How important is photon shot noise in real-world photography?
Asked 4/10/2013
7 views
2 answers
0
I’ve read that even a perfect, noiseless camera sensor would still show photon shot noise because photons arrive randomly. In normal photography, is this actually a significant source of image noise, or is it usually negligible compared with read noise, thermal noise, and other electronic noise? Are there practical ways to think about how much of visible image noise comes from shot noise versus other sources?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
10
In most parts of most photographs, photon shot noise is the largest contributor to noise.
Mostly, we're comparing it to read noise. (Dark current is negligible in short exposures, and quantization noise is also pretty small when you're talking about 12- and 14-bit ADCs.) Read noise depends on the sensor. This 2007 paper presents read noise measurements for a few DSLRs. We see, for example, that a Canon 40D at ISO 200 has about 10 electrons (e-) of read noise.
Photon shot noise is a Poisson process, so the noise is the square root of the count of signal photoelectrons. So if we record 100 signal photoelectrons in a pixel from our subject, we expect the shot noise per pixel to be sqrt(100)=10 e-, equal to the 40D's read noise.
Is 100 photoelectrons a lot? No, the same paper estimates the full-well capacity of a 40D pixel to be 56,000 e-, so a pixel with only 100 e- is a very dark part of the scene, about 9 stops darker than full-well. In a pixel with more than 100 e-, the shot noise continues to increase, up to sqrt(56000)=236 at full-well, so the shot noise dominates the read noise by a larger and larger margin. (The bright tones appear less noisy than the dark tones, because the signal-to-noise ratio continues to increase, as the noise is only the square root of the signal. But what noise there is, is due increasingly to shot noise, not read noise.)
In the very dark shadows, the read noise may be significant. And in a long, dark exposure (such as astrophotography under dark skies), dark current and read noise may both be important. But for general photography of well-exposed subjects with short exposure times, shot noise is the dominant source of noise.
Originally by user2138. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2138
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes — in most real photographs, photon shot noise is a major noise source, and often the dominant one. It is not negligible.
Shot noise comes from the random arrival of photons and follows Poisson statistics, so its magnitude is about the square root of the number of collected photoelectrons. That means if a pixel records 100 photoelectrons, the shot noise is about 10 electrons. For many cameras, read noise is in that same range or lower, so once you have moderate signal levels, shot noise can equal or exceed electronic noise.
In short exposures, dark current/thermal noise is usually small, and quantization noise is also typically minor with 12- or 14-bit ADCs. Electronic noise matters most in deep shadows and when you heavily lift exposure in post. In brighter tones and normally exposed areas, shot noise is often the limiting factor.
A useful takeaway: collecting more light improves image quality because signal rises faster than shot noise in relative terms. Higher ISO does not reduce shot noise at the sensor; it mainly changes amplification and can make other noise sources more or less visible.
This is especially well known in astrophotography, where separating shot noise, read noise, and sky background noise is routine.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is image SNR determined per pixel or by total photons collected?
Is there a theoretical upper limit to ISO on a digital image sensor?
What causes chroma noise, and why does it increase so much at high ISO?
What are the real drawbacks of Sony SLT cameras for landscape and urban exploration photography?
Why do higher ISO settings often look worse even if my measurements suggest better SNR?