D2H problem

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Jack, Mar 4, 2005.

  1. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Hi
    I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
    Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

    Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead of
    black.
    Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
    aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
    red/magenta flavour.
    Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

    Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

    Thanks
     
    Jack, Mar 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jack

    Guest

    Jack <> wrote:
    > Hi
    > I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
    > Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.


    > Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead of
    > black.
    > Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
    > aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
    > red/magenta flavour.
    > Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.


    > Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?


    The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
    in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
    mirror filter. See
    http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_18_19.htm.

    Andrew.
     
    , Mar 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jack

    Jack Guest

    But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start importing
    Infrared light.

    How come?


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jack <> wrote:
    > > Hi
    > > I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
    > > Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

    >
    > > Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead

    of
    > > black.
    > > Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
    > > aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
    > > red/magenta flavour.
    > > Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

    >
    > > Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

    >
    > The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
    > in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
    > mirror filter. See
    > http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_18_19.htm.
    >
    > Andrew.
     
    Jack, Mar 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Jack

    Guest

    Jack <> wrote:
    > But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start importing
    > Infrared light.


    All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.

    There's an article at
    http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
    that explains the issue.

    Andrew.


    > How come?





    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jack <> wrote:
    >> > Hi
    >> > I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
    >> > Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.

    >>
    >> > Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors instead

    > of
    >> > black.
    >> > Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
    >> > aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
    >> > red/magenta flavour.
    >> > Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with this.

    >>
    >> > Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?

    >>
    >> The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
    >> in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
    >> mirror filter. See
    >> http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_18_19.htm.
    >>
    >> Andrew.
     
    , Mar 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Jack

    Jack Guest

    I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
    black, as they should be, I get even more noise.


    Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into the
    camera processor chip.
    After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

    One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
    "see" colors the human eye can see.

    J


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jack <> wrote:
    > > But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start

    importing
    > > Infrared light.

    >
    > All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.
    >
    > There's an article at
    > http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
    > that explains the issue.
    >
    > Andrew.
    >
    >
    > > How come?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Jack <> wrote:
    > >> > Hi
    > >> > I have a serious color problem with my Nikon D2H camera.
    > >> > Apperantly this problem also exsists in the D70.
    > >>
    > >> > Shooting black artificial shiny silk generates aubergine colors

    instead
    > > of
    > >> > black.
    > >> > Tried it with the D100, colors are black with the faintest touch of
    > >> > aubergine. But the D2H is imposable, lovely black silk with a strong
    > >> > red/magenta flavour.
    > >> > Apperantly the old Nikon D1 digital cameras have no problem with

    this.
    > >>
    > >> > Any solutions, or is this the way all new Nikon cameras work?
    > >>
    > >> The camer has a fairly strong near IR response. This is a good thing
    > >> in many cases because it helps to reduce noise, but you need a hot
    > >> mirror filter. See
    > >> http://www.tiffen.com/Filter_&_Lens_Brochure/BFILT_18_19.htm.
    > >>
    > >> Andrew.

    >
    >
     
    Jack, Mar 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Jack

    Guest

    Jack <> wrote:
    > I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
    > black, as they should be, I get even more noise.


    > Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into the
    > camera processor chip.


    How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
    think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
    then you haven't read the article carefully enough.

    > After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.


    Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.

    > One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
    > "see" colors the human eye can see.


    I don't understand your point.

    Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
    accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
    colour noise?

    And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
    you believe others should also pay it?

    Andrew.

    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jack <> wrote:
    >> > But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start

    > importing
    >> > Infrared light.

    >>
    >> All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.
    >>
    >> There's an article at
    >> http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
    >> that explains the issue.
     
    , Mar 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Well, I'm saying that ALL cameras that are designed for people photography,
    as against specialist photography, should record colors the way the eye sees
    it. Canon and Fuji have managed it. Digital users should be nor worse off
    then film users.



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jack <> wrote:
    > > I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
    > > black, as they should be, I get even more noise.

    >
    > > Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into

    the
    > > camera processor chip.

    >
    > How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
    > think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
    > then you haven't read the article carefully enough.
    >
    > > After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

    >
    > Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.
    >
    > > One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
    > > "see" colors the human eye can see.

    >
    > I don't understand your point.
    >
    > Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
    > accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
    > colour noise?
    >
    > And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
    > you believe others should also pay it?
    >
    > Andrew.
    >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Jack <> wrote:
    > >> > But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start

    > > importing
    > >> > Infrared light.
    > >>
    > >> All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.
    > >>
    > >> There's an article at
    > >> http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
    > >> that explains the issue.
     
    Jack, Mar 7, 2005
    #7
  8. Jack

    Guest

    Jack <> wrote:

    > Well, I'm saying that ALL cameras that are designed for people
    > photography, as against specialist photography, should record colors
    > the way the eye sees it.


    Well, no-one has ever done so, mostly because performance would be
    worse in other ways.

    > Canon and Fuji have managed it.


    No they haven't. They *all* have substantial deviations from the
    colour response of the eye.

    > Digital users should be nor worse off then film users.


    It's pretty well known that the D2h sensor is still oversensitive to
    near IR light, making the use of an optical filter a must when
    shooting under IR-heavy illumination. But photogrphers have been
    using filters for UV for many years because of anaomalous UV response
    in film. It's no different.

    Andrew.


    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Jack <> wrote:
    >> > I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them true
    >> > black, as they should be, I get even more noise.

    >>
    >> > Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go into

    > the
    >> > camera processor chip.

    >>
    >> How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
    >> think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
    >> then you haven't read the article carefully enough.
    >>
    >> > After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.

    >>
    >> Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.
    >>
    >> > One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it to
    >> > "see" colors the human eye can see.

    >>
    >> I don't understand your point.
    >>
    >> Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
    >> accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
    >> colour noise?
    >>
    >> And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
    >> you believe others should also pay it?
    >>
    >> Andrew.
    >>
    >> > <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> Jack <> wrote:
    >> >> > But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
    >> > importing
    >> >> > Infrared light.
    >> >>
    >> >> All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.
    >> >>
    >> >> There's an article at
    >> >> http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
    >> >> that explains the issue.
     
    , Mar 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Thank god the camera store have refunded my money.
    I'm using the D100 which still has "good" colors.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jack <> wrote:
    >
    > > Well, I'm saying that ALL cameras that are designed for people
    > > photography, as against specialist photography, should record colors
    > > the way the eye sees it.

    >
    > Well, no-one has ever done so, mostly because performance would be
    > worse in other ways.
    >
    > > Canon and Fuji have managed it.

    >
    > No they haven't. They *all* have substantial deviations from the
    > colour response of the eye.
    >
    > > Digital users should be nor worse off then film users.

    >
    > It's pretty well known that the D2h sensor is still oversensitive to
    > near IR light, making the use of an optical filter a must when
    > shooting under IR-heavy illumination. But photogrphers have been
    > using filters for UV for many years because of anaomalous UV response
    > in film. It's no different.
    >
    > Andrew.
    >
    >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Jack <> wrote:
    > >> > I have noticed that when I desaturate my "bad" colors to make them

    true
    > >> > black, as they should be, I get even more noise.
    > >>
    > >> > Mind you all the details from the article you refer to, should go

    into
    > > the
    > >> > camera processor chip.
    > >>
    > >> How should the details "go into" the camera processor chip? If you
    > >> think the problem as described in the article can be simply fixed,
    > >> then you haven't read the article carefully enough.
    > >>
    > >> > After all, they managed to get the Film technology right.
    > >>
    > >> Colour film is not photometrically accurate either.
    > >>
    > >> > One shouldn't have to buy a filter for a $2000+ camera, to enable it

    to
    > >> > "see" colors the human eye can see.
    > >>
    > >> I don't understand your point.
    > >>
    > >> Are you saying that digital cameras should be photometrically
    > >> accurate? Even if that significantly reduces sensitivity or worsens
    > >> colour noise?
    > >>
    > >> And even if that is a penalty you personally are prepared to pay, do
    > >> you believe others should also pay it?
    > >>
    > >> Andrew.
    > >>
    > >> > <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> >> Jack <> wrote:
    > >> >> > But Canon and Fuji seem to cope with noise without having to start
    > >> > importing
    > >> >> > Infrared light.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> All digital cameras have some response in the near IR.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> There's an article at
    > >> >>

    http://www.betterlight.com/pdf/whitePaper/wp_color_accurate_photo.pdf
    > >> >> that explains the issue.

    >
    >
     
    Jack, Mar 15, 2005
    #9
    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. map

    D2H

    map, Jan 19, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    566
    nick c
    Jan 22, 2005
  2. Rox-off

    Nikon D2H

    Rox-off, Aug 31, 2005, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    268
    Robert Brace
    Aug 31, 2005
  3. Pablo 3style
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    241
    Bronek Kozicki
    Jan 4, 2006
  4. DD

    Nikon D2h - pass or go?

    DD, Jun 20, 2006, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    260
    tomm42
    Jun 20, 2006
  5. DD

    Decided to go for the D2H

    DD, Jun 22, 2006, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    241
Loading...

Share This Page