LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


5d mark II strange black dots?

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 04 Dec 2008 (Thursday) 20:21   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
jeev
Goldmember
jeev's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
1,548 posts
East side
[MORE/SHARE]

Has any one read this any comments or input from POTN memebrs having 5d2 in there hand?

http://photo.net ...gital-camera-forum/00RewZexternal link
http://forums.dpreview​.com ...rum=1032&message=30​222755external link

UPDATE:
Canon has resolved this issue with EOS 5D MarkII Firmware Update Version 1.0.7
LINK:
http://web.canon.jp ...-e/eos5dmk2/firmware.ht​mlexternal link

Post #1, Dec 04, 2008 20:21:04


1d4|5D3|85LII|50L|200F2LIS|500 F4L IS|
2.8/21 ZE|2/35 ZE|2/100 MP ZE|T* 50mm f/1.7 C/Y|
16-35II|70-200II|

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
John
Goldmember
John's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
1,271 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Yea, I found those threads earlier today as well. Very odd behavior, would like to see other people with the 5d2 test this out.

Post #2, Dec 04, 2008 20:23:38


john | instagramexternal link | gear
web hosting deal for POTN members

LOG IN TO REPLY
sboerup
Senior Member
sboerup's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
839 posts
AZ
[MORE/SHARE]

Wonder if its the DPP software trying to correct for lens abberrations or something. They have the new optics enhancements software or something in the new DPPs.

Post #3, Dec 04, 2008 21:56:31




LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
human (barely) and bribable
gjl711's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
48,194 posts
Deep in the heart of Texas
[MORE/SHARE]

sboerup wrote in post #6815950external link
Wonder if its the DPP software trying to correct for lens abberrations or something. They have the new optics enhancements software or something in the new DPPs.

If so you would think that the 50D would see the same issues as it contains the same features, no?

Post #4, Dec 04, 2008 21:58:04


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me
.
::Flickr::external link
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
Familiaphoto
Goldmember
Familiaphoto's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
3,938 posts
Chicago, IL
[MORE/SHARE]

Interesting, guess we will have to see what others find as well.

Post #5, Dec 04, 2008 21:59:49


Paul
Blogexternal link | Gearexternal link | Galleryexternal link
Bag Reviews: Domke F-3x | More to come...

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
proxes
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2007
395 posts
Overland Park, KS.
[MORE/SHARE]

I got my 5D2 yesterday and I just happened to take some shots of the cat and the christmas tree. All the ones of the tree with the lights blown out I don't see anything. The ones with the cat I used my 580ex and on a couple shots I could see the black on the right side of the catch lights in her eyes; it's in the JPG and converted DNG.

Post #6, Dec 04, 2008 22:18:03


http://ikeyton.comexternal link
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/canontkexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
Joined May 2008
774 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

These pixels are present in the raw data, i.e. the problem has nothing to do with raw conversion.

I made a first analysis and passed it to Canon.

See how this looks like in the non-demosaiced raw data: http://www.panopeeper.​com ...non5DMkII_BlackPixe​ls.GIFexternal link

However, these "crazy" pixels do not look the same, when seen up-close.

Post #7, Dec 04, 2008 22:32:53


Gabor

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
human (barely) and bribable
gjl711's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
48,194 posts
Deep in the heart of Texas
[MORE/SHARE]

Panopeeper wrote in post #6816141external link
These pixels are present in the raw data, i.e. the problem has nothing to do with raw conversion.

I made a first analysis and passed it to Canon.

See how this looks like in the non-demosaiced raw data: http://www.panopeeper.​com ...non5DMkII_BlackPixe​ls.GIFexternal link

However, these "crazy" pixels do not look the same, when seen up-close.

They look like dead pixels.

Post #8, Dec 04, 2008 22:34:38


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me
.
::Flickr::external link
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
FlyingPhotog's Avatar
Joined May 2007
57,560 posts
Probably Chasing Aircraft
[MORE/SHARE]

Crazy Idea Warning: It alomst looks like "Per Pixel CA" or what we used to call in the old days of TV .. "BLOOM" The pickup tubes in some of the early color TV cameras would do this same thing right next to highlights.

Post #9, Dec 04, 2008 22:41:06


Jay
Crosswind Imagesexternal link
Facebook Fan Pageexternal link

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

LOG IN TO REPLY
SwingBopper
Goldmember
SwingBopper's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
2,664 posts
Japan
[MORE/SHARE]

That is some seriously bad news for Canon if this problem is widespread. Signal or A/D Processor errors?
I'm holding off on buying one until I learn more.

Post #10, Dec 04, 2008 22:45:40


EOS 5D II, 40D, Sony R1, Olympus 1030, Canon S5-IS.
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." A. Hamilton

LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
Joined May 2008
774 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

gjl711 wrote in post #6816154external link
They look like dead pixels.

No, they don't. Looking them up-close makes the issue even more strange; however, one needs to know more of the CR2 raw data to understand that.

Beside, dead pixels are dead. These pixels look so only in that particular shot, because they follow other, saturated pixels.

Post #11, Dec 04, 2008 22:50:23


Gabor

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
evilr00t
Senior Member
Joined May 2008
304 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

@panopeeper:
What is the value of the darkest pixel in the "dot" region?
Near 1024, or near 0? (first one suggests a sensor readout (ie. "bloom") problem, second one suggests a on-camera sensor data processing error)

For the record, from the way it looks from Panopeeper's screenshot (it's not a single pixel, but rather a *group* of pixels), it's probably an actual sensor problem.

Post #12, Dec 04, 2008 22:56:16 as a reply to Panopeeper's post 5 minutes earlier.


XTi, 1D3, 2x SB-28, 580EX, 550EX, Tamron 28-75, 50/1.8, "EF" 18-55 II, "EF" 18-55 IS, 85/1.8, 75-300 III USM, 70-200/4L

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Bill Boehme's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
7,152 posts
DFW Metro-mess, Texas
[MORE/SHARE]

I looked at one of the full size images and had a couple thoughts that are just SWAG's, but since since the camera has has highlight automatic gain control to help reduce the problem with blown highlights, it might be related to a timing lag in the AGC circuit that causes a one or two pixel lag in AGC returning to normal. The other thought, which is probably less likely is that it could be a gain control problem in the noise reduction algorithm in which the map of fixed pattern noise is subtracted from image pixel values. In astrophotography, dark frame subtraction can produce black dots, but it is generally much more random appearing that what I saw in the sample image.

Post #13, Dec 04, 2008 23:12:09 as a reply to Panopeeper's post 21 minutes earlier.


AMASS Beta Tester
Click here to help to support POTN operating costs
Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Billexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
Joined May 2008
774 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

gjl711 wrote in post #6816154external link
What is the value of the darkest pixel in the "dot" region?
Near 1024, or near 0?

I did have a reason to say, that they look strange. Some are absolute zero or 1, while some others are in the region 300, 500, 700, etc, but anyway far under the black level.

I was wondering already earlier about the thousands of pixels far out of the customary range, for example 35000 pixels under 800.

Something stinks. IMO it is a product of the DIGIC, some programming error. I am confident that this is not a sensor issue.

Post #14, Dec 04, 2008 23:12:10 as a reply to evilr00t's post 15 minutes earlier.


Gabor

LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
Joined May 2008
774 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

bill boehme wrote in post #6816387external link
The other thought, which is probably less likely is that it could be a gain control problem in the noise reduction algorithm in which the map of fixed pattern noise is subtracted from image pixel values.

Sorry Bill, but you are on the wrong page. There is no such thing as "map of fixed pattern noise is subtracted from image pixel values" on raw level with with CR2 images.

Post #15, Dec 04, 2008 23:14:41


Gabor

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
119,669 views & 0 likes for this thread
5d mark II strange black dots?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.0016 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
891 guests, 787 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is shwater

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.