MK II image issues...

[Joytek]

I have five grand in my pocket.....I was waiting for the 1D mk II to be available. Now that it is I have found some major issues with the image quality, that my 10d does not exhibit. Has no one else noticed them.

I looked at all the test shots I could find and found that there are some sort of zig-zag like patterns visible on what should be a staright line. You can see it on these test shots.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/1d_mark2/samples/gr3b0621_cr2.jpg

Look at the entrence under the blue sign.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/1d_mark2/samples/gr3b0637_cr2.jpg

look at the vertical bricks under the windows and the border on the 25 speed limit sign

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1dmkii_samples/originals/gr2o0116-raw.jpg

The mesh grids seem to display a lot of moire or some such thing (look at the grid under the "car"

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos1dmkii_samples/originals/gr2o3964-raw.jpg

look at the bricks on the house over the guy in the white baseball cap....they look as if there is a LOT of moire going on.


These pictures are really crapp....but that is what you would expect from them mesurebators :-) ....however they are good enough to see some sort of problem with the 1d mkII's photo quality

Don't get me wrong, I own a 10d and am very impressed with the quality I get from it, but as much as I have been anticipating the arrival of the 1d mkII, it seems to be a dud (as far as the image quality is concerned).

I am waiting for the release of the 1ds mkII and hoping that the quality will be as good as the previous 1ds. Another 2 months of saving money for that, will be tough, but it may be worth while. I hope.

w.

[Belmondo]

It's at times like this when I feel like a real bonehead. I look at those images and think they're really pretty good. I guess I don't know enough about what constitutes a good image to look at those shots and see the defects the poster sees. I doubt I will ever be influenced by these limitations.

[timmyquest]

It's at times like this when I feel like a real bonehead. I look at those images and think they're really pretty good. I guess I don't know enough about what constitutes a good image to look at those shots and see the defects the poster sees. I doubt I will ever be influenced by these limitations.

I look at them and think "what in gods name is he talking about?"

in all honesty...

[iwatkins]

They are all JPEGs which means at some point they have been compressed.

Go look at a RAW file from the camera, then decide. :)

Cheers

Ian

[roppelt]

Takes a big hit off a joint... Oh yea I see it now, Dude :lol:
the pic's look great to me .

[Joytek]

look at the enterence under the blue sign (first pic link) and tell me that you see nothing. The horizontal lines are all zig-zagy and THAT is what I am talking about.

w.

[tommykjensen]

look at the enterence under the blue sign (first pic link) and tell me that you see nothing. The horizontal lines are all zig-zagy and THAT is what I am talking about.

w.

Did You miss this


They are all JPEGs which means at some point they have been compressed.

Go look at a RAW file from the camera, then decide.

Obviously that camera is not for You then.

[Joytek]

I wish I could take a huge toke.....but since I am in South Korea I can't.....this country really has something about weed. It sucks.

w.

[Andy_T]

Obviously your eyes are much better than mine and/or your standards are higher.

Or maybe I should just throw that old 19" CRT monitor on the junk and get a 22" version...

Really, I can't see any problems. Are you looking at enlarged 100% crops?

Best regards,
Andy

[timmyquest]

look at the enterence under the blue sign (first pic link) and tell me that you see nothing. The horizontal lines are all zig-zagy and THAT is what I am talking about.

w.

Text deleted by MODERATOR

[Joytek]

I am looking at this all on a samsung CX 171 TM (calibrated by Panatone spyder and optical 3.7 prog)

My eyes are 20/20 so there aint no prob. It is not about eyesight. The zig-zag lines are visible even if you don't have a good screen.

Please tell me that someone is seeing them too.

w.

[Joytek]

Text deleted by moderator

[timmyquest]

text deleted by moderator

[Belmondo]

Please explain.

[neil_r]

I have got to agree with TQ here, lines look fine ful size. Also I have a MkII and have seen no evidence of the problem you allude to.

N

[Cadenza]

It's a crappy image all right: boring composition;
wrong white balance; harsh contrasts and overblown
highlights. But it's not the camera's fault, it's just
an ordinary shot.

[Cadenza]

That said, I am a bit surprised at the level of
noise in this image, shot at ISO 100 on an MKII.

Don't see the zigzag, but if you zoom in into the
shadow, to 100% or 200% (OK, so I'm pixel
peeping...), and the gold window lettering
"RESTAURANT & BAR", the bricks, the painted
grey beams and tiled pilar, it all looks pretty noisy.

Probably not an issue at printing resolutions, but
visible nevertheless at a 100% crop on the
monitor.

[AdolfMack]

I can see the jagged lines in the first one but in the last one i see nothing, except thet is oversharpened.

[Andy_T]

Maybe you could just explain to us how you looked at the photographs.

- Just looked at them in IE ?
- Downloaded and opened in PS, zoomed in to 100%/200%/.. ?
- or else ???

There seems to be some difference in perception between you and everybody else here.

Best regards,
Andy

[Big_B]

For what its worth I can see the jagged lines you are alluding to. It looks to me like they are as a result of the monitor display or jpeg compression rather then the camera. Honestly I really wouldn't worry about it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Behavior people!

There is no need for insults in a discussion of the "jaggies"

This forum will not tolerate such anymosity.

Warnings have been given.

CDS

[jboyd]

I see the jagged lines if I look at the photos when they are resized to fit my screen. If I click on them to view them full size, they look fine. Compressing the image to view the full image in a small screen will give those "lines." When it is viewed full size, like I said, it is fine.

Jackie

[timmyquest]

Behavior people!

There is no need for insults in a discussion of the "jaggies"

This forum will not tolerate such anymosity.

Warnings have been given.

CDS

Yeah, this chump has had enough.

Good bye folks.

[SnJPhoto]

I don't get any "zig-zagy" stuff until about 300% oversized. I noticed that the file was done at 350 pixels per inch. Any idea what other post processing was done?

Overall, it looks very typical of a good clean image to me.

Scott

[Belmondo]

It's at times like this when I feel like a real bonehead. I look at those images and think they're really pretty good. I guess I don't know enough about what constitutes a good image to look at those shots and see the defects the poster sees. I doubt I will ever be influenced by these limitations.

Since I posted that at the top of this thread, I'm starting to feel a lot better. Apparently I'm in the majority.

[Mills]

I must be blind.....

[jgbeam]

I went and watched the marathon while downloading those images on my 56K, thinking that I would be able to trade in the MkII and get a 10D plus about $3 grand in the deal. Imagine my disappointment when I was unable to find any image aberrations in those shots. :cry: Guess I'm stuck with this crappy old camera.

Jim

[ssim]

I can see some of this in the images but overall the images are fine. I think what you might be seeing is a moire effect which is common to digital images.

Suffice it to say that I won't be trading my 1D MKII any time soon.

[Joytek]

i just said chump but it has been erased.....

I am looking at the pic 100% and I see the zig-zaglines......I do not want to look like some bad guy, but I can see those zig-zagzag lines, what is the matter with the coordinator here......he seem way too sensitve......chump.....? that ain't no insult....really think about it.....is canon paying you for keeping this quiet?

sorry for this uproar.

please contact me at my private e-mail: joytek@hotmail.com

thanks

[Belmondo]

I don't know where you're from, but "Chump" is fightin' words around here. It's really considered quite derivsive, and I believe most people would agree that the only way it can be taken is as an insult.

You've just received the benefit of several Mk II users' experience. They are unanimous in their belief that the images to which you've posted the links are absolutely normal. Perhaps the Mk II is not a good match for you. We can't win them all.

[Joytek]

All I am saying is that when I look at the 1dII full size, they look kinda fishy to me. some of the straight lines look all zigzagy....that is not made up.....I really am cravyn for a new cam.....but the 1d seems to be having probs.......really no insult meant......just saying that I see a serious prob with it now. Still waiting till the 1ds mkII is out.

w.

[Joytek]

I have the five grand to spend on a 1D but it seems that ain't worth while ....the pics that I have seen are not as good as my 10d .....there is some mayor probs with it......the lines that are meant to be straght are zigzagy.....what it means I don't know, but it is enough to discourage me from buying the 1D mkII unntil the the 1ds comes out.

w.

[Pekka]

What you see is antialiasing which always happens when there is more detail in target than in pixel matrix digital photos are made for. Sharpening can build jaggies from aliased lines, high quality sharpening algorithms will not accentuate the problem.

You do know digital photos are essentially RGB matrixes of X*Y pixels, right? So, it can not represent a smooth slanted line because it is a matrix. The matrix can be bigger (more megapixels) but the slanted line can not ever be smooth. That would require an analog image.

Here you have a line on black and white image (AA is only possible in color or grayscale).

http://photography-on-the.net/stuff/line.gif

Then the same line antialiased.

http://photography-on-the.net/stuff/line_aliased.gif

This is what happens in digital images. Antialiasing has been agreed to give more pleasing output, so it is used in order to "fake" people to forget the matrix. There are better ways to do it and worse ways. With RAW you can choose your tools.

Every digital camera and every digital image file has it. If you zoom in over 100% you will always see it.

Varying AA you get either one: either very much jaggyness and very sharp looking image (1D). Or little jaggyness and softer looking image (Mark II). But jaggyness can not be removed completely.

Mark II RAW images are of the best quality. Jaggyness is not a problem. Trust my here.

[Joytek]

i don midethe resposes, i'm just saying the lines are there..... I don't want them.... I have 5 grand to spend for the 1d mk II.
the zigzagline are really there.

post some pic where I can see them, them I will agree...


w.

[defordphoto]

Another thing to remember too is that you're looking at these on a video monitor and that can also create or amplify the jaggies, moire and other defects.

I'd ignore the JPEGs. But, for the RAW photos, print them out. Do not rely on your monitor. Your monitor is the absolute weakest point when viewing digital photos.

Do we know what lenses were used in these shots?

I cruise the forums quite a bit and have not seen/heard of any of these issues with the MKII. However, all digitial cameras will be subject to some moire. Some are worse than others. And there are some great tools out there to resolve those problems when the crop up in post-processing.

The MKII is one of, if not the finest, digital SLR cameras on the planet. 99% of all sports photos, Olympic photos, motosports photos and election photos are from the MKII. If these were issues I'd sure think we would have heard of them some time ago.

I see the problem you're referring to on the JPEG photos and I see some CA around that 25mph sign, but I just can't see the other issues. Maybe I need to download them and magnify, but I rarely do that as that will make almost any digital photo look pretty bad.

[Pekka]

If you can see them in 100% size then I suspect that your monitor is 42" or you are not viewing them 100% (where pixel in image = pixel on screen).

Open http://www.photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/markIIfiles/HV8O9890.jpg

See the ropes on air? Are they jaggy at 100% view?

[JZaun]

I'm gonna put in my 2 cents worth. Its a shame to see folks that are supposed to be friendly get in to a contest.. Now having said that,,,,

When I first viewed the pic's above I thought wow what trash. Straight lines were zig zaggy and lots of distortion. It looked like mine do when I sharpen too much :) I don't know if that is how the poster was viewing them or not but when I enlarged the pic I said WOW again,, what fab pic's, sharp clear and excellent detail. I would take them anyday!!! Now if my 20D will get close to that I will be extreamly happy :D

JZ

[defordphoto]

Ignore the peanut gallery, Jerry. ;)

Anyway, there are so many variables playing here and I'd never decide on a $4,500 purchase from viewing a pic on a computer monitor at 90dpi anyway.

That being said, we have all seen some funky looking picture from all the different digital cameras out there from the Drebel to the 10Ds, to Nikon's top-of-the-line cameras.