>OK. The moon was red tonight, about half moon. So I thought, >now this could be interesting and parked at the beach, took >out a big blanket and the new 10D with the 75-300mm lens >and went over to a concrete post in the sea wall. dont you folks have anything better top do >The first thing I noticed was that the 100 ISO file at a >quarter second was jpegged at less than 1M, whereas all the >other files were jpegged around 2M. Using jpeg just proves it >Anybody got an idea of why? OK since you ask at ISO 100 you had longer exposures per result so less noise. Noise is "seen" by jpeggery as detail - more detail equals bigger file sizes. >The next thing I noticed was that there was interesting and >visible noise at 1600 ISO, of course, but the shape of it was >quite curious. At 200% magnification in PS, there appeared a >flocked texture in the black. Not necessarily uniform either. ISO 1600 is for jerks. Show us what you are talking about. If you don't know how, do a screen capture, open in PS and crop a small part of the flock for us all to see. Chances are its because your using jpegs. As it said, you listening, using jpegs just proves it! What would be really good would be to see the noise pattern in the raw file. You know, raw, like all pros use >Could the noise account for the different in file size? YES >Now back to the manual. RTFM Read The Foul Manual Janet -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
