Re: ISO noise vs. long exposure noise
- From: RichA <none@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:43:47 -0400
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:40:02 -0400, Cynicor
<j..tru.p.i.n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Does anyone know of any data about ISO noise vs. long-exposure noise? In
>other words, at what point does long-exposure noise become worse than
>the noise you'd add by moving to a higher ISO? I've got a D70, and I'm
>trying to take several-minute-long photos of dunes lit only by the moon,
>but I'm not happy with the results I'm getting. (Someone's got to know
>this - Roger Clark??)
Just remember to use the noise reduction (Dark Frame Subtraction)
of the Nikon. This will remove "hot" pixels and amplifier noise
that generates "dark current" when longer exposures are used.
Also, you can chill your camera down to about 35 deg. F. which
dramatically reduces dark current. However, exposing the camera to
a much hotter photographic environment would probably fog the lenses.
But, if you take a picture now, for say 15 seconds, and then take one
when your camera has been outside on a winter day and has chilled, you
will see almost all dark current noise disappear. This is why
astronomers use dry ice and liquid nitrogen to chill CCDs used for
long exposures.
ISO noise is a different issue. Not much you can do about it
except noise reduction "out of camera."
"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
.
- References:
- ISO noise vs. long exposure noise
- From: Cynicor
- ISO noise vs. long exposure noise
- Prev by Date: Re: which one to get?
- Next by Date: Re: Digital Advanteges in Macro
- Previous by thread: Re: ISO noise vs. long exposure noise
- Next by thread: Re: ISO noise vs. long exposure noise
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
