RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
Hi Frits, It seems like the hot pixel phenomena are pretty widespread, but then some dont seem to have any at all. It will be interesting to see what the 'average' number of hot pixels is amongst those who submitted results to Rob. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 7:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I ran this test using a TIF file, which is recommended, as a jpg might cause false reporting on hot pixels which are artifacts of jpg compression. When shooting RAW and using the converter of Photoshop CS to create a TIFF, I didn't find any hot pixels. With TIF writing by the camera on the flash card directly however, I did find hot pixels, no dead ones. I did the test with Noise Reduction (NR) on and NR off. NR off NR on 30 s834 3 15 s82 5 8 s 31 0 4 s 25 0 2 s 15 0 1 s 17 0 1/2 s 11 0 1/4 s 5 0 1/8 s 2 2 same results up to and including 1/4000 s (2 hot pixels with NR off and NR on). On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 00:39, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. I want to compare the number of recorded 'hot' pixels with other owners to see if the results I got from testing are normal or otherwise. It'll take about 3/4 of an hour to run the tests the same way I did. I used a little utility called 'Dead Pixel Test' which is available at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm I took a series of shots with the following set-up. 1. Lens cap on 2. Viewfinder cap on 3. Manual mode 4. Manual Focus 5. JPEG Highest Quality 6. F8.0 using FA 24mm (not that the lens should really matter) 7. Noise reduction On I took frames with shutter speeds ranging from 1/4000 down to 2 seconds (all speeds in between). I then used the Pentax Photo Browser to export a *.csv worksheet to work on in excel. Then I ran each frame through the test program, as per the instructions. I set the Luminance threshold to 60, and the Dead Pixel threshold to 100. Thankfully, I recorded no dead pixels, and the worst result was a total of 4 'hot' pixels at 1/8 and 1/6 sec. noise reduction does cut in at 1/4 sec, eliminating all 'hot' pixel occurrences from 1/4 too 2 secs. As other have pointed out, some of the images I uploaded yesterday definitely display hot-spots caused by these 'hot' pixels. What I am interested in is the results that anyone else may get to compare to my camera. Thanks in advance, Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 6:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Photos Thanks Mark. I would have liked the 'in flight' shot to be a bit sharper, but you know how fast these little buggers move. It was more luck than good management. I'm pretty happy with the overall performance of the *ist D though, even if I do have a couple of 'hot' pixels. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Photos Cool photos, especially the dragonflies in flight. I was wondering how the *ist-D would do with bugs - looks great! (Mine arrived with the first snow, so no chance to test it on insects yet). - MCC At 12:41 PM 3/13/2004 +0800, you wrote: Hi gang, Here are the results of my first foray into the bush with an *ist D. all of the shots were taken with the *ist D, battery grip, FA 100mm macro. All were handheld. Photoshop work was limited to sharpening and adjusting the levels a bit. The files are all in the 1-3 mb range, so be warned, they'll take a while to come down the pipe via a 56k modem. None of them are resized. http://www.heritageservices.com.au/Pentax%20ist%20D%20Photos/Web%20Gallery/i ndex.htm Tell me what you think? Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com - -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL
RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
I also want to understand why I don't get any hot pixels when I use the Photoshop CS raw converter and create a tiff file that way. Perhaps I need to tweak the settings. On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 10:40, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: Hi Frits, It seems like the hot pixel phenomena are pretty widespread, but then some dont seem to have any at all. It will be interesting to see what the 'average' number of hot pixels is amongst those who submitted results to Rob. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 7:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I ran this test using a TIF file, which is recommended, as a jpg might cause false reporting on hot pixels which are artifacts of jpg compression. When shooting RAW and using the converter of Photoshop CS to create a TIFF, I didn't find any hot pixels. With TIF writing by the camera on the flash card directly however, I did find hot pixels, no dead ones. I did the test with Noise Reduction (NR) on and NR off. NR off NR on 30 s 834 3 15 s 82 5 8 s 31 0 4 s 25 0 2 s 15 0 1 s 17 0 1/2 s 11 0 1/4 s 5 0 1/8 s 2 2 same results up to and including 1/4000 s (2 hot pixels with NR off and NR on). On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 00:39, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. I want to compare the number of recorded 'hot' pixels with other owners to see if the results I got from testing are normal or otherwise. It'll take about 3/4 of an hour to run the tests the same way I did. I used a little utility called 'Dead Pixel Test' which is available at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm I took a series of shots with the following set-up. 1. Lens cap on 2. Viewfinder cap on 3. Manual mode 4. Manual Focus 5. JPEG Highest Quality 6. F8.0 using FA 24mm (not that the lens should really matter) 7. Noise reduction On I took frames with shutter speeds ranging from 1/4000 down to 2 seconds (all speeds in between). I then used the Pentax Photo Browser to export a *.csv worksheet to work on in excel. Then I ran each frame through the test program, as per the instructions. I set the Luminance threshold to 60, and the Dead Pixel threshold to 100. Thankfully, I recorded no dead pixels, and the worst result was a total of 4 'hot' pixels at 1/8 and 1/6 sec. noise reduction does cut in at 1/4 sec, eliminating all 'hot' pixel occurrences from 1/4 too 2 secs. As other have pointed out, some of the images I uploaded yesterday definitely display hot-spots caused by these 'hot' pixels. What I am interested in is the results that anyone else may get to compare to my camera. Thanks in advance, Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 6:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Photos Thanks Mark. I would have liked the 'in flight' shot to be a bit sharper, but you know how fast these little buggers move. It was more luck than good management. I'm pretty happy with the overall performance of the *ist D though, even if I do have a couple of 'hot' pixels. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Photos Cool photos, especially the dragonflies in flight. I was wondering how the *ist-D would do with bugs - looks great! (Mine arrived with the first snow, so no chance to test it on insects yet). - MCC At 12:41 PM 3/13/2004 +0800, you wrote: Hi gang, Here are the results of my first foray into the bush with an *ist D. all of the shots were taken with the *ist D, battery grip, FA 100mm macro. All were handheld. Photoshop work was limited to sharpening and adjusting the levels a bit. The files are all in the 1-3 mb range, so be warned, they'll take a while to come down the pipe via a 56k modem. None of them are resized. http://www.heritageservices.com.au/Pentax%20ist%20D%20Photos/Web%20Gallery
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
the RAW converter is doing noise reduction. turn on Advanced mode and look at all of the noise reduction settings. Herb - Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 5:44 AM Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I also want to understand why I don't get any hot pixels when I use the Photoshop CS raw converter and create a tiff file that way. Perhaps I need to tweak the settings.
RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
But Frits is reporting hot pixels with in-camera NR on when creating Tiffs but not when creating RAW and converting in CS. This would suggest that the NR in Photoshop is doing something better than the dark frame subtraction. I must admit I am slightly puzzled - I thought the in-camera NR (dark frame subtraction) was supposed to get rid of ALL hot pixels by removing any hot pixels in the dark frame from the resultant picture, presumably interpolating a best guess of what should be there. So why do you get ANY hot pixels with NR on? When I did the tests a while back, I seem to recall seeing quite a lot with NR off and absolutely none with it on. I have always shot with NR on and see no purpose for me in doing otherwise. I am not a speed junkie (as far as cameras are concerned anyway) so NR has absolutely no downside that I can think of for me. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 March 2004 11:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test the RAW converter is doing noise reduction. turn on Advanced mode and look at all of the noise reduction settings. Herb - Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 5:44 AM Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I also want to understand why I don't get any hot pixels when I use the Photoshop CS raw converter and create a tiff file that way. Perhaps I need to tweak the settings.
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
thermal noise will cause pixels to be bright enough to seem like a hot pixel on a long enough exposure. dark field subtraction can remove only pixels that hot in the dark field. if the actual exposure has bright pixels different from the dark field, they will remain. Photoshop can detect these and filter them out. the camera could too. Herb... - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 6:48 AM Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I must admit I am slightly puzzled - I thought the in-camera NR (dark frame subtraction) was supposed to get rid of ALL hot pixels by removing any hot pixels in the dark frame from the resultant picture, presumably interpolating a best guess of what should be there. So why do you get ANY hot pixels with NR on?
RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
But surely if it is a hot pixel then it will always be hot at that exposure? If it was only hot for one of the two frames then it must have been an error in the data rather than a stuck hot pixel. It is my understanding that the dark frame exposure is the same 'shutter' time as the main shot, so if it is truly hot it should be there too. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 March 2004 00:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test thermal noise will cause pixels to be bright enough to seem like a hot pixel on a long enough exposure. dark field subtraction can remove only pixels that hot in the dark field. if the actual exposure has bright pixels different from the dark field, they will remain. Photoshop can detect these and filter them out. the camera could too. Herb... - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 6:48 AM Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I must admit I am slightly puzzled - I thought the in-camera NR (dark frame subtraction) was supposed to get rid of ALL hot pixels by removing any hot pixels in the dark frame from the resultant picture, presumably interpolating a best guess of what should be there. So why do you get ANY hot pixels with NR on?
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
there are other pixels coming through bright enough to register as hot because of thermal noise. note that the test program is using a pretty liberal definition of hot. thermal noise can be pretty high on some sensors. look at the actual TIFF image and see just how bright they are. it takes some extra work, but you can detect some hot pixels against a dark background and filter them out even without dark field subtraction. there are not many things in nature of a color that happens to trigger only one pixel and no adjacent ones. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:05 PM Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test But surely if it is a hot pixel then it will always be hot at that exposure? If it was only hot for one of the two frames then it must have been an error in the data rather than a stuck hot pixel. It is my understanding that the dark frame exposure is the same 'shutter' time as the main shot, so if it is truly hot it should be there too.
RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
Well, in an experiment I did in generating data for Rob. I reran the test several times. The tests tended toward worse results in a manner that I could plot and see the trend. I suspect that the more I used the chip, the warmer it got. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Brigham Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 7:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test But surely if it is a hot pixel then it will always be hot at that exposure? If it was only hot for one of the two frames then it must have been an error in the data rather than a stuck hot pixel. It is my understanding that the dark frame exposure is the same 'shutter' time as the main shot, so if it is truly hot it should be there too. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 March 2004 00:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test thermal noise will cause pixels to be bright enough to seem like a hot pixel on a long enough exposure. dark field subtraction can remove only pixels that hot in the dark field. if the actual exposure has bright pixels different from the dark field, they will remain. Photoshop can detect these and filter them out. the camera could too. Herb... - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 6:48 AM Subject: RE: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I must admit I am slightly puzzled - I thought the in-camera NR (dark frame subtraction) was supposed to get rid of ALL hot pixels by removing any hot pixels in the dark frame from the resultant picture, presumably interpolating a best guess of what should be there. So why do you get ANY hot pixels with NR on?
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
I ran this test using a TIF file, which is recommended, as a jpg might cause false reporting on hot pixels which are artifacts of jpg compression. When shooting RAW and using the converter of Photoshop CS to create a TIFF, I didn't find any hot pixels. With TIF writing by the camera on the flash card directly however, I did find hot pixels, no dead ones. I did the test with Noise Reduction (NR) on and NR off. NR off NR on 30 s834 3 15 s82 5 8 s 31 0 4 s 25 0 2 s 15 0 1 s 17 0 1/2 s 11 0 1/4 s 5 0 1/8 s 2 2 same results up to and including 1/4000 s (2 hot pixels with NR off and NR on). On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 00:39, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. I want to compare the number of recorded 'hot' pixels with other owners to see if the results I got from testing are normal or otherwise. It'll take about 3/4 of an hour to run the tests the same way I did. I used a little utility called 'Dead Pixel Test' which is available at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm I took a series of shots with the following set-up. 1. Lens cap on 2. Viewfinder cap on 3. Manual mode 4. Manual Focus 5. JPEG Highest Quality 6. F8.0 using FA 24mm (not that the lens should really matter) 7. Noise reduction On I took frames with shutter speeds ranging from 1/4000 down to 2 seconds (all speeds in between). I then used the Pentax Photo Browser to export a *.csv worksheet to work on in excel. Then I ran each frame through the test program, as per the instructions. I set the Luminance threshold to 60, and the Dead Pixel threshold to 100. Thankfully, I recorded no dead pixels, and the worst result was a total of 4 'hot' pixels at 1/8 and 1/6 sec. noise reduction does cut in at 1/4 sec, eliminating all 'hot' pixel occurrences from 1/4 too 2 secs. As other have pointed out, some of the images I uploaded yesterday definitely display hot-spots caused by these 'hot' pixels. What I am interested in is the results that anyone else may get to compare to my camera. Thanks in advance, Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 6:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Photos Thanks Mark. I would have liked the 'in flight' shot to be a bit sharper, but you know how fast these little buggers move. It was more luck than good management. I'm pretty happy with the overall performance of the *ist D though, even if I do have a couple of 'hot' pixels. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Photos Cool photos, especially the dragonflies in flight. I was wondering how the *ist-D would do with bugs - looks great! (Mine arrived with the first snow, so no chance to test it on insects yet). - MCC At 12:41 PM 3/13/2004 +0800, you wrote: Hi gang, Here are the results of my first foray into the bush with an *ist D. all of the shots were taken with the *ist D, battery grip, FA 100mm macro. All were handheld. Photoshop work was limited to sharpening and adjusting the levels a bit. The files are all in the 1-3 mb range, so be warned, they'll take a while to come down the pipe via a 56k modem. None of them are resized. http://www.heritageservices.com.au/Pentax%20ist%20D%20Photos/Web%20Gallery/i ndex.htm Tell me what you think? Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com - -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
That was my result too, from 1/30 through 2 sec no dead pixels, no hot pixels. Bill - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 7:19 PM Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I tried out mine, following this thread. At speeds from 1/30 through to 4 secs I got nothing, using TIFF (which is what they recommend). The lens was different, but that shouldn't matter! John On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:39:50 +0800, Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. I want to compare the number of recorded 'hot' pixels with other owners to see if the results I got from testing are normal or otherwise. It'll take about 3/4 of an hour to run the tests the same way I did. I used a little utility called 'Dead Pixel Test' which is available at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm I took a series of shots with the following set-up. 1. Lens cap on 2. Viewfinder cap on 3. Manual mode 4. Manual Focus 5. JPEG Highest Quality 6. F8.0 using FA 24mm (not that the lens should really matter) 7. Noise reduction On I took frames with shutter speeds ranging from 1/4000 down to 2 seconds (all speeds in between). I then used the Pentax Photo Browser to export a *.csv worksheet to work on in excel. Then I ran each frame through the test program, as per the instructions. I set the Luminance threshold to 60, and the Dead Pixel threshold to 100. Thankfully, I recorded no dead pixels, and the worst result was a total of 4 'hot' pixels at 1/8 and 1/6 sec. noise reduction does cut in at 1/4 sec, eliminating all 'hot' pixel occurrences from 1/4 too 2 secs. As other have pointed out, some of the images I uploaded yesterday definitely display hot-spots caused by these 'hot' pixels. What I am interested in is the results that anyone else may get to compare to my camera. Thanks in advance, Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 6:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Photos Thanks Mark. I would have liked the 'in flight' shot to be a bit sharper, but you know how fast these little buggers move. It was more luck than good management. I'm pretty happy with the overall performance of the *ist D though, even if I do have a couple of 'hot' pixels. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Photos Cool photos, especially the dragonflies in flight. I was wondering how the *ist-D would do with bugs - looks great! (Mine arrived with the first snow, so no chance to test it on insects yet). - MCC At 12:41 PM 3/13/2004 +0800, you wrote: Hi gang, Here are the results of my first foray into the bush with an *ist D. all of the shots were taken with the *ist D, battery grip, FA 100mm macro. All were handheld. Photoshop work was limited to sharpening and adjusting the levels a bit. The files are all in the 1-3 mb range, so be warned, they'll take a while to come down the pipe via a 56k modem. None of them are resized. http://www.heritageservices.com.au/Pentax%20ist%20D%20Photos/Web%20Gallery/i ndex.htm Tell me what you think? Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com - -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
On 14 Mar 2004 at 7:39, Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. For anyone who missed my post last month its posted again below. A few *ist D owners sent me results, maybe you would like to add yours then I'll have enogh data to post a page of results. --- Forwarded message follows --- Date forwarded: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:36:41 -0500 From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:36:36 +1000 Subject:*ist D sensor noise survey Hey it's a while since we had a survey... I'm interested in making an informal survey of the noise performance of our *ist D cameras. Anyone with access to a PC who has permission to run the little test app at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm can participate. One exposure is all that's required for the test however in order to achieve consistency we need to make sure that each camera is set up the same. I propose that the test shot should be made as follows: 10 seconds manual exposure (lens capped) 200ISO Daylight WB NR off Saturation setting (middle) Sharpness setting (left most) Contrast setting (left most) sRGB CS TIFF L file The tiff file can then be opened and tested under the default settings of the DeadPixelTest application and the information file saved. I ran the procedure above and the results were as follows: [DeadPixelText] Version=1.0 Description= FileType=TIFF NumBadPixels=15 0=Hot,2798,135,69 1=Hot,1954,339,113 2=Hot,1809,585,64 3=Hot,726,610,112 4=Hot,726,611,192 5=Hot,726,612,112 6=Hot,2312,753,121 7=Hot,323,766,94 8=Hot,572,1365,116 9=Hot,1627,1400,64 10=Hot,2163,1958,96 11=Hot,2162,1959,113 12=Hot,2163,1959,145 13=Hot,2164,1959,112 14=Hot,2163,1960,98 The first two numbers is the pixel location and the last number is the heat, 0 being off and 255 being full on. So I have one pixel that's 3/4 on at 10 seconds. If anyone would like to mail me their results I'll collate and publish the data later down the track (I'll keep data sources anonymous if requested). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 --- End of forwarded message ---
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
I have to say I breathed a sigh of relief, having recently imported the camera at a large discount against the going price in the UK. I might add that the large discount was AFTER paying all taxes and duties at the full rate. UPS made sure of that. John On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:23:17 -0500, Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was my result too, from 1/30 through 2 sec no dead pixels, no hot pixels. Bill - Original Message - From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 7:19 PM Subject: Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test I tried out mine, following this thread. At speeds from 1/30 through to 4 secs I got nothing, using TIFF (which is what they recommend). The lens was different, but that shouldn't matter! John On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:39:50 +0800, Dr. Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. I want to compare the number of recorded 'hot' pixels with other owners to see if the results I got from testing are normal or otherwise. It'll take about 3/4 of an hour to run the tests the same way I did. I used a little utility called 'Dead Pixel Test' which is available at http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm I took a series of shots with the following set-up. 1. Lens cap on 2. Viewfinder cap on 3. Manual mode 4. Manual Focus 5. JPEG Highest Quality 6. F8.0 using FA 24mm (not that the lens should really matter) 7. Noise reduction On I took frames with shutter speeds ranging from 1/4000 down to 2 seconds (all speeds in between). I then used the Pentax Photo Browser to export a *.csv worksheet to work on in excel. Then I ran each frame through the test program, as per the instructions. I set the Luminance threshold to 60, and the Dead Pixel threshold to 100. Thankfully, I recorded no dead pixels, and the worst result was a total of 4 'hot' pixels at 1/8 and 1/6 sec. noise reduction does cut in at 1/4 sec, eliminating all 'hot' pixel occurrences from 1/4 too 2 secs. As other have pointed out, some of the images I uploaded yesterday definitely display hot-spots caused by these 'hot' pixels. What I am interested in is the results that anyone else may get to compare to my camera. Thanks in advance, Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 6:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Photos Thanks Mark. I would have liked the 'in flight' shot to be a bit sharper, but you know how fast these little buggers move. It was more luck than good management. I'm pretty happy with the overall performance of the *ist D though, even if I do have a couple of 'hot' pixels. Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Mark Cassino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Photos Cool photos, especially the dragonflies in flight. I was wondering how the *ist-D would do with bugs - looks great! (Mine arrived with the first snow, so no chance to test it on insects yet). - MCC At 12:41 PM 3/13/2004 +0800, you wrote: Hi gang, Here are the results of my first foray into the bush with an *ist D. all of the shots were taken with the *ist D, battery grip, FA 100mm macro. All were handheld. Photoshop work was limited to sharpening and adjusting the levels a bit. The files are all in the 1-3 mb range, so be warned, they'll take a while to come down the pipe via a 56k modem. None of them are resized. http://www.heritageservices.com.au/Pentax%20ist%20D%20Photos/Web%20Gallery/i ndex.htm Tell me what you think? Cheers Shaun Dr. Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services Lawrence Way, Karratha, Western Australia, 6714 Mob: 0414-967 644 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com - -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
- Original Message - From: Dr. Shaun Canning Subject: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test Hi guys, Anyone willing too take part in a little experiment with your *ist D? I know how you guys all love comparing lenses and gear from time to time, so hopefully a few of you might help me out. I want to compare the number of recorded 'hot' pixels with other owners to see if the results I got from testing are normal or otherwise. It'll take about 3/4 of an hour to run the tests the same way I did. I haven't run this test for a while, last time I did, mine showed no dead pixels ever, and no hot pixels until 1/4 second. William Robb
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
For anyone who missed my post last month its posted again below. A few *ist D owners sent me results, maybe you would like to add yours then I'll have enogh data to post a page of results. I have the pictures (BTW they look beautiful), when testing what should the values for hot and dead pixel threshold be? (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist D Pixel Comparison Test
On 14 Mar 2004 at 12:46, mapson wrote: I have the pictures (BTW they look beautiful), when testing what should the values for hot and dead pixel threshold be? Default, hot threshold 60, dead 250 Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
