fn II-2 is set to OFF

Canon EOS 1D Mark III: JPEG large, Picture Style: Standard, AutoWB, ISO,
1600, 1/160, Canon 50mm@f8, NR OFF

Canon EOS 5D: JPEG Large, Picture Style: Standard, AutoWB, ISO
1600, 1/160, Canon 50mm@f8

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Canon EOS 1D Mark III @ 1600ISO	Canon EOS 5D @ 1600ISO

Canon EOS 1D Mark III @ 1600ISO	Canon EOS 5D @ 1600ISO

Canon EOS 1D Mark III @ 1600ISO	Canon EOS 5D @ 1600ISO

Evaluation results

Sharpening

Canon seems to significantly reduce the sharpening amount with higher ISO settings of the EOS 1D Mark III. With the EOS 5D sharpening levels appear to be higher, strong edges look crisp and noise free.

Details

As with 100ISO, the Canon EOS 5D is able to capture more detail, being closer to the scene. Even so we are quite happy with the amount of detail the EOS 1D Mark III is showing at 1600ISO.

demosaicing and false colors

Once again we see a very slight advantage for the EOS 1D Mark III, showing less demosaicing errors. False colors are still very much apparent.

Colors and contrast

With picture style color and contrast is very much the same with both cameras. There are small differences between two cameras, which is to be expected.

Noise reduction

Noise levels from both cameras are very similar, but not the same. Luma noise seems to be a bit finer with the EOS 1D Mark III at midtones but slightly more filtered at the shadows. With chroma noise there is a bigger difference: the EOS 1D Mark III shows slightly less chroma noise. By looking at Chroma View you could see that Chroma data was being filtered slightly more aggressively (as a function of luminance). Overall, both cameras have very good signal levels and the differences are very small after noise reduction.

Final Notes

Both Cameras give excellent results, for 2005. At the time the EOS 5D was released this type of noise reduction was very common. Today, advanced chroma noise reduction systems are the new standard. This means that with C. Fn II-2 set to OFF the EOS 1D Mark III is producing old fashioned results, even with excellent signal levels that match the “noise famous” EOS 5D.

C. Fn II-2 is set to ON

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Choma View

Canon EOS 1D Mark III @ 1600ISO	Canon EOS 5D @ 1600ISO

Canon EOS 1D Mark III @ 1600ISO	Canon EOS 5D @ 1600ISO

Canon EOS 1D Mark III @ 1600ISO	Canon EOS 5D @ 1600ISO

Setting C. Fn II-2 to ON really upgrades things considerably. Chroma noise is almost completely eliminated with very little side affects, a few of which are a slight chroma loss at the shadows and vague but large color stains. Switch to Chroma View to view the chroma filtering differences between the two cameras.
Monochromatic grain is very pleasing, not too large but not to flat. Many camera makers have not got this part right (including Adobe and Nikon).

You can read more about noise and noise reduction here.

We have evaluated many noise reduction algorithms in the past, from many different camera makers. We must say that the EOS 1D Mark III is as good as it gets. We have never seen an high ISO result that is so well balanced and tuned as this. We’d like to declare the EOS 1D Mark III as the new king of high ISO, for now (with C. Fn II-2 set to ON). Well done Canon.

The Canon EOS 1D Mark III is Canon’s latest DSLR, using the most advanced 10.1 megapixels CMOS sensor and DIGIC III image processing chip. The 12.7 megapixels Canon EOS 5D uses Canon’s last year technology coupled with last year’s DIGIC II image processor. It will be interesting to compare between the two, especially because the EOS 5D has been considered as one of the highest image quality camera of all times.

Test Notes – Field of view

The EOS 5D uses a full frame 35 mm sensor where the EOS 1D Mark III uses a sensor with a 1.3 crop factor. To achieve the same field of view with our 50 mm lens, we had to move the EOS 5D slightly forward. This is the most common response of the photographer in real life. The full frame advantage is fully utilized in this comparison.

At the bottom of this page you can find the same comparison with the EOS 5D being placed at the exact same distance as the EOS 1D Mark III. However, it should be noted that the later comparison does not fully reflect how the EOS 5D would be used in real life. Nature photographers that use long lenses from a fixed point would benefit more from the second comparison.

Same field of view

Canon EOS 1D Mark III: Jpeg large, Picture Style: Standard, AutoWB, ISO
100, AutoWB, ISO100, 1/10, Canon 50mm@f8, NR OFF
Canon EOS 5D: JPEG Large, Picture Style: Standard, AutoWB, ISO
100, 1/10, Canon 50mm@f8

Canon EOS 1D Mark III	Canon EOS 5D

Evaluation results

Sharpening

Sharpening levels of both cameras are very similar. The EOS 5D seems to show slightly higher sharpening levels. As always with Canon there is some overshoot (hallows) on the edge, which gives the image a nicely crisped effect.

Details

Being closer to the scene along with an additional 2.7 megpaixels, the EOS 5D has the upper hand here. Because the large clear edges are slightly stronger with the EOS 5D, there is a strong feeling of a sharper result. However, we are actually quite impressed by the EOS 1D Mark III, which managed to exhibit only slightly less detail.

Demosaicing and false colors

Demosaicing today is a minor issue as most camera makers have reached a level where demosaicing errors are much less critical than they used to be. Never-the-less, in EOS 1D Mark III there is a minor improvement. False colors as a result of demosaicing are still an (small) issue that Canon apparently has chosen not to address with DIGIC III.

Colors and contrast

Picture style color and contrast is very much the same with both cameras. There are small differences between two cameras, which is to be expected.

Noise reduction

The Canon EOS Mark III was set with High ISO noise reduction OFF. Still, at the dark parts of the image there is less color noise than the EOS 5D (you need a good screen to see that). This is clearly a result of the new algorithms of DIGIC III. We are not sure, but it seems that we can see a better tonal gradation in the dark areas. This is probably a result of the better noise reduction and the new 14 bit pipeline.

Final Notes

The EOS 5D clearly has a resolution and sensor size advantage. Even with all these advantages the EOS 1D Mark III has produced a fine result, with sharp edges and a good amount of detail. There are some processing advantages that DIGIC III has contributed to the EOS 1D Mark III, among those is a better tonal gradations at the dark parts of the image.

Same distance

We also compared the EOS 1D Mark III with the EOS 5D at exactly the same distance. This comparison is less true to real life, but still would be suitable to these with long lenses at a given distance.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III	Canon EOS 5D same distance

The EOS 1D Mark III has more pixels per mm which produces more fine details overall. However the EOS 5D still produced sharper, crisper hard edges. This could be the result of a different or weaker optical low pass filter but probably is the result of a slightly different edge enhancement profile.

To confirm that we have processed RAW files from both cameras using ACR4 with the sharpening controls closed, we applied unsharp mask filter using the following settings:
Amount 70
Ratios 0.7
Threshold 0

As the crop below shows, the differences in sharpness seem to come mostly from processing differences between the two cameras, although in some cases the EOS 5D still shows stronger edges.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III	Canon EOS 5D same distance

In the past year or so we started to noticed that noise reduction algorithms camera makers were using are starting to evolve. Around the time the Nikon D200 was released to the market, everyone in the japanese camera industry were coming up with something called chroma noise reduction. Prior the Nikon D200, camera makers have done some amount of chroma noise reduction, but the Nikon D200 was the first DSLR to actually use huge filters with very aggressive strength on chroma data. Canon’s DIGIC II is using what we call, the old age noise reduction algorithm, what looks like limited sized filters on chroma and luma data. This age is now over, with the DIGIC III having the “New age” or “New generation” system that can filter chroma data very aggressively, Canon is now catching up to the Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic.

Note: You may need to wait until all images in this page will fully load before toggling between views.

Evaluating algorithms

Evaluating Canon’s new noise reduction algorithms is easy if you have access to the engine that runs them (DIGIC III), which we don’t. Our job won’t be so easy, and we’ll have to be a little bit more creative. First we have to find the perfect candidate to compare Canon’s new noise reduction algorithms. This candidate can only be the Nikon D200, which uses the same type of new age noise reduction algorithms.

Same signal

Signal level and sensitivity of the sensor are in fact what the noise reduction algorithms receive as their input data. In order to even things out between the two sensors (Mark III and the D200), we had to find an ISO level which will produce the same noise level in both cameras. The input level needs to be as similar as possible. We also wanted to ensure the image will have sufficient noise levels in order to make things tough for the noise reduction algorithms – a high ISO level was needed. The first thing we did was to photograph our test scene with both cameras, using all ISO settings in 1/3EV steps. We then striped all RAW files from their headers and processed all files with a very basic demosaicing algorithm, white balance and basic Gamma. The result is a set of images that have no noise reduction applied. Because the EOS Mark III RAW files have not been applied with any black-level and their white point is not the same as the Nikon D200 – finding the same signal level wasn’t easy. We had finally come to the conclusion that we should use the Nikon D200 at 1600ISO and the Canon EOS Mark III at 3200ISO to match the input signal levels.

Edge enhancement (Sharpening)

Edge enhancement, or sharpening, influences edge noise and edge look quite a bit. Both Nikon and Canon do their edge enhancement differently, but we have to make sure the levels of the edge enhancement are close. After testing different levels of in-camera sharpening, it was clear that the Canon EOS Mark III is to be set to sharpening 2 and the Nikon D200 will be set to Normal sharpening. At 1600 ISO, Medium High on the Nikon D200 was too high, compared to the EOS 1D Mark III. Note that you may see more white hallows on Canon’s side, but this is just their way of sharpening.

Our scene and 200% view

This is our scene which we are going to use for this article. It is not an easy scene, as it was specially designed to fail noise reduction algorithms. The crops taken from this scene are 200% view. Although you may call us Pixel Peepers, but we believe 200% is the minimum view needed in order to analyze algorithms. If you find this bothering, you might find low quality noise reduction algorithms good enough for you.

The scene was shot with both cameras at the same time. Due to crop factor differences, we moved the EOS 1D Mark III forwards to match the size of the objects in the scene. This results from the EOS 1D MKIII are having a small advantage in distance. Also note, we set contrast of the EOS 1D Mark III to -2 to match the contrast of the Nikon D200, as the Nikon D200 High contrast setting is too high.

Here is the full settings we used:
Canon EOS 1D Mark III: 1/400, 50mm(EF 2.5)@f8, JPEG L, 3200ISO, picture style – standard, contrast -2, sharpening 2, sRGB.

Nikon D200: 1/200, 50(f1.4)@F8, JPEG Fine, 1600ISO, Tone – Normal, Sharpening – normal, sRGB (Mode I).

We’ll also be showing you crops with no noise reduction. Those crops were acheived by using DNG demosaicing and some matlab for WB and Gamma functions. We used the SAME gamma the manufacture used to produce the image, as gamma has huge impact on noise. Please note that there is no easy way to reproduce Canon’s colors (which also affects noise), so those crops will have a different color.

The Results

Before examining the results, we need to clarify the difference between the two types of noise recudsion the EOS 1D Mark III uses. C. Fn II-2 allows you to set the noise reduction ON or OFF, but rest assured that noise reduction is never really turned OFF. What it does mean is that the camera will do a simpler noise reduction, much similar to what DIGIC II was capable of. Switching C. Fn II-2 to ON means the camera will apply the new, more agressive noise reduction, which is way more modern. The down side is mostly speed, as it turns out two DIGIC III chips can not process RAW images fast enough to clear the buffer. The buffer depth reduces from 99 images to just 14. Much to our disappointment, Canon had to set C. Fn II-2 to OFF by default, and produce relatively low image quality.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)

As you can see from the results, when the C. FnII-2 is set to OFF there is quite a bit of Chroma noise. This type of noise reduction also reduces a little bit of details compared to the RAW image with no noise reduction applied. From the large color spots in the NR OFF image you can see that the filter applied on the data is is not large, meaning the filter is not averaging strongly on large regions. However, we are really impressed by the very good edge detection and preservation.

Turing C. FnII-2 ON really upgrades the image quality. This type of noise reduction splits the data into luma (brightenss) and chroma (color) images. Canon then filters Chroma data with very large (huge, probably) filters, averaging very strongly while preserving edges. Luma data also gets the same treatment but with a very fine and gentle filtering. Once Chroma noise is out of the way all that is left is strong monochromatic grain and some demosaicing noise (patterns that are a result of demosaicing). Luma noise is then filtered gently to produce fine looking grain. This is the part where the camera maker needs to find the balance between details and grain (luma noise).

With high ISO images, small and fine details are embedded into noise, so over filtering will lose more of those details but will also produce a flatter, grain-less images. Filter too little, and you end up with a lot more luminance noise, alongside preserving those details. A good balance is needed to achieve the best possible result.

There is one more variable in the equation, and that is edge detection. The trick of noise reduction in to filter evenly on flat areas but filter along the edge when an edge is detected. The better the camera maker could do this, the more details will be preserved while treating flat areas with stronger filtering.

From the results above you can see that this time, lunch is indeed (almost) free. For little less fine details you can get an image free of color noise. When C. FnII-2 is set to ON you indeed get a modern, top notch, excellent noise reduction. Too bad Canon hasn’t made their best effort to make DIGIC III fast enough for 10MP with 10 frames per second (although this is actually a buffer size issue. the actual processing time is probably less even with C. FnII-2 set to OFF).

Canon vs. Nikon, here we go

Nikon had their bets on new generation noise reduction for some time now. As you may know, Nikon had a few problems with their own sensors. With pixel sizes getting smaller and smaller every year as camera resolution increases, the best way to deal with image noise is to have less noise to begin with. But since that is out of their reach, now generation chroma noise reduction is the way to go.

The Nikon D200 was the first DSLR with new generation noise reduction and this was over a year before Canon’s DIGIC III. So Nikon is probably going to improve their algorithms in the next pro DSLR camera. Note that the Nikon D80 and Nikon D40x don’t seem to use an improved algorithm, but only seem to use different configurations for the same algorithm.

Chroma filtering strength

IIt’s not easy to filter an image fast and effectively, a camera maker may not be able to filter the data to a completely flat result (even though this is not always necessary). So first we’ll look at the strength of the chroma and luma filtering. Please note that we have this detailed data on chart which you can view here.

• RGB View
• Luma Viev
• Chroma view

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)
Black	Gray	White

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)
Black	Gray	White

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)
Black	Gray	White

The crops above are taken from the Colorchecker 24 chart that is on the scene. It is clearly visible just how good the chroma noise reduction in flattening chroma data. Take a look at the NR OFF setting of the EOS 1D Mark III and you’ll see why images taken with this setting have much more color noise. It looks like Nikon has reduced chroma noise, or flattened chroma noise a bit better than the EOS 1D Mark III. You can hardly see the difference in this type of image view but it’s there. Of course, NR OFF setting of the Nikon D200 isn’t really OFF. It’s quite the same with smaller amount of filtering. Below is anther crop from our scene that better illustrates that the EOS 1D Mark III leaves a bit of color stains behind. Color stains are very bad, because they can really disturb the viewer.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 Normal

Color glow at edges

One of the biggest problems the chroma noise reduction has to deal with is false colors at edges. Because of the large and aggressive filtering on the chroma data, edges are bound to leak from their original position, creating color glow around the edge.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

If you’ll toggle between the EOS 1D Mark III and the Nikon D200 at Chroma view, you’ll see that the EOS 1D Mark III does show more glow than the Nikon D200. The edges on the Nikon D200 are somewhat sharper. However, if you take a closer look, you’ll see that the Nikon D200 also shows some artifacts along the edges where the EOS 1D Mark III does not. Also, on the right bottom patch at the upper edge you can see a strong orange line along the edge. This line, along with those small artifacts, is going to show up at RGB view (the final image) as color artifacts. That line will show as stronger orange-yellow line on the Nikon D200. Although Canon is showing a bit more glow here, I am quite impressed by Canon’s artifact free edges. Nikon could probably achieve the same affect by blurring the Chroma data a tiny bit.

False colors at edges

Edge detection yields yet another problem. If an edge was not properly detected while chroma filtering, the filter will not average that undetected part of the edge. The result is small color stains and edges that are filled with color noise.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

By toggling between the EOS 1D Mark III and the Nikon D200, you can see that the EOS 1D Mark III results look better. In both sides of the face, inside the left eye and left eyebrow of the Nikon D200 image you can see color noise leftovers, right on the edge of the details. The EOS 1D Mark III result simply don’t show those false colors. By switching to Chroma view you can clearly see the problem, most of the strong edges of the Nikon D200 contains artifacts, along the edges (inside the eyes, in both sides of the face, etc). Those artifacts will look as color on the RGB view of the image, the EOS 1D Mark III does a better job here.

However, on the right side of the right eye the EOS 1D Mark III result does look odd in RGB view. There is some color noise and some chroma loss (skin tone color loss). switching to Chroma view, you’ll notice some holes in the data, clearly something confused the EOS 1D Mark III algorithm. This does not happen with the Nikon D200.

One last interesting note, the EOS 1D Mark III seem to filter luma data better, switch to Luma view, you’ll see that the image looks clearer. The edges seem to be better preserved, which helps the image look less water colored, as some noise reduction algorithms do.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)

Here is anther example where, by toggling between EOS 1D Mark III NR ON and Nikon D200 Normal, you can see the Canon can preserve color edges better. The Nikon D200 result has quite a lot of false colors artifacts – around the yellow ball of string, near the shadows and at the left end of the battle label. Looking at Chroma view, you can see that the Nikon D200 chroma edges are sharper with more artifacts. Once again, those artifacts are showing up as color noise leftovers at RGB view.

Chroma reduction

A little trick to further reduce color noise is to suppress chroma (color) as a function of luminance. This means that from a certain low levels of luminance, the algorithm will deliberately lower the chrominance of the area to suppress color noise. Although quite smart, we don’t like this so much, as sometimes there are color less “holes” in the image.

• RGB View
• Luma View
• Chroma View

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

It seems that both Nikon and Canon are using this type of method to reduce color noise at the dark parts of the image. However, Canon seem to do this less and better than Nikon. We are quite pleased to see that, as Nikon’s approach was far too aggressive to our taste.

Edges and details

The first thing photographers think about when they hear “Noise Reduction” is “loss of details”. We tend not to get scared from losing detail, mostly because we know the strong hard edges will be preserved by advanced noise reduction algorithms. Below you can see an example of that, those lines are 2-3 pixel wide. Move you mouse over the images to toggle between the original JPEG image and the RAW image we processed without any Noise Reduction.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

The differences in contrast you can see is due to edge enhancement applied on the JPEG images. The noise reduction algorithm is smoothing the signal along the edge, resulting in a smoother image. This example shows you that noise reduction algorithms can easy preserve hard edges. So if you shoot 1600ISO or 3200ISO, those hard edges will most probably be preserved, enabling you to print good quality image out of both cameras.

However, saving as much fine details as possible will result in an overall better image. This is not very easy when those fine details (the signal) are very close to the variation of noise (noise signal). Then, you need some really good engineering to save those signals from being destroyed.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

The example above shows that it is very hard to preserve fine edges. By moving your mouse on the images (Luma only) you can see that Canon was able to preserve signals extremely well, as opposed to the Nikon D200, which has killed any details that were present in the RAW data. This is very impressive indeed.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

Here is another example of the exact same thing (Luma only). Canon was able to preserve fine edges very well while Nikon averaged out those details that where quite strong in the RAW data. If we would need to guess, we would say Nikon performs their noise reduction AFTER gamma, which means they do in on 8 bit data. Gamma really messes around with single to noise ratio so this would probably be the reason Nikon was unable to preserve those fine edges.

There is one more aspect to be adressed, and that is how both the Nikon and the Canon are preserving edges in the shadows. It is relatively easy to preserve fine edges in the highlights because the signal to noise ratio there is much better. In the shadows it is a whole different ball game.

Canon EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	Nikon D200 NR Normal

It is interesting to see that the RAW data from the EOS 1D Mark III has a better signal at the shadows, so it is hard to call out a winner here. Both cameras have lost some details, with the Canon seeming to find those strong edges and filter them correctly, while the Nikon’s signal seem to be too disrupted. This is also true elsewhere around the image, we were unable to find a good example because Canon always seemed to have a better signal at midtones and shadows already on the RAW data. So we have to say Canon’s CMOS sensor (and size) has the upper hand here by providing a better signal.

Grain

When chroma noise is reduced almost completely what is left is luma noise (monochromatic noise). This luma noise has to be filtered gently in order to have a pleasant looking result. If filtered too hard, the whole image will look too flat and will have the famous “water color affect”. If filtered too weakly, the image will look too grainy. So a precise amount of filtering is required to produce a pleasant grain result.

EOS 1D Mark III NR ON	EOS 1D Mark III NR OFF	EOS 1D Mark III RAW (No NR)
Nikon D200 NR Normal	Nikon D200 NR OFF	Nikon D200 RAW (No NR)
Black	Gray	White

By toggling between EOS 1D Mark III NR ON and Nikon D200 NR Normal, it is clear that Canon is leaving a bit more sharper grain in the mindtones. However, the Nikon seems to leave more grain in the shadows, where the Canon leaves a more smooth result. We think Canon has the Grain a bit more balanced than Nikon. We never liked the fact that the Nikon D200 has so much Grain in the shadows. These observations reflect in the results we have on our noise analysis database.

Final words

Canon has really done it this time. The new noise reduction algorithm is working really well. Of course, both Canon and Nikon have their issues that which need to work on. We are not very happy with the vague but large color stains the Canon is leaving behind. Nikon seems to filter chroma more aggressively. Nevertheless, the Canon’s ability to filter chroma edges really well and to filter weak details signals correctly is very very impressing. We think Canon has also done a better job tuning those algorithms to produce a more pleasing result.

Nikon really has a lot of work ahead. The two issues that are bothering us the most are the false colors at the edges and the fact that there is just too much grain at the shadows. As we said before, small details are not as important in high ISO image as the pleasing look of the image.

Algorithms aside, it is really amazing to see how good the EOS 1D Mark III CMOS sensor is. The signal levels are way better than everything we have seen in the past. Canon’s ability to produce those good SNR levels from a CMOS sensor has come a very long way, and it is now way above the competition.

Hopefully you are now able to better understand how complex noise reduction is and how really well it could work if properly engineered. You can only take advantage of those well engineered algorithms if you use the camera’s jpeg processed file. Naturally, shooting RAW and processing the image with RAW software, such as Adobe Camera Raw and Aperture, will not produce these results. You may use the manufacture’s RAW software which is Canon Digital Photo Professional for Canon and Nikon Capture NX for Nikon. Those RAW softwares are producing very good results, although they are tuned somewhat different than the cameras. We will write about this sometime in the future.

The image on the left is the RAW data at its bayer format from the Nikon D200. The image on the right is the RAW data at its bayer format from the Leica M8. one is brighter then the other even though they both will look the same with any Raw software, such as Adobe Camera Raw. In this article we will explore the 8 bit riddle of the M8 DNG files.

Nikon D200	Leica M8

Yes, those are 8 bits

Right around the time first Leica M8 cameras reached the hands of some of the more advanced digital photographers, reports that Leica’s new M8 RAW files are 8 bit started to come in. This is actually a fairly easy thing to notice as all Leica M8 RAW files are 10.1MB, no matter what is actually in the image. So, if all RAW files are 10.1MB, this means there is probably no compression going on.

With computers, each byte is equal to 8 bits. So, if we have four pixels each holding 8 bits of data, we will have a file size of 4pixles X 8bit = 32bit = 4byte.

A simple calculation of the M8’s 10 megpaixels sensor reveals that with a resolution of 3936 x 2630 where each pixel is holding 8 bits, we will have a file size of:

3936×2630 = 10,351,680pixles X 8bit = 82,813,440bits = 10,351,680 bytes = 9.8MB (when kilobyte is 1024 bytes).

So, here is a proof that Leica’s DNG RAW files are really holding 8bit of pixel data. But, it is not as simple as that.

Understating the role of Gamma

Image sensors operate in a linear way. This means that for every time the amount of light is doubled the sensor also doubles it’s output. What you need to understand is that humans see the world in a logarithmic way, and so this is one of the reasons you see the image below as too dark. What’s more, our computers screens project light in a non-linear way.

Historically, to compensate for those problems camera makers have applied a gamma curve to the image, making it appear correctly on computers and TV screens. Today, camera makers not only use the gamma function for compensation, but also to design the image to look as the camera maker thinks it should look. In other words, every camera has its own gamma function rather then a standard value.

The image on the left is a linear image taken with the Canon EOS 30D. The image on the right has been applied with the Gamma function we have managed to extract from the Canon standard picture style profile.

16 or 14 bits?

Although Leica insist that the M8 is “16 bit-color resolution”, there isn’t any proof that this is actually the reality. What we are about to describe in this article is leading us to think the M8 is really a 14 bit camera, which is already not bad at all. Moreover, the chip that determines how many bits per pixel a camera has is called the AFE chip, or the A/D chip. As it turns out, dual cannel chips with 16 bit output are not very easy to come by. In fact, Analog Devices, one of the biggest AFE chip maker, hasn’t got any AFE chips with 16 bit output, but they do have some dual cannel 14 bit AFE chips.
We are going to assume in this article that the M8 is an 14 bit camera.

Leica M8 DNG files

Obviously, the reason the M8’s DNG files are 8 bit is because leica wanted to have small files that are easy to store and process. Leica is using a software processor on the M8, which is a good thing for a company with no experience with image processing. But this also means its power to energy ratio is quite bad compared to the hardware image processor in most DSLR cameras. So 8bit RAW data is going to help Leica get more battery life and processing time when the images are viewed.

The principle of Leica’s 8bit files is based on the fact that the data will need to be applied with Gamma. As discussed previously, humans see in a logarithmic scale. Human vision tend to have ability to distinguish shadows better then highlights, this could be exploited when 14 bit in linear scale are converted into non-linear 8 bits data.

A bit of reverse engineering

Leica’s DNG files are holding a DNG tag called “Linearization table”. This tag holds a lookup table with 256 entries where each entries is holding 14bit values. Lookup tables, or LUT in short are just big tables with input output values. Leica’s LUT is used to convert 256 input values into 14 bit output values.

There is a lot we can do with this LUT, and we’ll get to the actual use of it in a minute. Using a simple matching function we were able to reverse leica’s LUT to produce the actual LUT that maps 14 bits of linear data into 8 bits non-linear. The curve below exhibits Leica’s curve, reversed, in a 8 bit (with rounding)/8 bit scale.

Obviously when converting 14 bits (or 16 bits) into 8 bits, data gets compressed all over the scale. This LUT compresses data in such a way that data from the shadows gets compressed less than data from the highlights. The table below illustrates some key entries from the LUT (reversed) and the ratio of compressing.

As you can see, the ratio in the shadows is lower then the ratio in the highlights. For example, in the shadows (6th stop) every 19 bits in the 14 bit data are mapped into 1 bit in the 8 bit data. Wheres at the highlights, every 111 bits are mapped to 1 bit in the 8 bit data. So steps in the shadows are more expressed.

Square root, a simple Gamma

Leica performs a Gamma function in order to transform the linear 14 bit data into non-linear 8 bit data. Normally, a camera manufacturer would use a Lookup table (LUT) to perform a similar function. A simpler way to perform the same task is by raising the pixel value with a power. Using exponentiation (power) is a limited function, capable only to shape the data in a single form. A LUT however, is completely flexible.

The term “Square root” has been used by leica to describe what is being done to transform 16 bit (according to leica) linear data into 8 bit non-linear. And indeed, the Square root of 65536 (16 bit) is 256 (8 bit). Also, because the way Square root is acting, by applying Square root on all the 16 bit data range, we would get a nice gamma curve similar to gamma 2.0.
This is because a gamma function is similar. Gamma is performed by raising a number with a power of gamma. For example, gamma of 2.0 would be: 65536^1/2.0 = 256.

Having explained that, I do not think Leica performs a Square root function on the data, because that would require 16 bit input data. It is more likely that Leica is applying a Lookup table (LUT) that performs a function that acts like a Square root, mapping 14 bit data in to 8 bit data. The chart bellow demonstrates Leica’s LUT along with the sRGB standard. Please note that part of the CIE lightness curve is being used by Nikon with their NEF compression method.

How it works

After Leica applies all necessary corrections on the RAW data, such as vignetting correction and cyan correction, Leica then applies the Gamma LUT on the data. The data is converted from what appears to be 14 bit of linear data into 8 bits of non-linear data. Leica then writes a reverse LUT, also called DeGamma, into the DNG header. This reverse LUT has 256 entries for input and 14 bits values for output.

The first step the Raw converter has to do, before it can continue with its normal image pipeline, is to reverse the data back into the linear domain. It does so by applying Leica’s stored LUT on the data, after which it can continue with its image processing pipeline. The diagram below should help you understand this process.

	Capture 14 bit
	LUT 14 bit => 8 bit
	Result
	Raw software
	LUT 8 bit => 14 bit
	Result
	Proceeding
	Color & Gamma
	Final image
	* use your mouse to roll over the above buttons

The negative

Other then small files, faster writing time and better battery consumption, there are no an other benefits. Although by using Gamma 2.0 Leica is taking advantage of the human vision and industry standards, the RAW data will always have 256 input bits. After applying DeGamma on the 8 bit non-linear data there are going to be gaps between the linear 14 bit data. Even if our eyes and computer screens can’t pickup those data gaps, there are still going to be problems with some issues:

Noise!

In the Poisson distribution light behaves, photon noise is larger as the data becomes brighter. By applying Gamma function on the data, noise is being averaged down in the highlights and starched out in the shadows, after which the DeGamma operation will reverse the function. Once the data has been manipulated that way, noise is being averaged down to tonal levels with no consideration of the structure of the image. Noise reduction algorithms are smart, and treat noise differently according to the surroundings of the pixel. For example, a simple algorithm will treat human hair differently than it would treat a flat surface.

The table below is the outcome of an experiment we tried. Using the Canon EOS 30D, we took a CR2 image of a B&W step chart. We then striped the CR2 file from any Canon headers and remained with pure 12bit Raw data in it’s bayer form. Using matlab, we then shifted the data to 16bit, and preformed a simple sqrt on all the data with rounding. The result was a 8 bit image of the chart, still in bayer form. The next step was to bring the data back to 16 bit, this was done by raising the values with a power of 2. The last step was to measure the standard deviation on each step in the image (still in bayer form).

Above: the step chart we used – evey step is 0.3EV.

Quantization problems

The M8’s files will not tolerant much of under exposure corrections. You are likely to see quantization quite easily when correcting your under exposed images. Also, post processing is likely to show some quantization problems. The histograms below are the actual photoshop histograms from the experiment we have done (described above). The histogram on the left is the full linear 16 bit Raw data and the image on the right is the decompressed image, also 16 bit linear. As you can see, there are gaps in Raw tonal data.

Highlights

Because of compression in the highlight, the M8’s DNG files would not have as much details as the next DSLR to recover by sliding the exposure tools of different RAW converters. Please note that ACR/Lightroom are using smart algorithms to recover details automatically once the slider is pooled into negative values – so ACR/Lightroom are not very suitable softwares to test this.

White Balance

In very extreme lighting temperatures, where the red channel or the blue channel are highly saturated, M8’s DNG files are most likely not holding much details at the highlights after the Green channel. Therefore, correcting white balance will likely result clipping and quantization problems of the dominant channel, red or blue.

Future improvements

We can’t be sure what people could think of next. Smart local toning? HDR printing? better smarter noise reduction? Maybe adobe will surprise us with something extra cool? Some of those could be relying on the RAW data being full 12 bits. The M8 DNG files might not have the ability to take the advantage of the next cool feature.

At the time of writing this article, our digital photography world is going through a change. A big change. Camera makers are finally starting to apply their noise reduction algorithms with some innovation. This is coming from a need to produce better high ISO images than ever. Sensor makers are trying (and encouraged) to stuff more and more pixels in their image sensor to drive sales, which reduces pixel size and thus making it less sensitive. The less sensitive pixels are, the less chance there is for light to fill pixels equally. Thus, there will be more photon shot noise.

Note: this is not the place to explain what photon shot noise is, you can understand this article even without completely understanding. Just keep in mind that smaller pixels produce more random noise, which has to do with the physics of light rather then the image sensor itself.

Luma Chroma

The problem with every RGB noise reduction algorithms as we covered in the previous article is the same. They all work on RGB data, which, cannot distinguish between color noise and grain noise. Therefore RGB algorithms can only address noise as G noise, R noise and B noise. This approach is even more difficult when the noise is very high, because it is difficult to distinguish between edges and noise.

Imagine what would happen if you could separate the data to luminance and color, having the luminance of the image on one side and the color of the image in the other.
Yes, you’d be able to reduce noise separately on each image, remove the color noise from the color image and remove the grain noise from the luminance image. Afterwards, you’d combine the image into one image to have a noise free image.

It is of course not that simple and there are many difficulties. But the principal is to separate the color noise from the grain noise so it would be easier to reduce color noise. Color noise is much more disturbing to us from just monochromatic noise, so you could see how this method is important for camera makes.

How do they do it?

Some camera makers convert the data somewhere along the pipeline from RGB data to YIQ, YUV, LAB or any data of this kind. This is usually done to make color adjustments. But this also gives the camera makers an opportunity to reduce noise, as the data is already converted. 

All of those color spaces separate Chroma (color) from Luma (luminance), so half of the work has already been done for camera makers. Now it’s a matter of the algorithm to take its part and reduce noise. But, as its turns out it is much more difficult to reduce noise in any one of these color spaces. The chroma image, which contains only the color data, is constructed from differences of levels to describe color data (see image bellow). The edges and details in the chroma data are very weak and thus, difficult to detect by the algorithm. If the filter cannot detect edges successfully, the color of the image would flow over the edges and into nearby areas. There are solutions to keep the edges safe, for example, one might use the edges from the luma image to detect chroma edges.

Luminance data (luma)- strong edges	Color data (chroma) – weak edges

Chroma reduction in shadows

Some camera makers are using the luma chroma suppression stage in the pipeline to reduce chroma (color) from shadows areas in an arbitrary way. This approach often does not use a filter; it could be based on color transformation in the shadows to remove chroma completely. For instance, Nikon used this approach with the Nikon D200. Images below from the Nikon D200 and the Canon EOS 350D demonstrate this approach. Move your mouse back and forth between the two 1600 ISO images and note the lack of color in the dark part of the Nikon D200 image (the left part).

Nikon D200 @ 1600ISO	Canon Rebel xt @ 1600ISO
Nikon D200 @ 100ISO	Canon Rebel xt @ 100ISO

Modern noise reducation algorithms

Noise reduction methods that operate only on luma chroma spirited color models such as YUV, YIQ or LAB are what could be called modern noise reducation algorithms. Those algorithms are not yet implanted in most digital cameras out there, but are expected to heavily penetrate the market in DSLR as well as point and shoot cameras. Adobe Camera Raw is using this kind of method for a while now, other camera makers already produced some cameras with this method principle, although the implementation is not quite the same.

The basic principle is to treat luma noise in the luma layer differently from chroma noise in the chroma layer. By doing so, one can apply aggressive edge preserving chroma noise reduction on the chroma (A and B layers in case of LAB) and gentle edge preserving on luma noise reduction on the luma layer. As you know, the luma layer is where the strong edges are, these that keep the image sharp. The result should be a color noise free image with some monochromatic noise and good strong edges.

The ‘Luma + Chroma’ image below illustrates just that. As you can see, there is some fade color noise and very big color stains. This is the aggressive chroma noise reduction filter working on the chroma layer. Note that we used the same RGB noise reduction images from the RGB noise reduction article, but the images are now displayed into L, A, B instead of R,G and B so you could understand how this would work. Of course, there are much better algorithms then the one we used to do the same task.

Original	All RGB	Ch RGB	Luma + Chroma

As always, nothing is prefect, this method does have its problems. Because we are working on the color data, filters of this kind influence the color of the image, many times altering or reducing the saturation of the image. There are other problems that might occur with this type of algorithms. It’s quite difficult to treat color edge noise, so some color edge noise could remain even after this type of algorithm had been applied. Similar problems can occur where the neighboring areas are confusing the algorithm, making it think it has discovered an edge. You can see this happening in the Nikon D200 example below. The Nikon D200 is one of the first cameras utilizing an approach that is based on this method but not quite similar. Other times, as you can also see from the Adobe Camera Raw image below, the algorithm is reducing all the chroma from a particular area where it should’t.

Nikon D200 1600ISO examples, the arrows are pointing where you can see some color noise ‘escaping’ chroma noise reduction filter. This is most likely to happen in the edges and in areas that confuse the algorithm.

Luminance Smoothing (luma): 40 Color Noise Reduction (chroma): 0	Luminance Smoothing (luma): 40 Color Noise Reduction (chroma): 50

Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 example, on the left an image with Luminance Smoothing (luma) set to 40 and Color Noise Reduction (chroma) set to 0 (this does NOT mean it’s turned off completely). On the right, the same image with Color Noise Reduction (chroma) set to 50.
The arrows are pointing where the algorithm has failed, reducing the chroma completely below the eyebrows or smearing chroma data into the edge between the lips, turing the edge red (smeared the A channel which is red to green data).

Chroma with no edge / bad edge preserving

In computer software, where there are plenty of resources and time, some chroma noise reduction algorithms I’ve seen are not edge preserving or are not performing very well. In case of too much chroma noise reduction applied by the user, color edges will leak into the edges and even into nearby areas. The image below illustrates on our image how too much of non-edge preserving chroma reduction would look. So far I’ve seen this happen with Apple Aperture and Adobe Photoshop’s reduce noise filter.

No edge/bad edge chroma filter	Edge preserving chroma filter

Making it in the real world

Camera makers with their need to design a pipeline that fast (5 fps and up) as well as economical (in terms of watt and cost), can’t really afford to use modern noise reduction algorithms as we’ve described. I’m afraid I can’t disclose how exactly camera makes are producing modern noise reduction results, but I can say that the same principle of the YUV, YIQ or LAB noise reduction is being used in a unique way, very similar to what was shown here.

In the time of writing this article there are several camera makes already producing cameras with their property modern noise reduction algorithms. Camera makers like Nikon (DSLR only), Panasonic with their Venus III pipeline and Fujifilm. We expect more to follow during the years.

Note: all algorithm examples are illustrations of camera noise reduction algorithms a camera makes might use. Those algorithm illustrations are not taken from real cameras or based on actual camera algorithms.