Talk:Image noise

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hi, this is an interesting article but I feel that it has a rather limited scope in terms of image noise.  Is noise really limited to only "pixel noise", i.e., independent effects on each individual pixel (or equivalent for analog film).  What about 
* Geometric distortion caused by lens effects
* Motion blur caused by object or camera motions during the exposure
* Blurring caused by a lack of precise focus at all depth in the scene
* Saturation and bleeding effects in digital cameras
* Spatial aliasing in digital cameras
* Jpeg coding artifacts in most digital cameras
* Shading effects from the cos^4 law
* Dirt on the lens or scratches on the film, dead pixels
I understand that some of these may not fit the "noise is a random phenomena" paradigm, but they are still usually considered as noise based on the "noise is an unwanted distortion of the signal" paradigm.  There are clearly cases when the above effects can be used as artistic effects in the production of an image, but normally they are unwanted and modern cameras are packed with electronics to compensated or reduce their effects, and a more expensive camera typically produce less of these effects than a cheaper one (leading to the "noise is what to get if you don't pay enough" paradigm :-).  My point is: should this article only discuss "pixel noise" or can it be given a broader scope?  --KYN (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that affects of distortion and blur and shading are not usually considered to be noise; on the other hand, trying to correct blur or shading amplifies any noise that is present, so it could be relevant.  Aliasing is also not noise, but could be mentioned as another type of unwanted fluctuation.  JPEG artifacts are a type of quantization noise, so could fit pretty well.  Dirt and scratches are a type of noise, and often treated as such.  As usual, the key is to find reliable sources that connect these things to the topic of noise. Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right, esp regarding increased noise resulting from post-processing, re-compression, etc. The section on noise specific to digital cameras would be the right place for it. Definitely find a couple of good sources first though. --mikaultalk 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, that depends on sources.  I think they may not all fit in this article, and there are already articles on image distortion and motion blur.  You'd need to find a topic that includes them all, as supported by sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could look at expanding Image quality. I'd concentrate on fixing the current red links there before adding new ones; I'd also be looking to radically improve the unencyclopedic, conversational tone there. "How-to" type articles are not an asset, in fact they're a big problem, especially when they're very poorly sourced like that one. Good luck. --mikaultalk 05:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good place for it.  I fixed the redlinks, but it still needs a lot of work. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: If you want to impose some logical order, I'd say make image quality be a WP:Summary style article, dispatching to the more specific topics like image noise and image distortion.  That's pretty close to the way it is already, but it probably didn't develop with a lot of logic in mind. I'm unclear on what you refer to as "distortion in terms of noise".  Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It sounds to me like you're making a synthesis, or interpretation of the definition, or of the word "shape", that goes beyond what is supportable in sources as applied to images (distortion of a waveform shape in sound is not at all the kind of shape distortion that we talk about as optical distortion).  I don't know that we need a source to clarify the difference, or the relationship, but if you find such a source either way, we could use it.  What you're more likely to find is something like a "distortion measure" that will measure noise, but won't have anything to do with optical (geometric) distortion; different use of the same term.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited scope 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Image noise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405214934/http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/ to http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion