• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Input-Referred Noise in Image Sensors

Input-Referred Noise in Image Sensors

May 12, 2025 JimK Leave a Comment

When evaluating sensor performance, it’s useful to express all noise sources in terms of their equivalent number of input electrons: the physical signal that initiated the chain of image formation. This concept, known as input-referred noise, allows us to compare different sensors, modes, and ISOs on a consistent basis.

Image sensors measure light by converting incident photons into electrons in the pinned photodiode (PPD). These electrons are then:

  • Transferred to a floating diffusion,
  • Amplified (via source follower and PGA),
  • Converted to digital representations (DN, or just counts) via ADC.

Noise can be introduced at any point downstream from the PPD. But to understand the true sensitivity and low-light performance of a sensor, we want to know: How many electrons’ worth of uncertainty does that noise represent?

The input-referred noise is the amount of signal (in electrons) at the PPD input that would account for the observed noise at the output.

Input-referred noise = Output noise (DN) ÷ Conversion gain (e⁻/DN)

This tells you how many electrons the downstream noise sources are “worth.”

The key to converting from digital numbers back to electrons is the conversion gain, often expressed in:

e⁻/DN (electrons per digital number), or its inverse: DN/e⁻

Conversion gain varies with analog gain, which is usually controlled by the ISO setting. At higher ISO, analog gain is increased before the ADC, so:

  • The signal is amplified,
  • Downstream (read) noise is amplified,
  • But the number of electrons per DN decreases.

This means:

  • At low ISO, 1 DN might represent 2–3 electrons.
  • At high ISO, 1 DN might represent <1 electron.

So, when ISO changes, you must re-estimate conversion gain to properly refer the noise to the input.

How to Measure Input-Referred Noise

Step 1: Measure Output Noise (in DN)

Capture a dark frame or very low-exposure image and compute the standard deviation of pixel values in a flat region.

Step 2: Determine Conversion Gain

Use a photon transfer curve (PTC), or a flat-field pair method, to determine e⁻/DN at the ISO of interest.

Example: In the shot-noise-limited region of the PTC, the slope of variance vs. mean equals the inverse of the conversion gain:

CG = 1 / slope

Alternatively, some camera manufacturers publish CG values per ISO.

Step 3: Compute Input-Referred Noise

Divide the output noise by the conversion gain:

σ_input (e⁻) = σ_output (DN) × CG (e⁻/DN)

Let’s say at ISO 800, your measured read noise is 2.5 DN, and you’ve determined the conversion gain is 0.30 e⁻/DN:

σ_input = 2.5 DN × 0.30 e⁻/DN = 0.75 e⁻

That’s a clean readout: less than one electron’s worth of noise.

Now repeat the measurement at ISO 100, where CG might be 2.4 e⁻/DN. If the output noise is 1.2 DN:

σ_input = 1.2 DN × 2.4 e⁻/DN = 2.88 e⁻

So, although the digital read noise is lower at ISO 100, the input-referred noise is higher because the signal wasn’t amplified as much before digitization.

Why It’s Useful

  • Sensor comparisons: Input-referred noise is intrinsic to the sensor — not affected by ADC bit depth or gain settings.
  • ISO tuning: Helps determine which ISO setting gives the lowest effective read noise.
  • System modeling: Allows unified noise budgets, since photon noise, read noise, and PRNU can all be expressed in electrons.

Input-referred noise connects the physical world of photons and electrons to the digital world of image files. It lets you answer the most meaningful question in sensor evaluation: How much uncertainty is there, in terms of the number of electrons, at the very beginning of the signal chain?

By combining dark frame measurements with conversion gain analysis, you can cut through ISO-related confusion and get to the true performance of your imaging system.

 

The Last Word

← Pixel Response Non-Uniformity: Fixed Pattern Noise in the Light Choosing a Target for Photon Transfer Curve (PTC) Analysis →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.