 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 200520D banding and DNG Converter 3.1
JPS said that DNG Converter 3.1 takes the "bands" out of 20D images. I tried it out and it seems to work. Why/how? And since Adobe apparently knows how to fix 20D banding, why don't they do it in ACR?  SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >JPS said that DNG Converter 3.1 takes the "bands" out of 20D images. >I tried it out and it seems to work. Why/how? And since Adobe >apparently knows how to fix 20D banding, why don't they do it in ACR? They supposedly do, in ACR 3.1. It's supposed to be the same logic; line-by line blackpointing. Of course, they keep the RAW data at 12-bit, so small offsets up to a half RAW level, are still present. It doesn't seem that they do it vertically, only horizontally. A step in the right direction, anyway, and let's hope the other converters follow suit. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>JPS said that DNG Converter 3.1 takes the "bands" out of 20D images. >>I tried it out and it seems to work. Why/how? And since Adobe >>apparently knows how to fix 20D banding, why don't they do it in ACR? > > They supposedly do, in ACR 3.1. I see. Sigh. > It's supposed to be the same logic; > line-by line blackpointing. Of course, they keep the RAW data at > 12-bit, so small offsets up to a half RAW level, are still present. How's that? > It doesn't seem that they do it vertically, only horizontally. A step > in the right direction, anyway, and let's hope the other converters > follow suit. That's interesting. By far the most visible banding on my camera is vertical. But DNG Converter 3.1 still seems to help. Since the problem is addressible by software, I do not understand why Canon don't fix it in a firmware update. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >> It's supposed to be the same logic; >> line-by line blackpointing. Of course, they keep the RAW data at >> 12-bit, so small offsets up to a half RAW level, are still present. >How's that? The lines are not offset by integer numbers. >> It doesn't seem that they do it vertically, only horizontally. A step >> in the right direction, anyway, and let's hope the other converters >> follow suit. >That's interesting. By far the most visible banding on my camera is >vertical. But DNG Converter 3.1 still seems to help. >Since the problem is addressible by software, I do not understand >why Canon don't fix it in a firmware update. Canon denies a problem. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Since the problem is addressible by software, I do not understand >>why Canon don't fix it in a firmware update. > > Canon denies a problem. That's remarkable, given how easy it is to reproduce the problem. Do you have a pointer to any statement from Canon on the topic? Do they participate in any web bulletin boards or the like? SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >That's remarkable, given how easy it is to reproduce the problem. >Do you have a pointer to any statement from Canon on the topic? >Do they participate in any web bulletin boards or the like? No, but everyone on DPReview who sent their camera to Canon because of it got it back with no change. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>That's remarkable, given how easy it is to reproduce the problem. >>Do you have a pointer to any statement from Canon on the topic? >>Do they participate in any web bulletin boards or the like? > > No, but everyone on DPReview who sent their camera to Canon because of > it got it back with no change. About what one might expect. Perhaps the rise of ACR 3.1 will eventually embarrass Canon into action. I must say, this certainly puts arrows into the quiver of anyone out to criticize Canon. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > About what one might expect. Perhaps the rise of ACR 3.1 will > eventually embarrass Canon into action. I must say, this certainly > puts arrows into the quiver of anyone out to criticize Canon. What exactly is the black banding problem? (I have an XT) Thanks. >> About what one might expect. Perhaps the rise of ACR 3.1 will >> eventually embarrass Canon into action. I must say, this certainly >> puts arrows into the quiver of anyone out to criticize Canon. > > What exactly is the black banding problem? (I have an XT) In low-light or underexposed images, one can see bands of noise, especially in the less-exposed regions of the image. For example, look closely at the sky in this picture: http://narcissus.net/BAM-raw.jpg SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >About what one might expect. Perhaps the rise of ACR 3.1 will >eventually embarrass Canon into action. I must say, this certainly >puts arrows into the quiver of anyone out to criticize Canon. Canon is the Hare in the story of the Hare and the Tortoise. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>About what one might expect. Perhaps the rise of ACR 3.1 will >>eventually embarrass Canon into action. I must say, this certainly >>puts arrows into the quiver of anyone out to criticize Canon. > >Canon is the Hare in the story of the Hare and the Tortoise. Given sales figures, it looks like Kodak is the tortoise. -Rich >>>That's remarkable, given how easy it is to reproduce the problem. >>>Do you have a pointer to any statement from Canon on the topic? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > eventually embarrass Canon into action. I must say, this certainly > puts arrows into the quiver of anyone out to criticize Canon. Certainly the errors in Canon's fabled "L" series 24~70 f2.8 which are so easily corrected during conversion from RAW to an image file have alarmed some people. DxO fix the errors transparently and they are hugely noticeable between a corrected image on an uncorrected one. Canon's response when I returned the lens? "It has been tested and is within the manufacturing tolerance for that lens". I think replacing the cameras with newer models every couple of years is sweeping the problems away. When their lenses have faults too, some maker only has to come up with a decent camera body to match Nikon's lenses and we'll see a lot of former Nikonians heading back that way. SignatureDouglas... It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it. Now you can put your photos on it too! http://www.canvasphotos.com.au SNIP > Certainly the errors in Canon's fabled "L" series 24~70 f2.8 which > are so easily corrected during conversion from RAW to an image file > have alarmed some people. What errors are you referring to? I'm not saying that the lens (any lens, especially any zoom lens) is perfect, I'm just curious as to what you mean. > DxO fix the errors transparently and they are hugely noticeable > between a corrected image on an uncorrected one. Converting with DxO is one way of correcting residual lens aberrations, and Low-pass filter effects. Other methods are possible, if beneficial for the intended image use. Bart Here are three conversions of the same CR2 file. Single change from default: increase exposure to +1.95 Canon 20D 24-70 2.8L 70mm ISO 1600 1/200 sec @ f/3.2 PS CS ACR PS CS2 ACR Adobe DNG converter http://www.fototime.com/inv/C5A10FA74EEEE99 SignatureFrank ess >>JPS said that DNG Converter 3.1 takes the "bands" out of 20D images. >>I tried it out and it seems to work. Why/how? And since Adobe >>apparently knows how to fix 20D banding, why don't they do it in ACR? > > They supposedly do, in ACR 3.1. I see. Sigh. > It's supposed to be the same logic; > line-by line blackpointing. Of course, they keep the RAW data at > 12-bit, so small offsets up to a half RAW level, are still present. How's that? > It doesn't seem that they do it vertically, only horizontally. A step > in the right direction, anyway, and let's hope the other converters > follow suit. That's interesting. By far the most visible banding on my camera is vertical. But DNG Converter 3.1 still seems to help. Since the problem is addressible by software, I do not understand why Canon don't fix it in a firmware update. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > That's interesting. By far the most visible banding on my camera is > vertical. But DNG Converter 3.1 still seems to help. > > Since the problem is addressible by software, I do not understand > why Canon don't fix it in a firmware update. Probably the same reason olympus hasn't fixed the "problem" with the jpeg NR on the E300, they are ignoring it as being a problem. For most people it probably isn't? I've given up any hope of OM addressing this but I shoot RAW anyway, for me it was better they added MLU and worked on the exposure issues which they did fix! :-) SignatureStacey |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.