3 Simple Ways to
Share What You Make

With Instructables you can share what you make with the world — and tap into an ever-growing community of creative experts.

PhotosPhotos

Share one or more photos of a project, recipe, or whatever you've made, quickly and easily.

Step by StepStep-By-Step

Share your step-by-step photos with text instructions of what you made so others can do it too!

VideoVideo

Share your how-to video. You'll need your embed code from a video site such as YouTube.

Sharp low-noise photography using multiple photos

Sharp low-noise photography using multiple photos
«
  • Blurry.jpg
  • Noisy.jpg
  • Tricky.jpg
This is a guide to using multiple shots and photoshop to avoid having to choose between motionblur (handshaking), or loads of noise when shooting badly lit subjects (high ISO sensitivity).
It's (propably) just a way to achieve "digital image stabilisation" using older cameras.
Any camera can be used, but high speed shooting will be preferable.

The image will also have to be cropped afterwards, so there's a slight loss of resolution (and you have to "reframe in photoshop afterwards).

We will be doing all the magic with a nice little feature in Photoshop CS3, under the "Load Images into Stack" script.
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up
 

Step 1About low quality pictures

About low quality pictures
«
  • Blur.jpg
  • Noise.jpg
  • NoiseBlur.jpg
This section is for photography rookies. If you know about shutter speed and the "shaky hands motionblur"-syndrome, then just skip this step.

So, you propably used a camera more than once, and maybe you have noticed, that when outside in the sun, the pictures are most often crisp and sharp, without any ugly noise.

When shooting in low light however, like indoors, you have propably noticed that the picture tends to get blurry and maybe with visible noise. Alot of people tend to believe it is because their camera "sucks", but often, it is because they just do not know the reason why these artifacts occur.

First I will try to explain the blur.

When you take a picture, you expose the sensor in the camera, so that light reflected from the subject, can hit the sensor and be registered as an electrical impulse.
This happens over a period of time. A longer period of exposure lets more light hit the sensor, which gives brighter images.
Unfortunately, during this exposure time, the subject might move compared to the camera.
Logically this will place the object in a new spot on the picture taken.
The object will therefore appear on the final picture both where it was at the start of the exposure, but also where it was at the end.
It will also leave a trace of itself between the two points, and looks transparent because of whatever being behind the subject at the beginning of the exposure, is visible to the camera at the end of the exposure.

For more info on motion blur, see here

The "shaky hands syndrome" is a result of motionblur, but not where the subject moves.
You might think you can hold the camera completely still, but you still move your hands (and the rest of your body) a tiny bit. Might not seam as much, but it will be alot for the camera,
especially if you have zoomed in.
This small movement will create motionblur. Not because the subjects move, but because the camera moves. When you hold your camera "still" your muscles jitter, and your balance shifts slightly, moving the camera slightly in several directions.
This makes it occur as general blurring, like it was out of focus.

The longer exposure times you use, the worse it will get.

Outside in the sun the exposure time (shutter speed) might be 1/125-1/1000 of a second, making the motion blur way too insignificant to be visible.

Inside however, you might only get 1/30, or maybe 1/2 second exposure time. This leaves plenty of room for motion blurring.

Modern cameras on automatic will try to avoid the long shutter speed.
To compensate for the smaller amount of light gathered, it either opens the aperture more, which will let more light through the lens, or, when the aperture can not get any bigger, make the sensor more sensitive.

The image sensor builds up a small charge at each cell depending on the amount of light hitting them. More light, bigger charge, brighter pixel.
(each 4 cells represent a pixel, with each cell registering blue, red, or green light, with the last one being used differently depending on sensor design).

Only problem is that these sensors are not perfect.
Alot of things can increase or decrease the charge at each cell. Temperature, difference in sensitivity between pixels etc. can make a each cell give off a too high or too low charge. This appears as too bright or too dark pixels of different colors on the final image.
The more sensitive the sensor is, the more noise there will be on the final image.

More info on the subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise

Fortunately for us, the noise pattern changes each time you take a new picture.

Phew! that was alot of work. hope you understood it :) Else, add comment, and I'll try to rephrase something, or add a picture for explanation.

« Previous StepDownload PDFView All StepsNext Step »
74 comments
1-40 of 74next »
Aug 20, 2010. 5:19 PMnieton says:
I always thought of a technique like this but never tried it. Kudos for the guide man! =)
Apr 18, 2008. 7:28 PMTrebawa says:
I have read somewhere that the best way to blend multiple images for superresolution is to use the normal blend mode. Each image should be set at the opacity given by 100/n where n is the number of the layer with the bottommost layer being 1.
Mar 2, 2008. 1:16 PMjcomtois says:
I don't have photoshop but would like to try this superresolution technique. Does anyone know how to add layers using Paint Shop Pro? It does not seem to have that choice for combining layers.
Mar 9, 2008. 1:48 PMalfonso says:
If you only need to do this a few times, you can download photoshop from adobe and use it for free for 30 days.
Mar 10, 2008. 4:21 PMjcomtois says:
I use the tool on and off, so I'd need a long term solution. I looked at the layer interactions in PSP and they don't have "add". They have invert and subtract, but that doesn't work out either. Except now I see how they get those "glowing edges" filters...
Mar 11, 2008. 5:10 PMjcomtois says:
It has both, so I'll try. They seem similar but more complex than just an "add": Dodge - lightens the image by having the lightness values of the colors in the selected layer lighten the colors of the underlying layers. Sort of a scaled add with darker colors adding less. Screen - Lightens the colors of the underlying layers by multiplying the inverse of the selected and underlying layers.
Mar 13, 2008. 2:23 PMjcomtois says:
I was trying to use it on successive frames of a video showing a stable object to get one good still shot. So I'm not taking individual pictures with a camera, just working with low-resolution video frames. Not really the same situation unfortunately.
Mar 3, 2008. 5:51 PMjcomtois says:
OK, thanks.
Feb 29, 2008. 6:15 AMSpokehedz says:
This also works just fine in The GIMP for Linux. Almost the same procedure, but tweaked slightly. Have used this to sharpen up many, many cameraphone pictures I have taken. The technique really works.
Feb 29, 2008. 4:40 PMSpokehedz says:
Yes. It's harder to do with a cameraphone, as they usually have a long time between shots (making photos of things much harder) but it can greatly improve these shots. I have taken blurry cameraphone movies, separated them out into individual bitmaps and then combined them back into a movie to make the movie better. I don't recommend that, but it was an emergency-type situation where legal issues were on the line. :D
Feb 28, 2008. 4:25 PMGMa says:
I use a rather different technique to reduce noise in Earth pictures. I take them with a tripod to get exactly the same exposure conditions (in raw for getting the same white balance) and then I process them in an astrophotographical software called ImagePlus. It works perfectly fine and with a sufficient number of pictures, you can improve real resolution by getting over the Bayer pattern. Otherwise said, a 10mp camera would create a real 10mp image rather than a 5mp green + 2,5mp blue and 2,5mp red. Add that to the fact that noise is randomly distributed, you reduce that issue with longer or higher-ISO exposures. Ultra efficient and keeps older cameras, as long as they have a good lens on, still comparable with newer ones.
Feb 29, 2008. 11:52 AMGMa says:
Simple common ground picture of a static landscape, object or else. Non astronomical photograph. Yes it is a kind of superresolution based on statistical approach and matrixes. Quite efficient. I am aware about several software doing this kind of job. The one I use is made by Mike Unsold (check on Google this name but there are many others doing roughly the same) and it was, for me, much less expensive than buying a higher MP count camera. If I remember correctly it was in-between 100 and 200 CAN$. Really good for noise reduction, HDR and else but not particularily easy to use. Also, I am not sponsored here to promote this product. Nonetheless that fact, I works well for me.
Feb 29, 2008. 7:12 AMMaffu says:
There are many better ways to get a good image in low light. For simplicity's sake though there is an easier way than this which seems a long-winded way of doing things.
Maybe I'm missing something here but why not just take one photo and fix it as above?
- Take one sharp but dark image, duplicate the background layer by pressing Ctrl+J.
- Set the blending mode of the new layer to Screen
- Press Ctrl+J as many times as needed to bring the lighting level up.

No need for CS3's align script, no need to take a bazillion pictures.
Feb 29, 2008. 8:36 AMskrubol says:
All that would be doing is brightening the picture. It would have a similar (though not as good) effect as just using a higher iso setting. It amplifies the noise as well as the image. Using multiple images duplicates the images, but not random noise.
Feb 28, 2008. 3:51 PMyomero says:
great instructable, kudos
Feb 29, 2008. 12:46 AMpousao says:
If one want´s to take macro pictures in the wild, there is no tripod that can help you. And if you have one small camera the tripod will sheik anyway. It even sheiks when you press the button.If you press your arms against you, your feet work alot to keep you in balance. I find these an exelent idea to try
Feb 28, 2008. 7:09 PMderfman says:
and the little chivas are from colombia?
Feb 28, 2008. 11:08 PMChris Bilton says:
very good, I wondered about that.
Feb 28, 2008. 4:54 PMaydiosmio says:
If you're getting blurry photos with a tripod it's likely the shaking produced by pressing the shutter or the shutter opening is the problem. Using the Timer and/or the Mirror Lockup (if you have an SLR) features of your camera can fix this. Also, if you must use a high ISO or long exposure with a tripod, the Long Exposure Noise compensation feature does a noise profile of the sensor after each shot and digitally removes the noise. This can be done manually with applications like Noise Ninja.
Feb 28, 2008. 3:09 PManca says:
This is great. I can think of some situations where even with a tripod I was getting a noisy image, so using this system I could totally improve those photos. Thanks!
Feb 27, 2008. 12:20 PMkontrastas says:
One simple tip: to reduce shakiness of the hands just press your elbows against your sides (press as much of your arms as you can to your sides/ribs). It's quite difficult to explain hence i don't have a picture - basically bend your hands and hold them in a tight manner with your body.
Feb 28, 2008. 4:40 AMkontrastas says:
Yep, something like that :)
Feb 27, 2008. 3:10 PMrobertBeech says:
How about just using a tripod, instead?
Feb 27, 2008. 12:51 PMannoying thing says:
(removed by author or community request)
1-40 of 74next »

Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

All Steps Viewing
View all steps of an Instructable on the same page when you're a Pro Member.

Upgrade to Pro today!
6
Followers
4
Author:ELF