6

The moon is really a special case, because it is mostly grey. So you can remove chroma noise by just picking a channel (green, usually). This also removes some of the chromatic aberrations on the edges (when they are sharp, which isn't he case here). You can also average the three color channels: copy the image to obtain three layers, and using the channel ...


5

You're the victim of typical indoor light and small sensor. It's darker indoors than what you think. The DC-FZ82 has a crop factor of 5.6. To put this into context, even entry-level DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have a crop factor of 1.5 - 1.6, and professionals use cameras with crop factor 1 (or even smaller than 1!). The amount of light collected is ...


4

Diffraction and noise You basically used a 3000mm f/30 lens, so heavy diffraction is expected. You simply cannot obtain sharp results with this lens and teleconverter, even if you manage to focus the lens properly. On top of that, the lens itself might be soft. With the teleconverter, you won't get any sharp result, without, you might. Finally, you have ...


4

Think of ISO like an amplifier - it increases the gain on the incoming signal. If you have an audio amplifier & an old AM radio tuned to a distant signal, you have to turn up the amp in order to hear the station properly. Unfortunately that brings up a whole lot of other noise at the same time - so you can still barely hear the music over the crackling &...


2

ISO for Analog vs Digital ISO is confusing in digital photography in part because it was actually meant for film photography. In film photography, ISO 400 really is more sensitive than ISO 100 film. This isn't actually true of digital photography. The sensitivity of your camera sensor is whatever it is and does not change. The sensor works a bit like ...


2

I'm a beginner who just bought a Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82 and expected better results than on my iPhone. Your iPhone applies extensive noise reduction and other processing tricks before it shows you an image on its smallish screen. If you're shooting raw and opening the image file with your default settings set to do only minimal NR and no other processing ...


2

I think your image would have turned out much better without the 3x teleconverter. With a 18MP or 24MP camera, cropping the image would probably be sharper and you could have used a more reasonable ISO. I use a free program by Imagenomic called Noiseware and here is a sample of how it works on a jpeg.


2

Here is my process in RawTherapee: We start in the Raw tab. The first thing I notice is that you have horizontal banding. RawTherapee can deal with this using the "Line noise filter". Set the direction to "horizontal" and the value to something that seems to work (around 400). Note: this is not perfect, there is some residual banding. I think you'd need to ...


2

In general you can always remove noise, but you might not have much detail left in your image if the signal to noise ratio was poor to start with. State of the art these days are filters based on a non-local means algorithm. This tends to do better than most previous algorithms in terms of not making textures look like smooth plastic, if there is some ...


1

Focal length is not everything. You made a mistake by using 3000mm focal length. The truth is, 400mm is plenty. I took this picture of the moon with a 400mm lens: If you use a longer focal length, you have poorer light collecting ability unless the lens is very huge. Every teleconverter reduces the resolution of the lens system. Also, you start to see the ...


1

As noted in other answers there, is neither going to be a single fix nor a complete set of fixes. It may be worth seeing what the DXO Photolab prime de-noising algorithm can do; it can be be extremely effective. My concern is the possibility of excess smoothing however it may be worth installing a trial to see if you can create a base onto which you can ...


1

A lot of noise can be removed. I used unprocessing to denoise it, which is probably an overkill approach for this. If additional sharpening was applied, maybe this image could be passable. It is however evident that your picture is not entirely sharp to begin with, and as others have stated, going back and reshooting with a stable tripod and a lower iso ...


1

The ISO noise isn't the problem, it's shaking. There's definitely ISO noise but the shaking means that you can't clean it up. You can photoshop an image out of this pic but it won't be the real thing. Here's the picture with saturation blown out. The banding is all bent and distorted from movement and the noise itself is turned into vertical lines. ISO ...


1

Increasing the ISO on a modern digital camera has two effects: It increases the amplification of the sensor signal, making dim parts of the picture brighter. It changes the camera metering so that a lower exposure will result. Either a faster shutter speed or a smaller aperture will be selected. Both of these combine to increase the noise. Most of the ...


1

Tetsuijn gives already a very good explanation. I try to give a similar explanation but slightly more theoretical. Assume the sensor retrieves the light an all values are between 0 (dark) to 100 (maximum light detectable by the sensor). The sensor which has a width X (with columns 0 to x) and height Y (with rows 0 to y) has pixels X * Y (e.g. a sensor of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible