• 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 / More on read noise and quantizing

More on read noise and quantizing

September 28, 2015 JimK 3 Comments

A reader commented on the previous post:

The real tough part of posterization is when a gradient is colored and you get hue shifts as the color channels step across bins individually.

Can you redo this test with a color gradient, like maybe 0.6 0.8 1.0 relative values to the channels?

Pleased to do so. Here are the results of tests with various combinations of color plane weightings of 1.0, 0.8 and 0.6, with the read noise starting on the left at zero and finishing on the right at 1.5 LSBs, a 3 bit ADC, and the average levels running from an ADC count of 3 on the top to 5 on the bottom:

R=1, G=1. B=0.8
R=1, G=1. B=0.8
R=0.8, G=1. B=0.6
R=0.8, G=1. B=0.6
R=0.6, G=1. B=0.8
R=0.6, G=1. B=0.8

 

R=1, G=0.6. B=0.8
R=1, G=0.6. B=0.8
R=0.8, G=0.6. B=1
R=0.8, G=0.6. B=1
R=0.8, G=1. B=1
R=0.8, G=1. B=1

You can see the hue shifts that the reader predicted on the left hand side of the images. You can also see that they are gone by a third of the way across the image, which is a read noise of half an LSB.

Thus the ramps with different color plane weightings give the same result as those where all the color planes have equal weight.

Here’s the Matlab code that made the above images:

cikir grad cide

If anyone wants that code in a text file, I’ll be happy to oblige.

The Last Word

← Read noise and quantizing, again Sony a7RII zebras →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    September 29, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Huh, you went as far as including demosaicing in the process?

    I did it simpler (my code was about 1/4 as long as yours) and came up with the same result.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      October 1, 2015 at 8:26 am

      I included demosaicing because I remember Iliah Borg saying at some time that posterization was affected by demosaicing. It seemed like a small effort to forestall a set of possible objections later on.

      Jim

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Dither, precision, and image detail | The Last Word says:
    April 14, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    […] More on read noise and quantizing […]

    Reply

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Your email address will not be published.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

  • 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
  • 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.