D70 pixel mapping

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello,

I know that there is a utility on the web that maps out dead/stuck sensor
pixels on the coolpix 250 - does anyone know of a similar utility for the
D70? ,an exhaustive google search has failed to uncover one.

Many thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wLednVDa34MTFnPcRVn-sA@wavecable.com...
>
> "Joe" <none@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:UAvHd.1406$XG.533@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I know that there is a utility on the web that maps out dead/stuck sensor
>> pixels on the coolpix 250 - does anyone know of a similar utility for the
>> D70? ,an exhaustive google search has failed to uncover one.
>
> The D70 has a dust removal utility that might work for that built into its
> menu.


No, I don't think that's what I'm after - I want a utility to map out dead
pixels and interpolate them from adjacent ones, does software like that
exist? (outside Nikon, who charge big bucks to run a 1 minute scan)

Why can't all manufacturers follow Olympus and include pixel mapping as a
menu item!?

Thanks, anyway.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dXwHd.77$p65.6@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, Joe says...

> No, I don't think that's what I'm after - I want a utility to map out dead
> pixels and interpolate them from adjacent ones, does software like that
> exist? (outside Nikon, who charge big bucks to run a 1 minute scan)

If you need Pixel Mapping, sell your D70 and buy an E300.

> Why can't all manufacturers follow Olympus and include pixel mapping as a
> menu item!?

I don't know. I have this theory that camera manufacturers are
intrisically sadistic and enjoy to see their customers suffer.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <wrzHd.157$VY.75@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Joe says...

> I can get an E1 with 14-54mm for £699 (by dragging a student by it's
> unwashed hair to Jessops) or I could go for the 300 kit @ £650, or the Nikon
> D70 18-70mm @ £750 - so all much the same price.
>
> I'm very tempted by the Nikon because of the superior image quality at
> higher speeds, but I'm aware that all sensors develop bad pixels, and would
> like to find a way of dealing with them that doesn't involve sending the
> camera back to Nikon.
>
> The E1 & E300 solve this problem, of course, but one then has to live with
> either an aging 5mp camera that can't really shoot above ISO400 (certainly
> not ISO800) or a glorified E300 P&S that will probably turn out to have even
> more noise than the E1 due to the higher pixel count
>
> It could well be that the next Exx model will provide higher pixels and
> lower noise in a 'pro' body - but that's academic because I would never be
> permitted to spend the £1700, or whatever it first retails for.
>
> So the choice is stark - bad pixels (almost certainly in the future,
> probably the day after the warranty expires) and clean high ISO images, or
> mediocre Olympus images (in comparison to the D70) but a self-healing image
> sensor that will save time and/or money in the future.
>
> That's why I was desperately hoping that someone had come up with a third
> party pixel fix for the D70 sensor......what do other D70 owners do? - I've
> read several reports of stuck pixels in Nikon sensors, and if the warranty
> has run out Nikon seem to want a couple of hundred dollars/pounds to do the
> sort of re-mapping that Olympus owners just take for granted.
>
> Do Nikon/Pentax/Canon (cmos, I know) owners just live with their stuck
> pixels and wade through Photoshop to fix every image? - or am I just being
> far too sensitive about the who thing?

Well, I keep hearing this high ISO stuff all the time. But do you really
need to shoot above ISO 400? 99% of the photos I take (with an Olympus
8080) are at ISO 50 (and I even use a polariser which again takes away
one or two stops of light).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joe wrote:

>
> or a glorified E300 P&S that will probably turn out to have
> even more noise than the E1 due to the higher pixel count

Wrong assumption.

> or
> mediocre Olympus images (in comparison to the D70) but a self-healing
> image sensor that will save time and/or money in the future.

Mediocre? Do you shoot everything at ISO800+? If so the images will be
"mediocre" even to the same nikon camera at ISO100-200.

Just an FYI I made prints from a 10D, D70 and an E300 and after viewing the
results I didn't buy the canon or the nikon.



--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> Crownfield wrote:
>
> >
> > so you do not take many candids of fast moving children
> > by available light in shade or even inside?
> >
>
> When did anyone need ISO 800 for shooting in the shade?

how about in the restaraunt by candlelight at the table?
ASA 1600, 2.8, down as low as 1/20 of a second.

or family at the beach, in the shade of a tree:
asa 200, 1/90, 4.8 150mm.
not enough speed for depth of field and shutter speed.

>
> --
>
> Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> Crownfield wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > so you do not take many candids of fast moving children
>> > by available light in shade or even inside?
>> >
>>
>> When did anyone need ISO 800 for shooting in the shade?
>
> how about in the restaraunt by candlelight at the table?
> ASA 1600, 2.8, down as low as 1/20 of a second.

And that's in the shade of what?

>
> or family at the beach, in the shade of a tree:
> asa 200, 1/90, 4.8 150mm.
> not enough speed for depth of field and shutter speed.
>

Again who needs ISO 800+ for shooting in the SHADE?
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41EF1FC8.261F@cox.net>, Crownfield says...

> or family at the beach, in the shade of a tree:
> asa 200, 1/90, 4.8 150mm.
> not enough speed for depth of field and shutter speed.

If you use a DLSR. With a prosumer you have enough DOF even at the
largest aperture.

But ok, we are talking about DSLRs. At ISO 200 the E300 has low enough
noise levels. And in any case 1/90s is fast enough at 150mm focal
length.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:54:35 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Crownfield
<Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:

>of course you do know better than that, right?
>
>the shutter speed should be the recip of the focal lenght, right?
>minimum.

That's a rule of thumb which can easily be broken with a bit of practice on
one's technique to achieve acceptable shots.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:45:44 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Stacey
> <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>When did anyone need ISO 800 for shooting in the shade?
>
> It all depends upon the situation and everyone's need are unique.

Exactly, which is why I tire of everyone making "high ISO performance" the
main judge of image quality. Part of this "need" is the speed of the
system's lenses. If there are lots of f5.6 lenses or the lenses aren't high
quality wide open, you are going to need higher ISO performance.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:12:39 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Crownfield
<Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:54:35 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Crownfield
>> <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:
>> >the shutter speed should be the recip of the focal lenght, right?
>> >minimum.
>>
>> That's a rule of thumb which can easily be broken with a bit of practice on
>> one's technique to achieve acceptable shots.
>
>I note that you used the word 'acceptable'.
>relative.

Well, everyone's taste is different.
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] _2234.html
Above is a 400mm hand held exposure taken at 1/500s. If you include the
crop factor this is 600mm. So that would be 83% of the rule. This is an
acceptable shot to me.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
>> the shutter speed should be the recip of the focal lenght, right?
>> minimum.
>
> Then why do I get sharp handheld shots at 1/15s and even 1/13s at 35mm
> focal length ?

Perhaps you don't have the noise and vibration present in an SLR camera?

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <41F036AB.27A8@cox.net>, Crownfield says...
> > Alfred Molon wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <41EF1FC8.261F@cox.net>, Crownfield says...
> > >
> > > > or family at the beach, in the shade of a tree:
> > > > asa 200, 1/90, 4.8 150mm.
> > > > not enough speed for depth of field and shutter speed.
> > >
> > > If you use a DLSR. With a prosumer you have enough DOF even at the
> > > largest aperture.
> > >
> > > But ok, we are talking about DSLRs. At ISO 200 the E300 has low enough
> > > noise levels. And in any case 1/90s is fast enough at 150mm focal
> > > length.
> >
> > of course you do know better than that, right?
> >
> > the shutter speed should be the recip of the focal lenght, right?
> > minimum.
>
> Then why do I get sharp handheld shots at 1/15s and even 1/13s at 35mm
> focal length ?

I had a friend who was shooting almost in the dark,
and handheld at 1/4 second.

when asked, no one had told her she could not do it,
and the camera said 1/4 second.

but it does not always work.
explaining failures to the client is not a good practice.
avoiding them is better.


> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:36:27 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:37:38 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Crownfield
><Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:
>>it looks pretty good.
>>but all the lines are vertical,
>>and the few horizontal lines do not seem to look as sharp.
>>
>>I generally want my images to be at least 1200 or 1600 pixels.
>
>This is a full size image from my D70, not cropped. I don't post
>anything bigger than 640x480, except for panos these days. This was
>mildly sharpened after being downsampled in one step only. This was
>really an early on test of the TC-20 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens.
>I've begun trying different processing on the image as I'm getting my
>feet wet shooting raw.

Ed, I don't think your test/example has much merit given that you
shrunk the image so much for posting.

Sharpness depends on image display size, and the 1/focal length
handheld guide/rule is based on an average person printing a 4x6.

I'm not saying you can't handhold at slower shutter speeds, just that
your example doesn't demonstrate anything. Better, would be to look at
a crop, of say 640x480 at 1:1 ratio from the original image. At this
size, I'll bet it's not critically sharp. To get sharpness at 1:1
magnification handheld, you'll need at least 4 x faster than the
1/focal length guide suggests.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:14:30 GMT, bob <not@not.not> wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:n3n2v0th59ieoi4u3h3klvkiekvd4mal51@4ax.com:
>
>> Sharpness depends on image display size, and the 1/focal length
>> handheld guide/rule is based on an average person printing a 4x6.
>>
>
>Are you sure about the 4x6 part? I had always assumed that the 1/ rule was
>based on 35mm film, and that it was independent of reproduction size. IOW,
>that you could blow up the image as much as you like, and not need to worry
>about seeing motion blur.

No is the short answer. And yes, it is targeted for 35mm cameras. The
4x6 part isn't quoted in the rule (it would become to cumbersome and
loose it's catch-phrase-a-bility), but I've introduced it to bring it
to people's attention, I chose 4x6 because it's the standard photo
enlargement size, and the one the rule most likely meant.

I also omitted another important factor: Viewer distance, but let's
keep things simple for the moment.

Blur becomes more apparent as you enlarge the image, so a 1/something
rule cannot be complete unless it takes the output size into
consideration.

Try this test:

Take a handheld slide and look at it with your naked eye. See any
camera-shake blur there? Hopefully, no.

Now scan it at 3000dpi, or project it on a wall and take a look again.
If blur is there, you'll be able to see it enlarged but it wasn't
apparent on the slide to the naked eye.

Also to support the nature of my claim:

If unsharp mask has to be tweaked based on output size (due to the
exaggerated edges appearing either smaller or larger depending on
output size) it makes sense that any motion blur would *also* be more
or less apparent depending on output size. Take a look at this pro
filter that performs image sharpening based on target output size:

http://www.nikmultimedia.com/sharp [...] w=features

We also know that circle of confusion changes depending on output size
and viewer distance (in other words, DOF gets deeper as the image is
made smaller, and shallower as it is enlarged). DOF also gets deeper
as you walk further away from the image. COC is a more accurate term,
but more people know what DOF is.

Here is a website that roughly follows my claim, but explains it a lot
clearer than me:

http://enginova.com/Minimum%20Shutter%20Speed.htm

He mentions 'small enlargements'. What that means is anyone's guess,
but to me a 4x6 is a small enlargement from the 35mm original,
anything more is a significant enlargement.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:36:27 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:37:38 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Crownfield
> ><Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:
> >>it looks pretty good.
> >>but all the lines are vertical,
> >>and the few horizontal lines do not seem to look as sharp.
> >>
> >>I generally want my images to be at least 1200 or 1600 pixels.
> >
> >This is a full size image from my D70, not cropped. I don't post
> >anything bigger than 640x480, except for panos these days. This was

I do not post anything smaller than 1200 pixels
except in a special case.

if the picture has redeeming value, to be seen,
it should be at least as big as the monitor.

> >mildly sharpened after being downsampled in one step only. This was
> >really an early on test of the TC-20 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens.
> >I've begun trying different processing on the image as I'm getting my
> >feet wet shooting raw.
>
> Ed, I don't think your test/example has much merit given that you
> shrunk the image so much for posting.

he chose a pretty picture, but you are right.

>
> Sharpness depends on image display size, and the 1/focal length
> handheld guide/rule is based on an average person printing a 4x6.
>
> I'm not saying you can't handhold at slower shutter speeds, just that
> your example doesn't demonstrate anything. Better, would be to look at
> a crop, of say 640x480 at 1:1 ratio from the original image. At this
> size, I'll bet it's not critically sharp. To get sharpness at 1:1
> magnification handheld, you'll need at least 4 x faster than the
> 1/focal length guide suggests.

usually.

>
> --
> Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:53:15 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Owamanga
<nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ed, I don't think your test/example has much merit given that you
>shrunk the image so much for posting.

Not a test, just an image I had that was taken which broke the "rule"
My point on "acceptable sharpness" was that imo not all your photos need to
be razor sharp. This was a fog shrouded scene where the close pier and boat
where enhanced to stand out a bit. There are times this is acceptable. That
was the point.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> I had a friend who was shooting almost in the dark,
> and handheld at 1/4 second.
>
> when asked, no one had told her she could not do it,
> and the camera said 1/4 second.
>
> but it does not always work.
> explaining failures to the client is not a good practice.
> avoiding them is better.
>
>

Sorry, but I have to ask.

Avoiding what... the clients, the failures or both? (o:\

Seymore...
www.SonyCams.com
Sony F717 | P50
Nikon D70 | FM2n | SB22