I'm not 100% sure but I think I left it to the default AUTO setting.
I'm still not sure about the differences and which one is best to use and in which cases...
In the future I'll try with higher ISO settings even if it doesn't make lot of sense
since averaging requires a tripod, so it's useless to use faster shutter speeds,
all you'll get will be noiser pictures, so you'll need more of em to average, not quite a good deal!
Yes it make sense because sometimes in bad light condition you could not use long exposures and taking just one pic. (eg. a street with fitful walking people).
And if it's possible, sometimes long exposures give strange colors if the light is too weak. The only option is higher ISO (and tripod of course for the alignment). But with higher ISO pics are horrible
.
Averaging them lets you to eliminate an important part of disgusting "random" noise, tipical of higher Iso setting.
In the "zero noise" thread you could see some example using 400 and 800 iso and averaging 8-10 jpgs (not directly in the camera of course).
Well I was just curious to see Raw averaging behaviour, just to see how many details RAW can retain in such situation. (since my test are based only on compressed jpgs with camera noise reduction)
I want chdk for my camera too
Thanks!!!
