All Forum Comments
Comment by MattMatic posted on *ist D bad pixels at 16/10/2003 - 15:15
Malcolm,
Here's a link: http://www.starzen.com/imaging/ There's a tester for dead pixels for free. (Found the link from here: http://www.kernphoto.com/Resources.html - excellent list)
Some say use dust & scratches filter, others suggest NeatImage, some say return the camera if it's in warranty
It's a pain, but I would return the camera.
Matt
Here's a link: http://www.starzen.com/imaging/ There's a tester for dead pixels for free. (Found the link from here: http://www.kernphoto.com/Resources.html - excellent list)
Some say use dust & scratches filter, others suggest NeatImage, some say return the camera if it's in warranty
It's a pain, but I would return the camera.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on *ist D bad pixels at 16/10/2003 - 12:07
Malcolm,
Thankfully I don't have any (yet). All digicams have issues with stuck pixels (yes even the Canons!). Some of the cameras can detect a stuck pixel, or profile their own sensor and map it out. AFAIK, pixels can grow defective too, so it's not a case of just getting a 'perfect' sensor.
Note for Pentax: Couldn't you do that in the camera? Have a "sensor profile" mode after cleaning that checks the pixels and maps them out before JPEGing?
As the pixels are unusually bright, they are easily detectable. I have seen a Photoshop filter floating around to automatically map these pixels out. Obviously if the image is a JPG then the area of defect can appear larger because of JPG haloing.
BTW, I presume you've given the sensor a good puff of air? I bought a supersized Hama puffer from 7dayshop which is fantastic, and cost £5.
If I come across the filter page, I'll post a link
Matt
Thankfully I don't have any (yet). All digicams have issues with stuck pixels (yes even the Canons!). Some of the cameras can detect a stuck pixel, or profile their own sensor and map it out. AFAIK, pixels can grow defective too, so it's not a case of just getting a 'perfect' sensor.
Note for Pentax: Couldn't you do that in the camera? Have a "sensor profile" mode after cleaning that checks the pixels and maps them out before JPEGing?
As the pixels are unusually bright, they are easily detectable. I have seen a Photoshop filter floating around to automatically map these pixels out. Obviously if the image is a JPG then the area of defect can appear larger because of JPG haloing.
BTW, I presume you've given the sensor a good puff of air? I bought a supersized Hama puffer from 7dayshop which is fantastic, and cost £5.
If I come across the filter page, I'll post a link
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on *ist D bad pixels at 16/10/2003 - 11:39
Profiles are available on NeatImage (they work fast).
Sorry Lurach, no experience of Lexar WA. Having worked quite extensively with flash technologies, though mostly the SmartMedia style NAND-Flash, I suspect they do have a nice technique. However, my issue is mostly to do with the card readers.
Microdrive speed is acceptable (in camera), though in hindsight I should have plumped for a Fuji 20x 512Mb card instead, because I'm worried the drive is going to go belly up when I'm far away from a PC.
Reading data is slooooow. Hence my USB2 reader and tester software. I'll let you know as soon as I can If I get sensible results, I'll post the software on the web for general use too
Matt
Sorry Lurach, no experience of Lexar WA. Having worked quite extensively with flash technologies, though mostly the SmartMedia style NAND-Flash, I suspect they do have a nice technique. However, my issue is mostly to do with the card readers.
Microdrive speed is acceptable (in camera), though in hindsight I should have plumped for a Fuji 20x 512Mb card instead, because I'm worried the drive is going to go belly up when I'm far away from a PC.
Reading data is slooooow. Hence my USB2 reader and tester software. I'll let you know as soon as I can If I get sensible results, I'll post the software on the web for general use too
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on NeatImage and *istD, and memory cards at 16/10/2003 - 12:26
For your information...
I've just completed profiling in NeatImage 2.6 Pro+ the *istD for JPEG Large (*** and **), and TIFF Large, and have sent it to NeatImage.
They are preparing the profiles for publication... so you should be able to get them from www.neatimage.com pretty soon.
I took some ISO3200 shots, used the profile and the result is sublime. One of these days I'll post a sample of Fuji 1600ASA film versus *istD at 3200 - the difference is mind blowing
If anyone thinks other sizes should be profiled, then let me know and I'll try and sort it out.
On the subject of memory cards, I rattled together a little application to thrash a connected drive (so I could profile performance). It's very disappointing at the moment Even the IBM Microdrive on PC-card into a 2.4GHz laptop is not much faster than going straight to the *istD on USB. I have a USB 2.0 card reader on order (7dayshop for £12.99 at the moment!!), so I'll let you know the results when that's delivered. (Of course, if anyone wants to donate a 512Mb 20x or 40x CF card for trials I'll be happy to accept one )
Matt
I've just completed profiling in NeatImage 2.6 Pro+ the *istD for JPEG Large (*** and **), and TIFF Large, and have sent it to NeatImage.
They are preparing the profiles for publication... so you should be able to get them from www.neatimage.com pretty soon.
I took some ISO3200 shots, used the profile and the result is sublime. One of these days I'll post a sample of Fuji 1600ASA film versus *istD at 3200 - the difference is mind blowing
If anyone thinks other sizes should be profiled, then let me know and I'll try and sort it out.
On the subject of memory cards, I rattled together a little application to thrash a connected drive (so I could profile performance). It's very disappointing at the moment Even the IBM Microdrive on PC-card into a 2.4GHz laptop is not much faster than going straight to the *istD on USB. I have a USB 2.0 card reader on order (7dayshop for £12.99 at the moment!!), so I'll let you know the results when that's delivered. (Of course, if anyone wants to donate a 512Mb 20x or 40x CF card for trials I'll be happy to accept one )
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on NeatImage and *istD, and memory cards at 15/10/2003 - 17:40
Roger,
Any chance we could see a complete image - to get an idea for what's going on??
You could email me a copy, and I'll see what I can see
Matt
Any chance we could see a complete image - to get an idea for what's going on??
You could email me a copy, and I'll see what I can see
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Photos to bright at 12/10/2003 - 22:48
Hi All!
If any of you in the UK are looking to get onto the full Photoshop bandwagon - Jessops are currently clearing out version 5.5 for £199.99 (bargain )
An upgrade to the new version 8 (Photoshop CS 8 ) which ships at the end of November will cost you about £150. Quite a saving on the full price, and quite legitimate too, as long as you hang onto the licence and registration for the original full 5.5 (I phoned Adobe to check)
Needless to say, my order's in
Matt
If any of you in the UK are looking to get onto the full Photoshop bandwagon - Jessops are currently clearing out version 5.5 for £199.99 (bargain )
An upgrade to the new version 8 (Photoshop CS 8 ) which ships at the end of November will cost you about £150. Quite a saving on the full price, and quite legitimate too, as long as you hang onto the licence and registration for the original full 5.5 (I phoned Adobe to check)
Needless to say, my order's in
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Adobe Photoshop at 09/10/2003 - 09:56
George,
That's true. The trouble with digital for B&W are the many steps that need to be mastered: capture (easy), processing (takes time), printing (more difficult).
Getting a decent B&W "real" print takes more effort from digital, it's true. What's also true is that getting trying to print with colour output equipment is not the best way I have seen wonderful results from the specialist black and white ink sets... but I haven't found a "real" black and white digital print output yet.
Matt
That's true. The trouble with digital for B&W are the many steps that need to be mastered: capture (easy), processing (takes time), printing (more difficult).
Getting a decent B&W "real" print takes more effort from digital, it's true. What's also true is that getting trying to print with colour output equipment is not the best way I have seen wonderful results from the specialist black and white ink sets... but I haven't found a "real" black and white digital print output yet.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Pentax 645n Vs Canon EOS 10D at 07/04/2005 - 13:05
Quote:
The only point I agree with concerns b&w...
I have found that doing B&W with the *ist-D DSLR just requires a different way of looking at digital.The only point I agree with concerns b&w...
Here's my penny's worth:
* Don't do B&W conversion "in camera"
* Shoot RAW - this gives you far more "headroom" than JPG
* Use Capture One. It can be set to a complete B&W workflow which is just amazing.
* And/or learn to use Photoshop to do decent B&W
True, there are almost too many ways of performing B&W conversion in Photoshop. The Capture One B&W route is very nice though
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_08/essay.html
The link shows results from a D1x, but the quality of B&W is just as good from the *ist-D and *ist-DS.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Pentax 645n Vs Canon EOS 10D at 07/04/2005 - 11:23
Graham,
What you say about pixels and dimensions is technically correct, but in practice it's not that simple
The 300dpi is for photographic quality. That is to say, if you use that resolution you will produce a very fine quality and finely detailed image. Printing a 6x4 at 150dpi is acceptable on a home inkjet, but 75dpi will show the blocks.
However, if the image is larger - such that you have to step back from it - the resolution issue changes. To illustrate - the average advert poster is positively huge. However, if you stand 1m from the board you can see they have far, far less than even 75dpi! You really need to account for distance too.
It boils down to the resolving power of the human eye, which I think stands at 100lines per inch at 1 meter (stand to be corrected). If you need to stand at 2meters, then that halves to 50 lines per inch. (Well, that's the idea anyway.)
That being said, you can take a good digital image, enlarge it and filter out the "jaggies" so it does not look so "digital". There's much you can do.
I have seen some beautiful large scale prints from a local studio ( www.richardlemon.co.uk ) who, I believe, uses a Fuji S2. They said they'd held off digital until they realised they had been looking at the "wrong" printer. For physical prints it's not as cut-and-dry as traditional film... BTW, a really good local very-large format printing company is www.spectrumphoto.co.uk who can produce truly stunning results from digital sources.
There are, as John says, compromises to be made. However, there are great advantages too in digital (speed of results, ability and cost to click away hundreds of images easily - I took 80 this afternoon). That said, the digital era is a very very fast moving one, and the cost of equipment is high (not just the camera, but the computer, software, printer etc).
If I were you, I would scout around the 'net and local studios and photographers to see just what can be done either way. For some really good digital images start here: www.pbase.com/francist (Canon gear). And the new Pentax *istD is looking very promising too
Hope that helps (a little),
Matt
What you say about pixels and dimensions is technically correct, but in practice it's not that simple
The 300dpi is for photographic quality. That is to say, if you use that resolution you will produce a very fine quality and finely detailed image. Printing a 6x4 at 150dpi is acceptable on a home inkjet, but 75dpi will show the blocks.
However, if the image is larger - such that you have to step back from it - the resolution issue changes. To illustrate - the average advert poster is positively huge. However, if you stand 1m from the board you can see they have far, far less than even 75dpi! You really need to account for distance too.
It boils down to the resolving power of the human eye, which I think stands at 100lines per inch at 1 meter (stand to be corrected). If you need to stand at 2meters, then that halves to 50 lines per inch. (Well, that's the idea anyway.)
That being said, you can take a good digital image, enlarge it and filter out the "jaggies" so it does not look so "digital". There's much you can do.
I have seen some beautiful large scale prints from a local studio ( www.richardlemon.co.uk ) who, I believe, uses a Fuji S2. They said they'd held off digital until they realised they had been looking at the "wrong" printer. For physical prints it's not as cut-and-dry as traditional film... BTW, a really good local very-large format printing company is www.spectrumphoto.co.uk who can produce truly stunning results from digital sources.
There are, as John says, compromises to be made. However, there are great advantages too in digital (speed of results, ability and cost to click away hundreds of images easily - I took 80 this afternoon). That said, the digital era is a very very fast moving one, and the cost of equipment is high (not just the camera, but the computer, software, printer etc).
If I were you, I would scout around the 'net and local studios and photographers to see just what can be done either way. For some really good digital images start here: www.pbase.com/francist (Canon gear). And the new Pentax *istD is looking very promising too
Hope that helps (a little),
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Pentax 645n Vs Canon EOS 10D at 05/10/2003 - 20:19
Hot pixels occur because of current leakage in the CCD, ie electrical noise larger than signals created by the image. It is very temperature dependent too
You will also find that ISO rating will affect it, as does shutter speed. As a rule of thumb, the colder it is, the faster the shutter speed, and the lower the ISO rating the lower the probability of hot pixels (and indeed noise). Conversely, the worst situation would be: ISO3200 on a hot day with a long shutter speed (and no in-camera sharpening).
Hope that helps
Matt