Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Dec 9, 11:29 am, "G Paleologopoulos" <>
    wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrotenews:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > Now this is one odd looking problem. Notice the black blocks that
    > > appear to the right of the lights in this shot? Anyone know what this
    > > is? (not my shot). Apparently, this is showing up in the new 5D II.

    >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30287334

    >
    > I see a lot of specular internal reflection from the lens, if that's what
    > you're talking about.
    > Very difficult subject.


    No, actual black spots (smaller than the images of the lights) on the
    right hand side of each light image. More visible on the lights in
    the middle and on the right of the image.
     
    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    G Paleologopoulos wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Now this is one odd looking problem. Notice the black blocks that
    >> appear to the right of the lights in this shot? Anyone know what this
    >> is? (not my shot). Apparently, this is showing up in the new 5D II.
    >>
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30287334

    >
    > I see a lot of specular internal reflection from the lens, if that's
    > what you're talking about.
    > Very difficult subject.


    The strange thing is square highlights on the x-mas lights. It looks to
    me like the 85/1.2L's even-counted non-rounded 8 aperture blades are
    doing funny things and that causes the black spots. It is a challenging
    scene.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 9, 2008
    #3
  4. RichA

    Colin.D Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > Now this is one odd looking problem. Notice the black blocks that
    > appear to the right of the lights in this shot? Anyone know what this
    > is? (not my shot). Apparently, this is showing up in the new 5D II.
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30287334


    This effect may be present in other cameras as well, but just not
    discovered yet.

    It looks to me like the saturated highlights are causing linearity
    problems in the pixel amplifiers, depressing the following pixels
    towards black until the amplifiers recover a few pixels later.

    If so, I think this is a major, as I believe the amplifiers are part of
    the CMOS sensor design.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Dec 9, 2008
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Dec 9, 4:52 pm, "Larry Thong" <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > Now this is one odd looking problem. Notice the black blocks that
    > > appear to the right of the lights in this shot? Anyone know what this
    > > is? (not my shot). Apparently, this is showing up in the new 5D II.

    >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30287334

    >
    > I would suspect this is a bad lens! The square lights are a dead giveaway.
    > Canon's 85/1.2L II is still considered a piece of shit. Not sure why Canon
    > persists in using 8-blades instead of nine? I would suspect if he puts an
    > 85/1.4 Nikkor on the 5D2 the shot would be sweet with round lights and no
    > black spots.


    That is, if it didn't appear with other lenses, which it does.
    Interesting effect, whatever the cause.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30276248
     
    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II really isn't aproblem.

    On Dec 9, 6:09 pm, "Larry Thong" <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > >> I would suspect this is a bad lens! The square lights are a dead
    > >> giveaway. Canon's 85/1.2L II is still considered a piece of shit.
    > >> Not sure why Canon persists in using 8-blades instead of nine? I
    > >> would suspect if he puts an 85/1.4 Nikkor on the 5D2 the shot would
    > >> be sweet with round lights and no black spots.

    >
    > > That is, if it didn't appear with other lenses, which it does.
    > > Interesting effect, whatever the cause.

    >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30276248

    >
    > Let's see, some idiots that have too much time on their hands pixel peep at
    > 200% looking for problems, any problems, find an anomaly and now it is going
    > to be parroted over the internet for all the other idiots to get this
    > problem by osmosis. This non-issue will be fixed in the first of many
    > firmware updates to come down the pike. For Christ's sake the 5D2 is a
    > $3,000 powerhouse and a bargain. Some people just don't deserve the 5D2.


    When did you buy one?
     
    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Dec 9, 4:39 pm, "G Paleologopoulos" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrotenews:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 9, 11:29 am, "G Paleologopoulos" <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> "RichA" <>
    > >> wrotenews:...

    >
    > >> > Now this is one odd looking problem. Notice the black blocks that
    > >> > appear to the right of the lights in this shot? Anyone know what this
    > >> > is? (not my shot). Apparently, this is showing up in the new 5D II.

    >
    > >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30287334

    >
    > >> I see a lot of specular internal reflection from the lens, if that's what
    > >> you're talking about.
    > >> Very difficult subject.

    >
    > > No, actual black spots (smaller than the images of the lights) on the
    > > right hand side of each light image. More visible on the lights in
    > > the middle and on the right of the image.

    >
    > Zoomed-in and saw what you meant.
    > To me, the spots look like a suppression of some sort because if you look
    > very closely they flare up and down, giving the overall impression that some
    > kind of ghosting was inaccurately suppressed. Sure, I make a lot of
    > sense............:cool:)


    Check this out:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30277522
     
    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Dec 9, 6:47 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > On Dec 9, 4:39 pm, "G Paleologopoulos" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "RichA" <> wrotenews:...

    >
    > > > On Dec 9, 11:29 am, "G Paleologopoulos" <>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >> "RichA" <>
    > > >> wrotenews:...

    >
    > > >> > Now this is one odd looking problem. Notice the black blocks that
    > > >> > appear to the right of the lights in this shot? Anyone know what this
    > > >> > is? (not my shot). Apparently, this is showing up in the new 5D II.

    >
    > > >> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30287334

    >
    > > >> I see a lot of specular internal reflection from the lens, if that's what
    > > >> you're talking about.
    > > >> Very difficult subject.

    >
    > > > No, actual black spots (smaller than the images of the lights) on the
    > > > right hand side of each light image. More visible on the lights in
    > > > the middle and on the right of the image.

    >
    > > Zoomed-in and saw what you meant.
    > > To me, the spots look like a suppression of some sort because if you look
    > > very closely they flare up and down, giving the overall impression that some
    > > kind of ghosting was inaccurately suppressed. Sure, I make a lot of
    > > sense............:cool:)

    >
    > Check this out:
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30277522


    Still more, hardly pixel-peeping in that first shot. This is a real
    issue.

    http://www.andrewyip.com/blog/2008/12/09/black-dots-in-5d-mark-ii-images
     
    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
    #8
  9. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:22:10 +0200, G Paleologopoulos wrote:

    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote
    > news:...
    >>
    >> G Paleologopoulos wrote:
    >>> "RichA" <> wrote

    >>...............................
    >> .................................
    >> Please use plain text in postings, not HTML.

    >
    >
    > I thought I did [[confused]]
    > Sorry.


    No need to apologize. Sometimes replies contain plain text and an
    HTML copy of same. My newsreader is configured to display the text
    and represent the HTML portion with an icon which can be expanded
    into text if desired. I checked all three of your replies in this
    thread (including the one Alan replied to) and none showed any HTML
    or an HTML icon. If you read enough of his replies you'll see that
    he is extremely quick to criticize others. Alan's request for you
    to stop using HTML may be due to an accidentally triggered knee-jerk
    reflex, or possibly due to his computer being infected by a virus.

    Or maybe my computer has been infected and the virus is stripping
    HTML out of newsgroup articles. Maybe some others will describe
    what they saw in your message that supposedly contains HTML. :)
     
    ASAAR, Dec 10, 2008
    #9
  10. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Richard J Kinch wrote:
    > writes:
    >
    >> The problem is almost certainly a problem on the chip itself involving
    >> overloaded pixels and the way the amplifiers work.

    >
    > That sort of overloading is what causes afterimages.
    > So the behavior could still involve a delay effect that showed up from
    > slight camera motions. You overload certain pixels with this type of
    > pinpoint lighting scene, and then camera shakes a few pixels one way or the
    > other when you snap the shutter. But this would require live view mode
    > since the sensor presumably isn't pre-exposed otherwise.


    I've seen multiple examples with the black dot on the right. It does
    seem to be a sensor reading/processing issue not optical as I'd thought.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2008
    #10
  11. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:01:59 +0000, savvo wrote:

    >> Or maybe my computer has been infected and the virus is stripping
    >> HTML out of newsgroup articles.

    >
    > What a wonderfully benign virus that would be, perhaps while writing v2
    > the author could add a feature to fix all the unfollowable top-posted
    > email and usenet conversations.


    Suggestion forwarded to author. You've just been nominated for a
    MacArthur Grant.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 11, 2008
    #11
  12. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Allen Smithee wrote:
    > Allen Smithee wrote
    > > Colin.D wrote
    >>
    >>> It looks to me like the saturated highlights are causing linearity
    >>> problems in the pixel amplifiers, depressing the following pixels
    >>> towards black until the amplifiers recover a few pixels later.
    >>>
    >>> If so, I think this is a major, as I believe the amplifiers are part
    >>> of the CMOS sensor design.

    >
    >> Whoosh! That went straight over my head. But, for the bit I
    >> understood, I too was thinking that maybe it's linked to small
    >> saturated highlights.

    >
    >
    > Sorry, meant to say "small OVER-saturated highlights". Maybe the camera
    > thinks they are defective pixels?


    My somewhat vague understanding:
    The charge is pulled off the sensor in one direction & CMOS chips do
    some processing at each pixel, Colin says it's amplifying (ISO
    adjustment). Turning off some processing options seemed to fix it in the
    dpr discussion, was that a shadows & highlights type curve, something
    applied to the raw file (probably not)?

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > savvo wrote:
    >
    >> Completely mark-up free. Perhaps Alan needs to describe what he sees? Or
    >> fix his "newsreader".

    >
    > Nothing wrong with my newsreader. I see html (or other rich font
    > effects from usenet posts) about twice per year. The problem is the
    > poster's settings on his newsreader.


    That's certainly just cause to jump down someone's throat, then, isn't
    it, Mr. Ambassador??

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 11, 2008
    #13
  14. RichA

    Paul Arthur Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On 2008-12-11, Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > savvo wrote:
    >
    >> Completely mark-up free. Perhaps Alan needs to describe what he sees? Or
    >> fix his "newsreader".

    >
    > Nothing wrong with my newsreader. I see html (or other rich font
    > effects from usenet posts) about twice per year. The problem is the
    > poster's settings on his newsreader.


    No, it's not. His post did not contain HTML, ergo if you saw HTML your
    newsreader is broken.
     
    Paul Arthur, Dec 11, 2008
    #14
  15. RichA

    Paul Arthur Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On 2008-12-11, Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Paul Arthur wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-12-11, Alan Browne <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> savvo wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Completely mark-up free. Perhaps Alan needs to describe what he
    >>>> sees? Or fix his "newsreader".
    >>>
    >>> Nothing wrong with my newsreader. I see html (or other rich font
    >>> effects from usenet posts) about twice per year. The problem is
    >>> the poster's settings on his newsreader.

    >>
    >> No, it's not. His post did not contain HTML, ergo if you saw HTML
    >> your newsreader is broken.

    >
    > What it contained was indeed not html but "style" tags (whatever the
    > term is). This was sourced in his post. Should not have been. Again,
    > I rarely see anything but plain text.


    I repeat: his post was plain text. Anything you saw that didn't look
    like plain text was produced by your newsreader.

    --
    I had my doubts as to whether this was actually God speaking, but
    when He said "Slackware rules" I could tell that it really was Him...
    --Guy Macon
     
    Paul Arthur, Dec 12, 2008
    #15
  16. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:09 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

    >> No, it's not. His post did not contain HTML, ergo if you saw HTML your
    >> newsreader is broken.

    >
    > What it contained was indeed not html but "style" tags (whatever the
    > term is). This was sourced in his post. Should not have been. Again,
    > I rarely see anything but plain text.


    You rarely do anything but argue, even when you're wrong. Now
    you're changing what you "saw" from HTML to "style" tags.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2008
    #16
  17. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:09 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

    >> No, it's not. His post did not contain HTML, ergo if you saw HTML your
    >> newsreader is broken.

    >
    > What it contained was indeed not html but "style" tags (whatever the
    > term is). This was sourced in his post. Should not have been. Again,
    > I rarely see anything but plain text.


    You rarely do anything but argue, even when you're wrong. Now
    you're changing what you "saw" from HTML to "style" tags or
    whatever. Whether viewing the text from G Paleologopoulos's
    messages in raw mode or with a hex editor, there is nothing to be
    found but plain text. No HTML. No tags. No whatever.


    > The problem is the poster's settings on his newsreader.


    That does not appear to be the case. The last text appearing in
    the message was (not counting quotes and substituting "<CR>" and
    "<LF>" for the ASCII carriage return and linefeed characters) :

    > "Sure, I make a lot of sense............:cool:) <CR><LF><CR><LF>"


    Did the HTML or whatever precede this or follow it? Oh wait, you
    won't see this, since just like SMS, you use your KF to avoid having
    to face reality, or see anyone getting on your case when you're
    either wrong or obnoxious.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2008
    #17
  18. Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> savvo wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Completely mark-up free. Perhaps Alan needs to describe what he
    >>>> sees? Or
    >>>> fix his "newsreader".
    >>>
    >>> Nothing wrong with my newsreader. I see html (or other rich font
    >>> effects from usenet posts) about twice per year. The problem is the
    >>> poster's settings on his newsreader.

    >>
    >> That's certainly just cause to jump down someone's throat, then, isn't
    >> it, Mr. Ambassador??

    >
    > "" Please use plain text in postings, not HTML. "" is jumping down
    > someone's throat?



    You're right; I 'overspoke'. However, oh. well, nevermind. .....

    > What large prickly plant did your wife BF you with?


    Eeeewwww. If it's what I think you mean.

    "Homey don't play that"

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 12, 2008
    #18
  19. Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:09 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >>> No, it's not. His post did not contain HTML, ergo if you saw HTML your
    >>> newsreader is broken.

    >> What it contained was indeed not html but "style" tags (whatever the
    >> term is). This was sourced in his post. Should not have been. Again,
    >> I rarely see anything but plain text.

    >
    > You rarely do anything but argue, even when you're wrong. Now
    > you're changing what you "saw" from HTML to "style" tags or
    > whatever. Whether viewing the text from G Paleologopoulos's
    > messages in raw mode or with a hex editor, there is nothing to be
    > found but plain text. No HTML. No tags. No whatever.
    >
    >
    >> The problem is the poster's settings on his newsreader.

    >
    > That does not appear to be the case. The last text appearing in
    > the message was (not counting quotes and substituting "<CR>" and
    > "<LF>" for the ASCII carriage return and linefeed characters) :
    >
    >> "Sure, I make a lot of sense............:cool:) <CR><LF><CR><LF>"

    >
    > Did the HTML or whatever precede this or follow it? Oh wait, you
    > won't see this, since just like SMS, you use your KF to avoid having
    > to face reality, or see anyone getting on your case when you're
    > either wrong or obnoxious.
    >

    Check out my post up thread. There's a setting in the headers that some
    newsclients pick up and make the display different from plain plain text.

    I thought it was simply unwelcoming to have pointed it out, anyhow, I
    hope this is done.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 12, 2008
    #19
  20. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    Re: Canon's latest horror: Black pixels in 5D II

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:09:39 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

    >> Did the HTML or whatever precede this or follow it? Oh wait, you
    >> won't see this, since just like SMS, you use your KF to avoid having
    >> to face reality, or see anyone getting on your case when you're
    >> either wrong or obnoxious.

    >
    > Check out my post up thread. There's a setting in the headers that some
    > newsclients pick up and make the display different from plain plain text.


    I guess you're referring to

    > It's probably this line, inserted by OE:
    >
    > Text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1253"; reply-type=original


    You may be on to something there if it's that charset that you're
    referring to. But I noticed several odd things about this. One
    informative web page indicated that the windows-1253 encoding might
    be used, with a caveat :

    > In contexts like E-mail message headers and HTTP headers where
    > the encoding used should be announced, one could then in principle
    > use either iso-8859-7 or windows-1253. The former would refer to
    > an international standard and the latter to a code invented by a
    > software vendor. On the other hand, that vendor's products are
    > rather widely used, so announcing a document as windows-1253
    > encoded might be a more practical solution. But this suggestion
    > applies only to the information about encoding; the above
    > recommendation of not using "Windows specific" or otherwise
    > unsafe characters still applies.


    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/unicode/greek.html

    and on another web page there was the suggestion that the use of
    windows-1252 (2, not 3) should be avoided.


    http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t300384-disadvantages-of-using-windows1252-codepage.html


    Oddly, I noticed that code pages aren't constant, and I wouldn't
    expect people to frequently redefine the character sets used by
    their newsreaders. G Paleologopoulos uses OE, sometimes with
    windows-1252 and sometimes with windows-1253. Paul Furman uses
    Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) and his some of his replies
    use windows-1253 while others use the ISO-8859-1 charset. Alan uses
    the same version of Thunderbird as Paul, but for the Mac. and
    appears to use only ISO-8859-1, but when using a previous version
    (Thunderbird 1.0.6) switched between ISO-8859-1 and windows-1252.
    Perhaps the switching is due to having and using several installed
    newsreaders, each with slightly different configurations.


    > I thought it was simply unwelcoming to have pointed it out,
    > anyhow, I hope this is done.


    Some people see helpful advice as negative criticism, others
    don't. Trying to help is always a gamble, risking unintended
    offense, although with some it's no gamble - you know in advance
    that they'll probably take offense. Someone should write a song to
    help decide what to do, maybe ending with lines like those from The
    Gambler's* "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.
    Know when to walk away, know when to run."

    * lyrics attributed to Bobby Bare, Kenny Rogers, Don Schlitz and
    possibly others.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dave
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    drhowarddrfinedrhoward
    Mar 7, 2004
  2. huckfin1

    Square Pixels vs 0.9 DV pixels

    huckfin1, Mar 16, 2006, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    270
    huckfin1
    Mar 17, 2006
  3. booklover88

    How to change all the black pixels to grey pixels

    booklover88, May 4, 2008, in forum: Photoshop Tutorials
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    514
    editor27
    May 5, 2008
  4. notreallyme
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    295
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    378
    Better Info
    Apr 12, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page