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.

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.

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.

It will be interesting to compare these two cameras at 1600 ISO and see if Nikon has set the noise reduction algorithms different according to the camera’s predicted audience.

Nikon D80: Jpeg Fine, Optimize Image: Normal, AutoWB, ISO1600, 1/125,
Nikkor 50mm@f9
Nikon D200: Jpeg Fine, Optimize Image: Normal, AutoWB, ISO1600, 1/125,
Nikkor 50mm@f9

Nikon D80	Nikon D200

Sharpening

As one can see, the sharpening level has been reduced in both cameras. In a similar way to the low level test, the Nikon D80 shows a little bit stronger sharpening than the Nikon D200.

Details

In most areas of the image the detail level is pretty much the same. In the dark zones we can say that the Nikon D200 shows a little bit more detail.

demosaicing, false colors

The aggressive noise reduction system helps preventing demosaicing and false colors problems. Thats the reason we didn’t see any of these problems in both cameras.

Contrast and color

Nikon maps the D80 colors further than the D200, making them more saturated, more vivid. This can affect the noise either way; in cut 1 and 9 the noise in the hair gets a stronger color and shows that the noise reduction algorithms didn’t work properly in this area of the image. A similar affect can be seen on the left cheek of the girl in cut 5 – the noise that was not removed gets a stronger color and is easily noticed. On other the hand, the strong red in cut 10 helps to conceal the graininess.

Nikon D80 uses a more contrasted curve that creates a less grainy image especially in the dark zones.

Noise reduction

It seems that Nikon is using the same noise reduction algorithms in both cameras. The algorithm has a hard time removing noise from the edges. This can be easily seen in cut 1 and 9. Even with these problems this is still the most progressed noise reduction system in the market today that can remove completely (in specific brightness levels) color noise.

Nikon has increased the level of the algorithm working on the luma layer in the D80. In the dark zones of the D80 there is a stronger noise reduction and therefore less grain.

Notes

The basic principles of the noise reduction are the same in both cameras but the D80 usually benefits from the more “aggressive” processing of color and creates a better result. One of the only complaints we have about the D200 is the graininess in the dark zones. If there is any noise left in the D80 it is sometimes emphasized by the color processing of this camera.

These two cameras are pretty close in their specifications. Still, it will be intersting compare their image quality and see if Nikon had improved it in the D80.

Nikon D80: Jpeg Fine, Optimize Image: Normal, AutoWB, ISO100, 1/8,
Nikkor 50mm@f9
Nikon D200: Jpeg Fine, Optimize Image: Normal, AutoWB, ISO100, 1/8,
Nikkor 50mm@f9

Nikon D80	Nikon D200

Sharpening

Nikon aimed the D80 for the less professional users than the D200 producing a lower sharpening level at the ‘normal’ setting. We see this setting as a better default and there is always the option to set the camera to a lower sharpening level if needed.

Details

It seems that the strength of the anti aliasing filter is the same, creating very similar results in the detail level.

demosaicing, false colors

Both cameras show almost no false color problems. In some problematic frequencies there is some screen print pattern shown.

Contrast and color

The change in color and contrast in the D80 can be seen in our color database. Nikon created colors that are more saturated and are further away from Nikon has chosen a more contrasted curve that affects the dark levels. At the end of the day we get an image that needs almost no processing with the D80 compared to the D200 that creates images that need some work. With the D80 we can get the same contrast curve by setting the camera contrast in the menu.

Noise reduction

Noise is almost not a factor in low ISO, we discuss noise in our higher ISO comparison.

Notes

Most issues are pretty much the same in these 2 cameras. But it does seem like Nikon is aiming the D80 for the less professional market in the processing part of the flow. One can change his D80 setting to create the same effect as the D200 but the opposite is not possible as Nikon does not allow medium levels of the tone setting that creates the contrast.