Nikon D70 Dead Pixel Test - anyone interested in comparing results?

Hi all..

Just out of interest I tried the dead pixel software on my Nikon D70 (thanks
Rich)
http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm


I am interested in hearing others results to see how consistent they are
across brand/camera models.


My methodology.
Camera with lens cap and shot in the dark. 3 exposures all shot on RAW, all
at 200 asa at F3.5 then opened in Photoshop CS2 and converted and saved to
TIFF with no compression. Opened dead pixel software and ran tests of each
file.

1. 1.5 seconds
2. .5 seconds
3. 1/15th second



Results
Dead Pixels 0

Hot pixels
1. 5
2. 273
3. 393

 

Not likely many would be too interested as the two major
DSLR companies don't have pixel mapping. Sad.

 

Why bother when it's automatic and/or trivial to fix in post-processing. It
seems the only sad one is you.
Greg

 

Yes, it's "trivial" when you have to use software to fix it, or sensor
dust spots, but all of a sudden, it's a huge chore to remove noise
from an image. You Canon hacks couldn't be any more transparent if
you tried.
-Rich

 

I thought you said two major DSLR companies?

And why are you bringing up dust spots? Dust spots and hot pixels are two
entirely different issues. Or does your peabrain not realize that? Its not
a huge chore to remove hot pixels, nice throwing in the dust spots so you
could say "it's a huge chore to remove noise".

Greg

 

All picture "clean-up" operations require some effort, but if it's
required with Canon gear, it's "trivial" right?
With the ability to take hundreds of shots in a short space of time
with digital, and you have to work with a fair number of them, it
ceases to become trivial when you consider any step in
post-processing.
-Rich

 

All "DSLR companies" have pixel mapping. Some choose not to make the
function user-accessible, which I think is a bad decision.

David

 

True.

 

Rich blithers on:

Well, Rich, if you actually owned a camera, you would realize just how
stupid you actually sound.

Hint: only a nutbar like you would go and heavily process "hundreds"
of images. Everyone else selects and then processes, in detail, the
few images worth the trouble.

 

Why not compare the colour schemes across brand/camera models?

Or the phase of the Moon on the latest birthday of the purchaser?

The serial numbers on any currency in their pockets at the time?

The arithmetic sum of all the roulette wheels plays at the Stratosphere
+- 1 hour of the instant you conducted your tests?

 

True what?

Greg

 

The pro magazines are always on about the need for efficient
"workflow." Obviously, having to deal with dust and stray lit
pixels is something that does take time to deal with.
Given the choice, to be able to get rid of them from the image
before it exits the camera, wouldn't you choose to do that?
-Rich

 

I apologise. I do try to remember that English is not everyone's first
language.

It would be interesting to see results across a range of D70 cameras to see
how consistent the quality control is in regard to the sensor. Comparing
results across other brands would provide a direct comparison of the quality
control and consistency of that manufacturer.

If you still having a problem comprehending why this may be useful, ask your
teacher or a parent.

Cheers
Steve

 

Snip>

Why don't we compare the number of useful posts you have made against those
where the net contribution of your intellect is equal to ?273.15 °C?

Or perhaps we could compare the number of people who after meeting you in
person would leave their children in the same room as you unsupervised.


It's so incredibly easy to deconstruct isn't it? Takes no courage or effort.


Show me a post within this newsgroup where you have actually helped the
original message poster with their query.

 

I'm sure it would be interesting, but at the temperatures these cameras
are used manufacturing issues aren't particularly noticable.

That is to say, nitwit, you are looking at thermal statistics. You
know, like, random numbers? Shit, didn't I say that already? Maybe
you missed the messsage. But how could you? You responded to it!

Didn't you even wonder why they were called "hot"?

Even the finest made sensor is going to show "hot pixels" unless you
want to carry around a dewar of liquid nitrogen as you collect your
holiday snaps.

You: "Stand still, granma, I need about 2 minutes of exposure for this
one! Once I complete the thermal link from the LN2 to the sensor
package...."

Granma: "What the **** is the matter with you anyways? Why not turn
on the light? Use a flash? I can't see a damn thing in here!"

Note that even if none of the above was true, there is still that final
point that should a camera (somehow) possess _thousands_ of "hot
pixels", removing them is a fairly trivial process given appropriate
software. This is unlike almost all other optical degradations.

I suggest you pick your cameras based on some other criteria. How
about user-interface? No one seems to care much about that, yet it is
probably the most important facet -- past basic infrastructural
engineering competence -- of a camera after the initial "I got a
digital camera" euphoria wears off. There is _MUCH_ to complain about
in that department, for all camera manufacturers.

 

Pick and choose, pick and choose. Are these the same magazines you
criticize for being too Canon oriented?

It's piffle. Why not complain about the colour of the camera? Or,
perhaps relevant to you, the price?

No, for the same reason why I don't want the camera taking the square
root of all pixel values.

Why don't you just buy a camera and learn why these are the answers to
your questions? Even you will start to sound cogent once you gain some
experience.

 

Wow..sounds like you are losing your cool...all that testosterone coursing
through your undeveloped body isn't good for anyone is it now?


And what about dead pixels little man? Subject to thermal statistics are
they? Didn't you even wonder why they were called "dead"? (don't worry it's
a rhetorical question)



My bet is that you are either:

a) Grossly overweight
b) Small penis
c) unattractive
d) lonely
e) all of the above

In an effort to mitigate against the above factors you try to make yourself
seem intellectually superior to others.

Am I right little man? am i right?

;D

 

Are we talking about me or you now? First you are blathering about a
test. I point out it won't do much more than measure the temperature
of the camera under test, and now you start crying, reduced to
infantile distractions.

Poor baby made a fool of himself in public. Awwwwwww!!

Advice: we all make mistakes; admit your error (if only to yourself)
and move on. Failure to do so makes puts you into the same class as
"Rich", "Douglas", and other negatively intelligent bimbos. Is this
really what you want?

 

heh heh heh...thank you little man..