• 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 / Cleaning the data set based on SNR

Cleaning the data set based on SNR

December 15, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

In this post I talked about how some low-mean-value points in the data set can be truncated on the left of the histogram by in-camera firmware, and discussed a criterion based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for leaving points out of the data set so that they don’t confuse the modeling of the camera-under-test’s read noise. Today I’d like to go into more detail about how I arrived at SNR = 2 as the criterion.

First off, what does SNR = 2 mean in terms of the histogram? It’s hard to say if it’s clipped (actually, if properly motivated, I could run a simulation) but if it’s not and the probability density function is Gaussian, having an SNR of 2 means that about 2 1/2 % of the distribution would be lopped off if the black point of the raw image were zero.

One of the things that is in the camera analysis software package is a camera simulator. It is a good idea to write a camera simulator whenever you write software to analyze camera output files, because it is a great way to test the program. As a side benefit, you can vary simulated camera parameters to test the consequences of analysis decisions, which is what I’ll report on here.

I set the program to simulate a camera with a full-well capacity of 100,000 electrons, a pre-amp read noise of 2 electrons, and a post-amp read noise of zero. I set it to have a raw file black point from 1 to 512 in powers of two. Then I ran the analysis program on the output, setting the data cleaning portion of the program to throw out data with SNR below a given value, varied that value systematically, and plotted the resulting modeled read noise.

For ISO 100:

RNvsSNR-ISO100

The SNR used for the data cleaning is the horizontal axis, and the modeled RN in electrons is the vertical one. Since we know the right answer for the RN is 2 electrons, we want the threshold SNR that gives the modeled RN as close as possible to that number, which is in this case, an SNR of 2.

At ISO 800, which gives us more noise at the analog to digital convertor (ADC):

RNvsSNR-ISO800

Now any threshold SNR below about 3 is OK.

At ISO 3200:

RNvsSNR-ISO3200

SNR’s of 2 and 3 seem to do well.

At ISO 6400:

RNvsSNR-ISO6400

Again, SNR’s of 2 or 3 look good.

Based on that, and other similar tests, I picked an minimum SNR of 2 for inclusion in the modeled data set.

The Last Word

← A test for “ISO-less-ness” Sony a7ii PRNU →

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

  • 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
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK 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.