A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Using Image Calibration to Reduce Noise in Digital Images

by Jeff Medkeff


This article is about a method of reducing noise in images taken with digital cameras - especially long exposure and/or high ISO images taken with digital SLRs. The simplified workflow presented here is derived from more advanced techniques of noise reduction (known as calibration) that are used in scientific and technical imaging. Because of limitations in the software tools commonly available to mainstream photographers, and because of limitations to the image-making equipment, there are several significant differences between the technique described here and a proper calibration of a scientific image. Still, the method here can result in significant aesthetic improvement to many digital images that suffer from noise.

I believe that understanding the sources of noise in digital sensors, and understanding how the noise changes under different conditions, and how the design of the camera might affect both of these things, will significantly increase the success rate when reducing noise in digital images using this calibration method. For that reason I've included a section on the theory and engineering considerations that impact these techniques. But if you don't agree that knowing the theory is useful, you can just skip to the workflow. However, there is a lot that can go wrong during image calibration. Many photographers consider it to be an advanced technique that takes a lot of knowledge and skill to perform successfully. Calibration can fail in a very ugly way when something is done wrong - but it works when you know all the variables that can affect it, and attend to them.

A note concerning the images: The noise-only images in this article were taken with a Canon 10D. All of them have had levels adjusted so as to make the noise especially conspicuous. Please do not consider the visual appearance of these images to be representative of the actual noise you will encounter in a typical exposure with this (or any other) camera! The process of adjusting levels greatly exaggerates the appearance of noise; this is by design. Note, though, that all related images have had their levels adjusted in an identical manner; this is so those images can be compared to one another without any differences in processing affecting the visibility of noise. Other than conversion from RAW with a daylight color temperature setting, adjustment of levels, and bicubic resampling to make the size manageable, no processing has been done on any image.


The fundamental part in a digital camera sensor is the photosite. This is the part of the sensor that actually detects light when you are taking an image. The photosite achieves the detection of light by converting as many photons that strike it as possible into electrons1. These electrons are then stored until the exposure is completed. Once the exposure is over, the charge at each photosite is measured, and the measurement is converted into a digital value. This measurement process is called readout.

There are two common types of sensor in digital cameras - CCDs, and CMOS sensors. They differ in several significant respects.

In a CCD, the electrons in each photosite are transferred, in 'bucket-brigade' style, to one corner of the chip, where the readout is performed. CCDs use a single amplifier (or set of amplifiers) to read out the entire chip, so each photosite sends its charge to the same amplifiers that all the other pixels use.

In CCDs, this readout circuitry sits on top of the photosites and partially obscures them, so that some of the light falling on a sensor doesn't make it to the photosite to be detected. Two methods have been devised to address this. One is shaving the CCD chip until it is very thin, and then mounting it upside down so that light enters the CCD from the bottom (so that the readout circuitry is then on the back of the chip, underneath the photosites). CCDs in this configuration are called "back-illuminated" and are found only on very expensive cameras. Another technique is to place a microlens above the photosite and its adjacent readout circuitry, which redirects some of the light that would otherwise strike the circuitry into the photosite instead.

In CMOS sensors, each photosite's amplifier and related circuitry are adjacent to the photosite, directly on the sensor. Therefore, CMOS also has the problem of a significant amount of sensor area being taken up by devices that are not sensitive to light just as CCDs do, but with CMOS sensors, the problem is usually quite a bit worse. With CMOS sensors, the microlens method is very commonly used to help overcome this.

Sources of noise in digital SLRs:

There are four main sources of noise in digital camera images:

  • Dark noise: Dark noise is an accumulation of heat-generated electrons in the sensor, which end up in the photosites and contribute a snow-like appearance to the image. The related term "dark current" refers to the rate of generation of these electrons, most of which come from boundaries between silicon and silicon dioxide in the sensor.
  • Readout noise aka Bias Noise: Constructing an image from the sensor's photosites requires that the charge in each photosite be measured, and converted to a digital value. Making this measurement is part of the process of "reading out" the sensor. But doing so is an imperfect process. The amount of charge in the photosite is too small to be measured without prior amplification, and this is the main source of trouble: no perfect amplifier has been invented, and the amplifiers used on digital imaging sensors add a little bit of noise, similar to static in a radio signal, to the charge they are amplifying. The readout amplifier in a sensor is the main contributor to readout noise.
  • Photon noise, aka Poisson noise: Photon noise is caused by the differences in arrival time of light to the sensor. If photons arrived at a constant rate, as though they were being delivered to the photosite by a conveyor belt at an efficient factory, then there would be no photon noise. But that isn't how it works. Photons arrive at the photosite irregularly. One pixel might be lucky enough to be hit with 100 photons in a given amount of time, while its neighbor only receives 80. If the photo is of an evenly illuminated surface, this photon noise will show up as one pixel having an improperly low value compared to an adjacent one.
  • Random noise: The remaining noise is traceable to erroneous fluctuations in voltage or current in the camera's circuitry, to electromagnetic interference, and who-knows-what. Random noise will vary from image to image and is a result of many influences. One of the most significant might be random variation in the way electronic components operate at different times, temperatures, and conditions. Whatever the case, random noise is almost always infinitesimal - in most modern digital cameras, random noise will not be detectable in an 8-bit image; it may be barely measurable in a 16-bit image but will very rarely be visible in a conventional photo.

In addition to these sources of noise, variations in photosite sensitivity across the sensor, as well as shadows cast on the sensor by dust and dirt, can appear to contribute "noise" to the image in the form of snow or regions of greater or lesser apparent sensitivity. Those interested in reducing this form of pseudo-noise may wish to research the topic of flat fields, but I won't cover it here because these problems are mostly solved in digital SLRs (as long as the sensor is clean).

Finally, if a cosmic ray strikes a sensor during an exposure, it can result in a very hot pixel or a spurious streak in the image. This too might look like noise, but it isn't - it is a legitimate detection of a high-energy particle by a sensor efficient at detecting high-energy particles.

Characteristics of Photon, Dark, and Bias Noise:

Photon noise is pseudo-random. The arrival times of photons at a photosite describe a Poisson distribution, and there is essentially nothing post-exposure that can be done about photon noise. However, the impact of photon noise in the resulting image will be greater with (a) fast shutter speeds, (b) dimly lit subjects, and/or (c) high amplification of the signal. So to reduce the visibility of photon noise, longer exposure times, brighter illumination, and low ISO settings may help.

Dark noise accumulates over time, and does so in a very convenient manner: an exposure time twice as long can be expected to have roughly twice the amount of dark noise. In part for this reason, long-exposure photographs are troublesome with some digital cameras; but the increase of dark noise over time suggests a strategy for dealing with the problem.

Dark noise, 32 minute exposure taken at 22° C. Taken with a Canon 10D, levels adjusted to increase noise visibility and image resampled to a manageable size.

Dark noise, 62 minute exposure otherwise identical to the above. As theory predicts, the dark noise in this image is almost exactly double that in the previous image in terms of individual pixel values.

Dark noise is caused by heat-generated electrons making their way into the photosites, so the temperature of the camera's sensor also affects the amount of dark noise in the images. As the temperature of the sensor goes up, dark noise increases. Different sensors behave differently, but in general, increasing the temperature of a sensor by six to ten degrees C will result in the dark noise in the resulting image doubling. While this is a nonlinear effect, it is at least easy to describe mathematically.


Bias noise is also highly repeatable - but since it is a result of reading out the sensor, it does not even depend on shooting conditions being the same. Practically the only variable affecting readout noise in a digital camera exposure is the amount of amplifier gain. As long as the amplifier gain remains the same, readout noise will be nearly identical from shot to shot. In general, doubling amplifier gain can be expected to approximately double the amount of readout noise.

In digital cameras, photographers have nearly direct control over amplifier gain by adjusting the ISO setting. Increasing ISO increases amplifier gain, and reducing ISO reduces gain. As you would expect, bias noise in digital images is usually less conspicuous when lower ISO settings are used. At any given ISO setting, the bias noise is going to be very nearly the same from one image to the next.

Bias noise at 1600 ISO in a Canon 10D. Levels adjusted and image resampled to a manageable size.

Bias noise at 3200 ISO in a Canon 10D, otherwise identical to above. Bias noise in this frame is approximately double that in the previous frame.

Calibrating Images:

Since dark and bias noise is not random and is consistent from image to image, techniques have been developed to allow scientific and technical imagers to remove these sources of noise from their images. This process is called "calibrating" the image. Dealing with both dark and bias noise involves making two special images and subtracting them from the photo. The first image is a bias frame - a zero-duration exposure in which the sensor is reset and immediately read out, without any light falling on the sensor and with no time gap between the reset and readout. The image that this process creates is a snapshot of what the sensor's bias noise looks like, since the only contribution to the resulting image is the readout amplifier's static.

The other special image is the dark frame. This is most commonly an exposure of the same duration, taken at the same sensor temperature, as the photo. Since no light is allowed to fall on the sensor, the resulting image shows only an accumulation of dark noise (plus bias noise - since to get the image you have to read out the sensor). For various reasons, in most scientific imagery the bias and dark frames are generated as separate steps and subtracted from the photo separately, in a defined sequence.

However, most digital cameras do not allow a zero-duration exposure without the use of special software - such as testing software used by camera service departments, or expensive software written specifically for science and engineering applications, which might require that physical modifications be made to the camera to operate properly. For this reason, most photographers who are calibrating their digital SLR images are doing so with a single combined bias and dark frame, taken as an exposure at the same ISO, shutter duration, and ambient temperature as the photograph.

A bias frame (3200 ISO).

A bias frame shot approximately an hour later at the same ISO setting.

The result of subtracting the second bias frame from the first. Theory suggests that this process should result in a nearly black image, save for any remaining random noise. The dramatic reduction in noise is clearly visible in this calibrated image. All three images' levels have been adjusted identically.

Complicating Factors:

CMOS sensors allow the placement of both photosites and transistors on the sensor itself. (CCDs cannot have any processing circuitry built into the sensor - just transfer gates and the like, which are controlled by off-sensor control circuitry.) Because of this, CMOS sensors generally have at least the readout amplifier built in to the photosite. There may be other transistors as well, which perform other processing steps. It is now very common for a CMOS sensor to include noise-reduction circuitry directly on the sensor alongside the readout amplifier. In some designs, a sort of small dummy photosite, shaded from light, is used to quantify the likely dark noise level in the actual photosite, and this quantity is subtracted during readout. In other designs, a constant - corresponding to the tested dark current of the sensor - is subtracted from the photosite value during readout. If anything like this is happening, expectations such as "dark noise will double with twice the exposure duration" may turn out to be false.

In addition, this on-sensor circuitry can be designed to subtract the amount of bias noise that the sensor designer expects will be contributed to that particular pixel. This is a design-time decision, so bias noise may still be introduced due to manufacturing variations, erroneous expectations on the part of the designer, changes in other circuitry at a later point in development that the designer decided not to compensate for, and so forth. In any case, if bias noise is being addressed in a CMOS sensor camera - and it is being aggressively dealt with in all known current DSLRs - the relationship between ISO and readout noise in a particular camera's images might not be as simple or as repeatable as expected.

Note that both of these kinds of on-sensor processing affect the camera's RAW image. That is to say, the RAW image is not necessarily "exactly what the sensor detected," as is often said. Instead, it is exactly what the sensor detected, plus or minus whatever built-in, on-sensor processing is being done in that particular camera. The raw image lacks any post-readout processing, of course - the point is that on CMOS sensors some processing may be unavoidable and its effects will be present in the raw format image.

Of course, in-camera processing after readout alters the noise profile a great deal as well. No JPEG image can have its noise reduced by the calibration steps described here - the data is too drastically altered by compression to allow dark or bias subtraction to work right. In-camera resampling, resizing, binning2, sharpening, and noise reduction will all change the appearance of the noise in the image and the way it varies by exposure time, temperature, and ISO setting.

Despite this, digital camera photos can often be beneficially calibrated to reduce noise. Although aggressive noise reduction is probably occurring in any modern camera either during or just after readout, the residuum of noise that is not addressed is often largely non-random and consistent from shot to shot.

A ten-second exposure, taken with the lens covered, at ISO 3200 and 22° C.

An identical shot taken about two hours later.

The result of subtracting the second shot from the first. Theory predicts that this will result in a nearly noise-free image, which is clearly visible here. All three images' levels have been set identically.


In practical terms, for the average digital SLR user, a combined bias-dark frame is the only practical calibration frame to apply to their images.

In Photoshop, there are probably a dozen ways to subtract one image from another. In the workflow below, I will describe how to do it using layers. Use whatever method works for you.

In the following, a "photo" is a picture of a subject that you want to calibrate. A "calibration frame" is a special image of the camera's noise characteristics that you will subtract from the photo - in this case a combined bias and dark frame.

Taking the photo and calibration frame:

  1. Set the camera to take RAW format images.
  2. Turn off any in-camera sharpening. (Contrary to popular opinion or general rules of thumb, with some cameras the RAW image will be affected by in-camera sharpening.)
  3. Set the camera properly, paying special attention to ISO and exposure time.
  4. Take the photo.
  5. Put the dust cap on the lens.
  6. Put the eyepiece cover, if available, on the eyepiece so that no light can get in from the back end of the camera.
  7. Double check that the ISO and exposure time settings are the same as used when taking the photo in step 4. (Taking the calibration frame at a different lens aperture is not recommended, since this can introduce random noise of a different profile than that in the photo.)
  8. Wrap the camera with a dark towel or other fabric. (This may be overkill if the lens cap is good - use your judgment, but insure no light reaches the sensor while performing the following step.)
  9. Take the exposure.


  1. Open the photo in your raw conversion software.
  2. Select a white balance for the photo.
  3. Make no other alterations in the raw conversion. In particular, do not modify levels in such a way as to clip dark values, and do not allow the RAW converter to apply sharpening.
  4. Open your calibration frame in the raw conversion software and apply the same conversion settings to it as will be used for the photo.
  5. Convert the raw images to maximum bit depth TIFF files.
  6. Load both the TIFF files in Photoshop.
  7. Select the calibration frame.
  8. Press "ctrl-a" or choose "All" from the Select menu to select all of the calibration frame.
  9. Press "ctrl-c" or choose "copy" from the Edit menu to copy the calibration frame to the clipboard.
  10. Select the photo.
  11. Press "ctrl-v" or choose "paste" from the Edit menu to paste the calibration frame into your photo as a new layer.
  12. Close the calibration file.
  13. Select the new layer in your photo - the one that was created by copying the calibration frame (we will call this the calibration layer).
  14. Open the Blending Options dialogue (or make the following adjustments at the top of the Layers window).
  15. Select "difference" for Blend Mode.
  16. Select 100% for Opacity.

At this point, your photo is calibrated, and if the photo lacks significant amounts of photon noise and random noise, it should look significantly better than it did before calibration.

A 1:1 crop of a photo taken in poor lighting in a coffee shop at ISO 3200.

The same part of the photo after calibration.

You can now proceed however you like, as long as you follow a simple pair of rules:

  1. If you use adjustment layers, place them above both the photo (background) layer and the calibration layer. Putting an adjustment layer in between the two will destroy the calibration.
  2. If you make any destructive alterations to the image, flatten the image first. A "destructive alteration" is anything in Photoshop that changes the image, for which an adjustment layer is not available.

If you are not very familiar with Photoshop, or the two rules don't make a lot of sense, it is probably best to just flatten the image immediately after calibration.

Of course, after you have done the calibration you can still apply various noise-reduction algorithms to further attack photon noise and random noise, for example if Noise Ninja or similar software is available.

If there are problems:

  • If you suddenly lost a lot of dynamic range in your image, and white stuff turned gray, but at least the snowy noise disappeared, congratulations - this is expected. You are after all subtracting from the pixel values in the original image. This means that getting the proper exposure in the first place is even more critical if you want to maximize dynamic range. If you have a severely underexposed image in which the brightest value is only halfway to the right in the histogram, you can expect those highlights to move even farther to the left after calibration. Calibration is not a good way to rescue impossible images; it can only help reduce the appearance of noise in a well-exposed image that lacks significant photon and random noise.
  • If your hot (bright) grainy pixels have turned to dark grainy pixels, reduce the opacity of the calibration layer. You might find that somewhat lesser opacity results in a good calibration. If no opacity level does any good for your image, it may be time to blame photon and random noise (possibly exacerbated by the photo being badly underexposed?), and give up by moving on to Noise Ninja or the like.
  • If you find that a few unusually hot pixels in the calibration frame are punching dark holes in your photo after calibration, you might calibrate using a tool like Blackframe NR freeware, which detects and corrects this condition.
  • If you see a moire pattern in your image after calibration - especially in dark portions of the photo - you can take the usual steps to filter this out. You might protest that the moire wasn't there in your original photo. You are right; it was obscured by noise. By calibrating out the noise, you are now showing just how few bits you were using to represent that portion of the photo. You will just have to deal with this, as it is one of the costs of having a nearly noise-free image.
  • If your image erupts with a case of what look like JPEG artifacts, clusters of bright pixels, rivers of dark areas, bad halos, and the like, then something has gone badly wrong. Possibly your calibration frame was taken with significantly different camera settings or at a significantly different temperature. Possibly you have turned on some mysterious (to the author) adaptive or heuristic noise-reduction feature of the camera or RAW converter, which is making the noise profile vary wildly. Maybe you mistakenly selected the wrong blending mode for the calibration layer. Possibly you have tried to calibrate a JPEG. Frequently when this happens the camera is found to be sharpening the image. Go back through the process and try to figure out what went wrong. If you can't figure it out, you might re-convert your RAW frames to linear TIFFs and see if subtraction works with those.

Advanced calibration methods:

  • You can take multiple calibration frames if you want. Doing so reduces the impact of random noise in the calibration frame, and results in a better sample of the repeating bias and dark noise. The way to do it is to take your multiple calibration frames and "median combine" them. (This is not the same as using a median filter in Photoshop.) The process of median combination makes a list of each pixel value in each channel of each calibration frame at each pixel location, and builds a new calibration frame by selecting the median value from that list for that pixel and channel. Various software packages (Maxim DL, GIMP) allow convenient median combination of TIFF images, but as far as I know Photoshop is not one of them.
  • You can take your calibration frame at a different exposure time, ISO, or temperature if you like, and scale the frame accordingly. For example, you can take a calibration frame at the same ISO and temperature, but at twice the exposure duration. You can then divide the pixel values in that image by two before calibrating the photo. However, check "complicating factors" above for why this might not work well.

1 There are a few sensor types in which photons result in a charge dissipation rather than accumulation - but I want to limit the scope of this discussion so it is manageable; I'll just assume every sensor works the same way.
2 Binning is technically impossible in most CMOS sensors, requiring a digital (and post-readout) simulation of binning to achieve. It is however very commonly available in CCDs.

© Copyright 2004 Jeff Medkeff

Readers' Comments

Add a comment

Gurpreet Singh Bhasin , December 22, 2004; 03:16 P.M.

Thanks for the exhaustive analysis Jeff. It is a very interesting approach to practical noise reduction.

I have a question though. Why does the photo of the guy after calibration look lighter than the one before it? It looks smoothened out, the face looks less red than in the one with the noise.Of course, the noisy pic has lots of red speckeled noise, so the calibration might have removed some red in the pic in addition to the red noise speckles.

Any ideas?

David Little , December 22, 2004; 07:42 P.M.

1:1 Crop showing poor noise cancellation.

Thank you very much for this excellent article! It's just the kind of thing I'm always looking to find more of.

I thought I understood this technique well, but I can't seem to reproduce your results. I followed your procedure using an almost identical camera (Canon Digital Rebel) - camera wrapped in cloth, no sharpening in camera or RAW converter, even linear 16-bit tiffs. I've tried various settings, but for example:

I took two dark frames in a row using your procedure, 10 seconds each at ISO 1600. After a levels exaggeration, they look very much like the pictures of noise you posted (lots of red splotches). The only problem is, the noise doesn't match up at all from one frame to the other! Most all of the hot pixels cancel each other out, as expected, but the "grainy" noise does not match up at all. If I subtract one frame from the other, the noise doesn't go away, it just changes.

Subsequently, if I use this technique on a real photo, all hell breaks loose. It's definitely not working.

The attached example is a 1:1 crop of what I'm talking about. On the left is a dark frame taken 10s at ISO 1600. On the right, I've subtracted the second dark frame (same settings) from it using difference blending mode in Photoshop. Things are different, all right, but they aren't much better!

I'm clearly missing something here, and I can't figure out what. Anyone want to clue me in to why my noise varies so terribly much from one photo to the next?

Walang Pangalan , December 22, 2004; 08:39 P.M.

Canon 10D, ISO 100, 4900 seconds

Dark frame's should be subtracted from raw data prior to the colour demosaic processing, if this possible. This is because the demosaic can smear or disturb warm pixel data. I've attached an example I took a while ago, with an ISO 100 exposure in excess of an hour(!!) with a Canon 10D. From the top-left, clockwise, you can see the unprocessed frame, the dark frame, the dark-subtracted frame, and, because it was an under-exposed image (my camera battery died), a "gain" frame to make up for the loss.

Gurpreet Singh Bhasin , December 22, 2004; 09:56 P.M.

David, I guess noise varies from photo to photo because noise is a random occurence. i dont know if noise is predictive, if it were then we could make all photos noise proof.

Chris Wetherill , December 23, 2004; 03:42 A.M.

> It is now very common for a CMOS sensor to include noise-reduction
> circuitry directly on the sensor alongside the readout amplifier.
> In some designs, a sort of small dummy photosite, shaded from
> light, is used to quantify the likely dark noise level in the
> actual photosite, and this quantity is subtracted during readout.

I might add that some CCD's -- I'm not sure about the particular ones used in the cameras of interest here -- have some number of light-shielded pixels at the end of each row which can be used in a like manner. These pixels would be read out like other pixels and then used as a measure of the bias + dark noise to be subtracted from the image pixel values in that row.

It's also worth mentioning that dark noise can decrease dynamic range in very long exposures since the pixels are thus partially filled up with thermal electrons, leaving less space for the electrons coming from the (faint) image. This is why CCD's used in astronomy are cooled -- to -30 or -40 Celsius in the 0.09MP camera I built some time back. Anyone taking very long exposures with an uncooled camera would be advised to try to come up with their full well potential (how many electrons each pixel can hold before it's full) and the rate at which thermal electrons are generated to get an idea of the limits and how much dynamic range is available at a given exposure time.

To reduce readout noise in astronomical cameras the pixels are read very slowly to allow the amplification electronics and the A/D converter to settle. I'd bet commercial cameras involve compromises between noise and readout speed.

The other common technique used in astronomy to reduce noise even further is to take a dark-light-dark sequence and average the two dark frames before subtracting from the light frame. Besides improving the statistics it removes any linear drift in the electronics.


Shaun O'Boyle , December 23, 2004; 02:35 P.M.

The Canon 20D has a dark frame feature built in that can be swithched on and off for long exposures. I assume the 20D is doing the calibration you describe in camera, but is there any advantage to manually making a dark frame in addition to the 20d dark frame processing?

Andrew Howard , December 23, 2004; 04:11 P.M.

What a wonderful article, Jeff! I'm quite impressed by the technique. My mind is buzzing with ideas and comments.

While I think that this is a wonderfully effective technique, one limitation is the inconvenient requirement of taking a dark photo at the same time (really the same temperature) as the image to be calibrated. Perhaps there's another way. I think that it would be possible to write a program that would characterize the noise from each RGB pixel by a one-time calibration procedure that would take dark photos at each ISO setting and a grid of temperatures. Given the exposure time (t), temperature (T), and ISO setting of the image to be calibrated, the program could predict the noise level at each pixel--that is, it could automatically generate the calibration image. The calibration image could be subtracted as you described so well above.

The noise model could be the sum of the two predictable sources that you mentioned, calculated at each pixel. It could be completely characterized by just a few global parameters and a manageable number of pixel specific parameters. Mathematically, it might look something like this:

expected_noise(x,y,color,t,T,ISO) = (c1(x,y,color) + c2(x,y,color) * t) * exp(c3*T) + c4(x,y,color) + c5(x,y,color) * exp(c6*ISO)

where x,y are the sensor pixel coordinates, color specifies the RGB channel, and c1(x,y,color), c2(x,y,color), etc. are parameters to be defined momentarily.

The first two terms try to describe the dark noise: each pixel has some fixed noise [c1(x,y,color)] and some noise that is linear in time [c2(x,y,color) * t], and both of these are multiplied by an exponential temperature-dependent factor [exp(c3*T)]. I suspect that the temperature-dependent part is independent of pixel coordinates (hence c3 is only one parameter, not one for each pixel) since this noise probably arises from spatially-independent material properties of the detector.

The last set of terms in the above equation attempt to model the bias noise, which is due to the amplifiers. In general, one could imagine that the amplifiers have both offset and gain errors. I therefore included a constant term [c4(x,y,color)] and a term exponential in amplifier gain/ISO [c5(x,y,color) * exp(c6*ISO)]. I've assumed that all amplifiers are created equal (that is, c6 is independent of pixel coordinates), but this may be erroneous.

Besides the global parameters (c3,c6), there are a lot of pixel-specific parameters that have to be determined. In my model, the number of parameters is four (c1,c2,c4,c5) times three (R,G,B) times the number sensor pixels. So, for a 6MP Digital Rebel, that's 72 megaparameters! While this is a lot(!), I think that one could write a computer program that would automatically determine all of them with reasonable accuracy and in finite time. This program would take several dark photos at each ISO setting, and for several temperatures. (In practice the temperature grid could be obtained by chilling the camera in a freezer and taking the calibration photos as it slowly warms to ambient.) The parameters would be determined by a least-squares fit. Additional calibration images would more precisely determine the parameters. One could also see how accurate the model is by comparing predicted and actual noise values by some statistical measure (perhaps chi-square).

To implement the program outlined above, it would be nice if the camera recorded the temperature in the EXIF. From a design standpoint, it would be easy to measure the temperature near the imager; many microcontrollers provide temperature almost as a throwaway feature, and there are lots of tiny temperature sensing chips that could be incorporated into future cameras. (Does anyone know of a camera that already reports temperature in the EXIF?) On the other hand, I wonder if it would be possible to calculate (!) the temperature that a given image was taken at based on the noise profile. I envision calculating the distribution of some statistical measure of noise (perhaps the correlation function of brightness between nearest neighbors?) and fitting the temperature to that distribution. Since dark noise is exponential in temperature, it should be relatively easy to fit. Of course this distribution function partially depends on the subject of the image, but it still seems possible. Perhaps the distribution could be calculated only in the smoothest areas of the photo. Does this idea resonate with anyone?

I wonder if some of these ideas have been integrated into camera firmware, raw processing programs, or noise removal programs. I haven't read much on the subject. Does anyone know?

Tommy Huynh , December 23, 2004; 11:39 P.M.

Isn't this the same as what many Canon DSLRs already do when you turn the NR on?

Bob Atkins , December 24, 2004; 01:50 A.M.

While all these schemes are interesting, they don't address photon noise, which is probably the major noise source for normal images. To reduce photon noise (and random noise), the usual noise reduction programs are pretty effective, but dark noise subtraction does nothing (as is pointed out in the article)

My brief experiments (with a 20D, not a 10D) seem to show that fixed dark noise is, in fact, very low and in most normal images the effects of dark frame subtration are subtle at best, more often invisible.

It does slightly improve grossly underexposed (-3 stops) images where dark noise is a significant fraction of the total signal, but even there it's not a huge effect and the images are still very noisy, as expected.

Arunas Salkauskas , December 24, 2004; 04:09 A.M.

Dark current is quite low in general use: short exposures at moderate temperatures.

You'll notice that he's getting really noticeable results in exposures over half an hour - not a typical shot for most of us.

However it's real. The dark noise characteristics for sensors are often given in terms of electrons/sec at a specific temperature, then they give a doubling rate in degrees C, that is 'the dark current will double if you increase the temperature by this many degrees for a given exposure length'. Of course, if you decrease the temperature by that much then the dark current will decrease by a factor of 2. Most high-end scientific cameras are cooled, often surprising cold.

With my 10D at about -25C and iso 3200 I saw roughly the same noise that I see at 22C - on a typical daylit exposure, so most of that noise must be shot (photon) noise and electronic (readout etc) noise.

On a 30 minute exposure, however, you should have averaged out the shot noise fairly well - but the dark current will take over. Other electronic and random noise will be at roughly the same level.

Dark current accumulation is linear in time - that's why it's given in electrons/sec. This means that with two measurements, say one at 1 minute and another at 30 minutes, you should be able to interpolate and extrapolate very easily to get a dark reference for any other time you'd like.

It's a worthwhile technique it you're in the habit of long exposures (say in astrophotography where all the CCD stuff was originally developed).

There may be some confounding factors that I haven't delved into with consumer cameras where the image is the final product, and we're not making quantitative measurements of how much light is striking the sensor. In the image processing, the goal is often to get the image to 'look like film', so there may be a variety of look up tables or functions (log?) applied to the pixel data. This would change the darkfield correction to something other than simple subtraction, but subtraction may be good enough for most applications.

Zhi-da Zhong , December 24, 2004; 10:39 A.M.

Nice article. Thanks, Jeff!

As others have noted, several DSLRs have this feature built-in. In fact, I think they do it the right way: before raw conversion. Raw conversion can decrease the effectiveness of this procedure in a few ways. You mentioned some, but I think there are at least 2 others that are significant: the demosaicing algorithm may be adaptive, resulting in inconsistent profiles in the converted images; and gamma correction and tone curve application will introduce non-linearities that make dark frame subtraction inaccurate. It'd be nice if there's a tool that performs this NR on raw files -- does anyone know of one? I'm not aware of one, so I'm actually looking into writing one myself.

I don't know how much a role demosaicing, etc. played, but I couldn't make this work with my D70 files & ACR. I only tested it with short duration (1/60s) exposures, so that's probably the main reason.

Robert Campbell , December 24, 2004; 05:55 P.M.

Very interesting article. I love low light photography, which has been a challenge using my Nikon D70 for the last year. I have gotten better in my technique - one thing i discovered is the special Noise Reduction for Long Exposures mode on my D70. That mode seems to use the slow readout of the electrons that was mentioned above in the article. The write time seems to be directly related to the exposure time. It does a good job of cleaning up long exposures. This may be why the above poster had trouble achieving useful results using his D70. The D70 seems to do a good job in-camera of minimizing noise.

I do think I will try this technique on my next low-light photography assignment where I cannot afford the extra delay of the in camera Noise Reduction technique. Once I pick my exposure time, I should simply take the dark frame reference shot and shoot the rest of the shoot normally - correct? Everything else is done back at my Mac, post-shoot - right?

Again, a very insightful article. It is an exciting time to be in photography - so many new techniques are being developed which leverage the new possibilities of digital capture.

Zhi-da Zhong , December 25, 2004; 04:18 P.M.


Slow readout doesn't help reduce thermal noise (the main type of noise in long exposures). The D70 actually does dark frame subtraction: same idea as the procedure above, but applied to the raw data directly. That's why the "processing" time increases with exposure time -- the camera needs to take a second exposure w/ the shutter closed.

Robert Campbell , December 26, 2004; 02:09 P.M.

So the D70 already does the Dark Frame technique....would this mean I'd gain no benefit from using the technique described in the article when I had the Noise Reduction mode enabled? Or maybe double Dark Frame subtraction might do an even more thorough job? Or just amplify the random noise left after the first Dark Frame done in-camera?

I don't know that I'll ever take the time to try it myself, but it would be interesting to see the effect of trying the built in Dark Frame versus the manual technique described here.

I have to give props to Nikon for including such a nifty feature on such an affordable camera. I have been VERY pleased with my D70. If only it could meter AI lenses and had a mirror lock-up (and maybe a couple more dedicated buttons & dials), I wouldn't even give a crap about the D2X!

Arunas Salkauskas , December 28, 2004; 02:03 P.M.

One more point to consider is that if you simply subtract two images from each other you are theoretically increasing the noise in the resulting image. So if you have no significant dark-current problems then you will simply _amplify_ the random noise by subtracting.

Why is this? Well, suppose the random noise in the image is normally distributed with a mean of 0. Then subtracting one dark image from another will give you an image without the stationary (structured) noise, but what about the random noise? Well, since it's all over the map (sometimes negative, sometimes positive) subtracting is basically identical to adding - so you'll have increased the noise! It isn't doubled, but it'll increase by a factor of root 2.

You can reduce the random noise by taking say 32 (or 256...or more) dark frames and averaging them together. Averaging them will retain the stationary component of the noise but reduce the random noise by a factor of the square-root of the number of frames averaged. (Adding the images together increases the noise by sqr(n), then you divide by n to get the average).

So subtracting a _single_ shot darkfield image is _only_ helpful if you have a LOT of dark current compared with the random noise.

The recommended approach would otherwise be:

New Image = Old Image - Average of 32 Dark frames

Walter Schroeder , December 29, 2004; 05:45 P.M.

I would like to get a quantitative feel for these effects. Does anybody have numbers of how many photons will be collected per pixel at a given light intensity (and Fstop, exposure time ASA setting, output value in a 16bit raw image)? In comparison what are the estimated noise numbers in output values? Can anybody quote a source? Am I right to presume, that we are talking about a few (1-100) photons per pixel at say 1600 ASA in the darker image areas of a hand held shot just giving detail? Thanks Walter

Jeff Medkeff , January 06, 2005; 10:11 P.M.

A couple replies to what has been posted so far, but first, in the article I wrote this:

If you see a moire pattern in your image after calibration - especially in dark portions of the photo ....

I meant to refer to posterization, not moire.

Now, to respond to various folks:


It doesn't look particularly lighter to me, and in the originals the pixel values are definitely lower, not higher. The smoothness is simply the result of sweeping away the speckle.

but I can't seem to reproduce your results.

That's a common problem, and there are a several possible reasons for it, some of which I offered. Sometimes I can't reproduce these results on specific 10D images. 1Ds images never seem to have a problem. This comment is probably on the right track:


And more on the same topic, very intelligently said:

the demosaicing algorithm [in raw conversion] may be adaptive, resulting in inconsistent profiles in the converted images; and gamma correction and tone curve application will introduce non-linearities that make dark frame subtraction inaccurate.

The more playing around I do with my lower-end camera, the more convinced I am that when I can't get a calibration, things went bad at the demosaicing step. My impression is that when I apply conversion settings defined on one image to a second one in my software, I should sidestep gamma and curve problems. But it could be my software documentation is misleading. I wish I had the source code.


I have heard that a product called Sharp RAW from Logical Designs does raw subtraction, but I have never used it. I in no way present this as a discouragement to your writing your own software - this package does a lot of other stuff and probably costs accordingly.


To deal with noise, we aren't really all that interested in finding out if noise is random or not; we are interested in whether it is randomly varying or not. Randomly varying noise is impossible to calibrate or remove, and some sources of noise are randomly varying. For example photon noise, though it behaves predictably, randomly varies from shot to shot; while readout noise behaves predictably and does not vary from shot to shot (at least it doesn't vary by much).

We are also interested, of course, in whether the residuum of remaining noise in an image varies randomly, or not, after the in-camera NR gets done with it. Where in-camera NR is efficient, we would expect calibration to be futile, and where it is inefficient, we would expect it to be helpful.


None that I can think of, except the possibility of speeding up your shooting time by using a calibration frame from the bank instead of taking one on the spot.

I wonder if some of these ideas [about characterizing a sensor and then using a static model for calibration thereafter] have been integrated into camera firmware, raw processing programs, or noise removal programs. I haven't read much on the subject. Does anyone know?

Yes, they have. Some if not all cameras do something like this between the exposure and writing the raw file; in addition calibration frame libraries and scaling methods are common amongst scientific users of imagery, and several programs are out there that build noise profiles of a sensor to use in 'rough and ready' calibrations. Other algorithms simply describe noise rather than characterize it, and remove it accordingly.


I would hope, and have every reason to believe, that the technique I provide is significantly more crude than what happens in-camera. The only reason the technique here is of any interest at all, in my opinion, is that at the present time only a minority of the cameras in peoples' hands have the feature you describe.

So the D70 already does the Dark Frame technique .... maybe double Dark Frame subtraction might do an even more thorough job?

Double dark frame subtraction will definitely not do a better job. If it does, you are probably doing something wrong.

In comparison what are the estimated noise numbers in output values?

In output values? Depends a lot upon how you convert the images to 16 bits, I'd suppose.

For the 10D I'd say half the pixels are more and half less than 65 ADU and in the 20D half are more and half are less than 40 ADU in terms of dark noise after 300 seconds at room temperature. I've measured my 10D mean bias at 29 ADU and I've measured a 20D at 31. (This is insignificantly different.) I believe (contra Bob) that bias and pattern noise predominates in normal shooting circumstances.

Can anybody quote a source?

Christian Buil has measured and published similar figures. I'm sorry that the methodology there has a rather different emphasis than a conventional photographer would like, since the application is different. You can also get a sense of just how strongly oversimplified my article is from his analysis.


Yes. I think people who have tried to measure it have come up with something like a gain of 3.5 electrons/ADU for the 10D and 3 electrons/ADU for the 20D at iso 400.

David Campbell , January 12, 2005; 05:11 P.M.

I tried this and it seems to add noise. I don't know what I am missing here, but I shot a photo of a coworker at his desk. My exposure was 1/20 at f4 and 1600 asa. I then put the cap on, closed the cover on the eyepiece, and fired another shot right after it at the same exposure. I opened them both using the raw converter in photoshop cs. I opened the second one and selected "same as previous conversion" for the settings. I did not use any sharpening either in the camera or raw converter. When I pasted the black image over the origonal the noise and convert it to difference the noise gets worse.

Asit Jain , January 17, 2005; 01:41 A.M.

I have a Nikon coolpix 4500. It has a noise reduction setting. Which is a Dark Frame Substitution method.

Jeff Medkeff , January 22, 2005; 04:18 A.M.

I've done a little more looking into sources of success and failure in calibrating Canon raw files from my 10D. Basically, I sent around six raw images and their respective calibration frames to users of various software and checked the results. We've only tried normal (not linear) conversions so far. Here's what I've learned:

  • Adobe CameraRAW: Never seems to work on any image; the raw conversion process is doing something to the calibration frame that is very different from the image frame.
  • Canon software (incl. Breezebrowser): Works nicely on most images with dark backgrounds (e.g., astrophotographs); not as nicely when there are broad areas of lighter tones (e.g., aurora); and fails utterly on images with tonal values similar to that of normal snapshots.
  • Phase One CaptureOne: Results similar to Adobe RAW.
  • Iris: Works on any image.

Pursuant to the above discussion about doing subtraction prior to raw conversion, I'd note that Iris does just this. It is also freeware.

Arunas Salkauskas , January 24, 2005; 12:11 P.M.

>> I tried this and it seems to add noise.

That's correct - at high ISO settings and short exposures, such a simple process will actually increase the noise in the image. You've got almost no dark current for such a simple exposure, so when you subtract you're actually just doing an additive operation with more noise.

The only place where you'll find dark image subtraction helping is where the noise you see is actually always appearing in the same location and in the same amounts. Electronic read noise and photon shot noise, which are the problems in high ISO exposures, are not stationary in this way, so the only way you can correct for them is with some sort of filtering.

Iain McClatchie , February 18, 2005; 02:14 P.M.

Last night I did some dark frame correlation tests on my 10D. I used David Coffin's decompress program to get the actual sensor data from RAW files. I shot ten frames at ISO=3200 at 1/4000s, 1/30s, 1s, 6s, and 30s, at freezer temp (-4 C?) and at room temp with the camera body's lens cover on. Then I treated the resulting images as a ~6,500,000 element vector, and ran dot products between the (ten frames averaged together, then normalized) and individual frames.

For each individual frame, I subtracted the correlated noise.


- frames with subtracted correlated noise had a norm of just 7% of the original frames. I take this to mean that about 93% of the noise can be eliminated. This was very repeatable.

- there was very good correlation between frames at different temperatures and different exposure times, but correlation within frames sets at the same temp/exposure was marginally better. This suggests that most of the noise varies linearly with a function of temperature and exposure.

- absolute values of sensor data did not appear to change much over this temperature variation

Note that even if different pixels respond differently to temperature, there is no need to know the temperature to subtract out the noise. Instead, we can compare the dot products of several normalized dark frames at different temperatures and the picture to be improved. The largest dot product signifies the frame closest to the noise profile of the actual image, and that dark frame's correlated noise can be subtracted. As a bonus, we get a rough measure of the camera's temperature when the picture was taken!

I'll try some further experiments later to check correlation between different ISO settings.

Iain McClatchie , February 18, 2005; 02:28 P.M.



Well, if the camera takes a single dark frame, and there is any nonrepeatable error in taking that frame, this error gets added to your image. If instead you use a banked dark frame shot which is the average of many actual dark frame exposures, you average away these nonrepeatable errors and do not add this kind of error to the shot.

As for whether *both* kinds of dark frame subtraction can be useful, I think the answer is: maybe. You could first subtract the banked image, hoping that this would take care of the bulk of the fixed-pattern noise. You could then subtract the *correlated* noise of the dark frame snapped directly after the actual image. This would find any noise repeated from image to the immediate successor frame, which was not repeated in the banked dark frame shots (such error would come from some hypothetical slowly-varying but random process).

As this successive frame would not have to take out the bulk of the fixed-pattern noise, the weight would be much lower. This would contain the error added, but probably sharply limit any benefit. My guess is that the random noise would probably swamp any slow-varying error, and you would see no benefit (weight would be zero).

Pietro De Ponte , May 05, 2005; 09:08 A.M.

I have used the techniques of subtracting frame from an image for reduce the noise of astrofotography. Initially i had some troble caused by different temperature of the CMOS sensor in the the different photo, probabily caused by the sensor heating during the sessions of astrophotography (some hours); I note that the noise increments from the first photo to the last. The noise increase drammaticaly with the temperature. if the temperature is low ( -20?C) the noise is very very low, and is not very correlated from an image to other images.

After the first time i had try to reduce the noise obtaining ugly images, I try to subtract the average of some dark frames, obtaining better results.

The tecnique of subrtract the average of some (from 3 to 8) dark frames obtains always better images than the subraction of only one frame, specially when the temperature is low.

It's not a good idea to acquire some dark frames at the the same time, is better takes the frames during all the photograpy session, or where the photograpy is only one, before and after the photo.

The averege of many photo (is possible in still-life photo or astro photo or some photos taked with a good tripod), everyone "cleaned" by the subtraction of the average (always the same) of some dark frames gives very good photo with very low noise.

This is only my experience, but is supported by the fact that the sources of noise are pseudostochastics. This procedures are standard in astrophotography.

Wesley Brown , April 22, 2008; 07:48 P.M.

Interesting, but this takes away all of the advantages of shooting RAW. I'll have to look elsewhere for a solution.

Also, I just followed the instructions also and this did not work at all. Might this be a technique only for day lit shots that doesn't work at night?

daz dazdaz , September 06, 2013; 11:04 A.M.



Anyone could comment on that picture?

Is my 550d failing or i could just calibrate somehow?


Add a comment

Notify me of comments