CONTINUOUS NOISE FILTER : NOISE FILTER

Continuous noise filter : Analog filter design valkenburg : Water filter replacements.

Continuous Noise Filter


continuous noise filter
    continuous noise
  • Noise with negligible small fluctuations of level within the period of observation (ANSI S3.20-1995: stationary noise; steady noise).
  • Noises such as engines which last longer are called continuous noise.
    filter
  • A porous device for removing impurities or solid particles from a liquid or gas passed through it
  • A screen, plate, or layer of a substance that absorbs light or other radiation or selectively absorbs some of its components
  • device that removes something from whatever passes through it
  • an electrical device that alters the frequency spectrum of signals passing through it
  • A device for suppressing electrical or sound waves of frequencies not required
  • remove by passing through a filter; "filter out the impurities"
continuous noise filter - The extended
The extended Kalman filter as a noise modulator for continuous yeast cultures under monotonic, oscillating and chaotic conditions [An article from: Chemical Engineering Journal]
The extended Kalman filter as a noise modulator for continuous yeast cultures under monotonic, oscillating and chaotic conditions [An article from: Chemical Engineering Journal]
This digital document is a journal article from Chemical Engineering Journal, published by Elsevier in 2005. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Description:
The extended Kalman filter (EKF) is commonly used to filter out the inflow of noise into biological reactors. Its usefulness for bioreactors with monotonic outputs is well established. More recently, the EKF has been shown to be able to rescue stable periodic oscillations that have been distorted by noise. This study extends the use of the EKF to microbial oscillations that become chaotic under the influence of noise. As measured by the Lyapunov exponents of the noise-free and noise-filtered concentration profiles of a continuous culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the filter is effective in recovering noise-free sustained oscillations from noise-induced chaos, but is less satisfactory for a culture with both deterministic and stochastic chaos. Other kinds of filters, employing artificial intelligence, are recommended in this case.

77% (13)
S.W. Waterfront & National Airport, D.C.: dawn
S.W. Waterfront & National Airport, D.C.: dawn
[A200/Tamron 18-250/Promaster MC UV filter, ISO400 1/25s F8.0 167mm effective -0.70eV > ufraw sRGB H0W AHD > 3-color Gimp, rotate, clone, mild usm 1.0-0.30-01, gamma 1.50, brightness +00 NL filter in alpha-mode: alpha 0.0, radius 0.6, usm 1.0-0.80-10, contrast +28] So I found at least one way to get decent NR in Gimp: use the NL filter in "alpha-trimmed mean" mode, which does 7-point averaging discarding the high & low values. Works pretty well as a simple NR without gross-destruction of fine-detail. I can run a USM and restore the edge-sharpness, the overall effect is a slight reduction in luminance-noise. The chroma-noise I have found is best dealt with by reducing the white-balance temp which I have found has to be done anyway if the shot is even slightly underexposed. So this week I've found out quite a bit about this rig. I've found...that I can get decent handheld shots down to about 1/8s handheld at 375mm effective. I've found that it just barely fits in my Lowepro bag while standing on its lens, pushing the bottom out about an inch, and that an even-bigger DLSR and lens would be a real issue. I could probably swing it but it would mean carrying it flat or on its side in the bag, thus taking-up two pouches out of 3, instead of just one. I've found that I don't have to deal with NR at all on this camera just by either turning the high ISO NR off, shooting in continuous drive and turning the extended-exposure NR off, and as such, there's plenty of fine-detail even at high ISO. It's just a question of noise, and noise is best dealt with on this camera by (sigh) shooting to the right, certainly within reason. I mean this is a gamma-push of an ISO400 file. If I shoot it "rightish" then I can get decent-looking shots at ISO1600, with at-most a slight grain to the image...meaning the SNR, DR, & CS are ok. Not "demo" quality but ok for casual snapshots. I'm not even worrying about the fact that this is slightly-shaky, I can probably find better shots or go shoot it with a tripod or whatever: the point is the processing, not the shakiness. That's almost an afterthought at this point. The question is, "if I *get* a stable shot at these camera-settings, with this camera & lens, and I use the above processing, what is it going to look like, is that acceptable to me" and this is stable enough to give me a good idea. I want a more-stable shot, I just look for one out of the many brackets that I took. But I want to see if it's worth processing if I do find one, or whether I really have to shoot it at a lower ISO, a hotter exposure, a higher F#, whatever. Also I'm wrestling with fulla, clens, hugin, nona and what-not and trying to come up with simple, effective way to fix lens-distortion, CA and vignetting. I spent some hours on it this week and came up empty-handed. What is easy to do with those tools is not effective and what is effective is not easy. I want something that is effective, easy and free :) Note that I didn't run any lens-corrections on this. So for a number of reasons I'm souring on the idea of buying a bigger, expensive fullframe. Yes I know that I can get a stop with an A850 or two stops with a D700 (or maybe a 5DMk2, which I'm not getting for gamut-reasons), but if I can get decent handheld shots out of this rig in the lighting-conditions in which I want to shoot, then there's no need to go fullframe in the first place. The D700 has several obvious *performance* advantages but the question is just how much better is it in the absolute sense? "Two stops better" means no-better at "low-enough" ISO, in "enough" light, at "low-enough" focal-lengths. "10% better at each ISO" is not worth pursuing especially at high "cost". But how does one know this for sure without having each camera in hand and taking the same shots at the same time? But still it's one stop better with the A850 (minus the flash but plus 40% higher linear-resolution), maybe 1 stop better with the D90 plus a better gamut, and 2 stops better with the D700 plus 14-bit A/D and a better gamut. But each of those options implies a bigger, heavier camera & lens with some compromise either in terms of sharpness or focal-length range. Oh and have I mentioned that they all cost a lot more than the A200/Tamron 18-250. So. Here I have a result without ICC profiling that looks ok though is still a bit "pastel" and that's ok I can deal with that with ICC profiling for the most part. It clearly doesn't have enough DOF for this scene. It needs to be shot at F11+ at this FL, which has obvious implications. But regardless. If I wanted to make sure that I got a great shot of this scene, in this light, I'd go out there and shoot it with a tripod at F11 or F13. I wouldn't use an exposure-stack or a DOF-stack or a faster lens...there's just one way to do this right. And for a shot with a huge DOF like this one
Washington DC skyline, Powtomack Landing view, VA
Washington DC skyline, Powtomack Landing view, VA
[Canon SX130 ISO80 1.3s F5.6 ~50mm effective > dcraw > Gimp] So I rewrote my raw-conversion script from scratch and ran it before really testing it, without backing up the files first, and of course the first thing it did was copy the exif data from the first camera-jpeg to all the other camera-jpegs. Anyway I had little real trouble the SX130 on this scene, shooting off a rail. I tried to take some shots with it on a rest and with the IS still on continuous and they came out slightly blurry, as a pedant would have predicted but at the very very end of the night I got a good shot with the IS off which I think is what this one is. A lot of the shots of this scene had a slight misfocus and the few that I shot (about 2 out of 10 shots) with the IS off either had really-bad focus or were shot with the camera too low for the water to be seen. But I think that I got one good one here, at least focus & stability-wise. Overall the exposure-time was too short and the lens not stopped-down enough for sharp shots across the frame and the focal-length really too long with the lens too close to the water & the camera too low anyway. It had just been a long day, lot of riding, a lot of shots, tired, etc. Didn't feel like staying out there another 2 hours trying to get this "just right". But some of these problems, you can't really see on the LCD while looking at camera-jpegs because of the NR and limited LCD resolution. In general for the processed raw files, most if not all of the blur that one normally sees in camera jpegs when viewing at 100%, pretty-much all goes away, with just a slight softness due to the demosaicing and maybe diffraction and a soft lens, soft AF, slight shake, etc. But much less blurry than the camera jpegs. Which is a good sign. The colors are good. The DR is nice. The lens is clearly not as sharp as the G9's (and the image-processor does some serious lens-correction that definitely doesn't happen in the G9) but the sensor and/or color-filters seem to be significantly-better and certainly when shooting raw the SX130 seems to have both less noise and better color than the G9 though the G9 low-light AF is clearly better. The camera performs quite well, image-wise, again I'm rating it as about a middling subframe CCD DSLR/IS lens combo. I even got decent handheld ISO800 shots in low light. The one problem is that the low-light focus isn't all that great. It's good sometimes and sometimes not. It's certainly not impressive in low-light. Throw in the questionable stability of a handheld point & shoot in low light and the lens-blur away from center when the lens isn't stopped-down significantly and this is a tricky camera to shoot well in low light. It's like shooting a CCD Rebel or 20D with the Canon 18-200 EF-S IS, 'cept it's much smaller, lighter and cheaper. But it will get some decent shots in low light up through ISO800, indicated, with a hit-rate somewhere between 50% and 70%. For my first time out shooting it in low light, that's not bad. Actually, that's pretty damm-good especially for $200 in a pocket-sized camera. You're not getting anything but crap out of a G9 at ISO800 in low light. Now that's indicated ISO, true, but still. It's a level of performance that is excellent at this price, size & weight, though it would suck in a $800 subframe with a $500 IS superzoom. Of course in the pre-30D/450D days that's exactly what Canon offered and they didn't even have the 18-200EF-S IS then. What they had then was junk, really. Canon usually gives just enough to keep their customers from leaving in droves. This time they brought one back & made him mostly happy, too. If only because it's good enough that if I take 50 shots in low light I can rely on at least 20 of them coming-out well, and out of 50 day shots I can rely on at least 40 of them coming-out well. Trust me, that's not bad. 2 good shots out of 10 of this scene, and the same with others like it, for a flat $200 plus maybe two new AA batteries every 300 shots? I'd be happy with that. And if I'd focused on the lights to the left instead of on the small area around the Washington Monument, and turned the IS off and used a solid rest, and stopped it down to at least 1 stop beyond wide-open, they probably would mostly have been sharp and in focus. If it *can* give you good shots then it's a matter of learning how to shoot it for best results and staying within its limits. That's much different than "there's no way to get good shots out of it because it basically sucks". This camera definitely does not "suck, basically". Especially with the CHDK hack & shooting raw, it's quite decent. And most cameras would have trouble AF'ing on this scene. You'd have to be smart and focus it on the bright lights with manual exposure...I purposely focused it straight ahead just to see what would happen, knowing that would be the worst-case. And my comments on the low-light AF are based on a

continuous noise filter
continuous noise filter
Plantronics Voyager PRO Audio Iq2 Noise Canceling Bluetooth Headset
Engineered for Sound Quality Reflecting Plantronics' nearly half a century of obsession with achieving headset perfection, the Voyager PRO represents the epitome of Bluetooth headset technology and design. No other headset has the combination of two noise-canceling mics on a boom to best capture your voice, three layers of WindSmart technology to outsmart the wind, and an adaptive 20-band equalizer tuned to maintain rich, balanced audio at comfortable listening volumes despite the noise around you.

See also:
sharp air filter replacement
andritz filter press
headphone noise filter
oil filter removal tool
microsoft phishing filter virus
oil filters for tractors
nylon filter cloth
oil filter change cost
Comments