gdanmitchell wrote:
My primary point about this issue/obsession remains, and is supported by Clary's post. Like me, he apparently prints. Like me, he has never seen this "problem" appear in a print. That is the important and relevant point here, and I regret it if my accidental misattribution diluted our point.
Do you print much? Tell us more.
Dan
Can any printer out there carying out the whole data structure and data contents of current 5d2?
if you already knew this answer then why bother to mention print media in the first place. Using shorter DR display media to mask some of wider DR banding issue still not the best way to resolve the actual 5D2 problem, do you think
Assumed, we have wider DR monitor/printer than most current in the market right now, what reaction do you expect to see from most 5d2 owner right now. Trust me, the nay-sayer will joint the banding club in no time.
It's all about DR illusions & games....Hope this helps
eskimochaos wrote:
It was probably a matter of hardware (sensor and DIGIC upgrade) than software.
More likely a color adjustment setting in your raw conversion software. The settings that worked for the 5D are not necessarily the idea for the 5D2, and vice versa.
dswiger wrote:
+1
After years of regretting I never got a medium format camera, I got a Mamiya RZ67 a year ago. It was a fun experience that I'm glad I undertook. But like the quoted poster said, dust... dust... etc. The work flow is tedious, hard to repeat and the results were at best par with my 1DsMkII. I posted some images last fall, same scene, both film & digital. Everyone could spot the film and it's lack sharpness-detail deep in the scene, color casts, etc.
It was fun, but more like the ex-girlfriend you almost re-connect with.
Just sayin....
But back to the thread.
I have had a 5DC, and now a 1DsMkII. The 5DC was sweet, but the MkII better. I am just now getting a 5DMkII for the new features/video. We'll see the comparison soon.
I mentioned prints because they are usually or at least often much larger than images displayed on computer screens, therefore less interpolated and more likely to continue to hold pixel-level artifacts like noise and so forth.
I do both electronic and print images, and large prints reveal many more issues with the original capture than screen size electronic images will.
I'm not sure what you mean by "carying out the whole data structure and data contents of current 5d2." What I do know is the following:
1. A print cannot have as wide of a dynamic range as the file captured by a 5D2. With prints the dynamic range is constrained to the range between the darkest black the printer/paper can produce and the whiteness of the paper.
2. Aside from dynamic range, a print can contain much more image data than a screen display of the same size. For example, my Epson 7900 can lay down 1440 or 2880 dpi of ink while a computer display will display only 5%-10% of that level of linear resolution.
3. Along the same lines, each pixel in a 1000 pixel wide screen image from a 5D2 might be the result of interpolating the date from something like 20 or so original pixels. Roughly speaking, a 4 x 4 or 5 x 5 pixel area might end up creating a single pixel in your electronic image. You lose something like 95% of the original image data.
But let's say that you aren't interested in sharing photographs on the web (e.g. placing them on your web site or licensing them to web users) but instead are only interested in displaying them on the very largest computer monitor you can buy and at full screen width. Seems like an odd thing to do, but that might describe the upper boundary for screen display. The 27" Apple display has 2560-by-1440 pixel dimensions for a total of 3,688,960. The 5DII image has native pixel dimensions of 5616 x 3744 or 21,026,304 photo sites. Here, each pixel on the display interpolates the input from almost 5.7 original pixels - e.g. you lose over 80% of the original image data.
Clearly, in the terms relevant to your noise banding obsession, a print contains much more of the original image data than an electronic display at the same size.
So, in terms of being able to actually show your purported horrible noise banding in a real world display of a photograph, which do you think would be most likely to reveal said noise banding, the full screen image on a 27" high-density computer monitor or a 20" x 30" print?
I wish I could make some sense out of what you are trying to suggest about prints. I suspect that you are unfamiliar with them.
Dan
5D2mttran wrote:
Can any printer out there carying out the whole data structure and data contents of current 5d2?
if you already knew this answer then why bother to mention print media in the first place. Using shorter DR display media to mask some of wider DR banding issue still not the best way to resolve the actual 5D2 problem, do you think
Assumed, we have wider DR monitor/printer than most current in the market right now, what reaction do you expect to see from most 5d2 owner right now. Trust me, the nay-sayer will joint the banding club in no time.
It's all about DR illusions & games....Hope this helps...Show more →
I really think it boils down to those three words.
I have sold my share of prints using the 5D MKII and I have yet to have a client, whether commercial or individual, that have noticed or complained about banding.
If you can't use the 5D MKII for your work then don't use it. It hasn't been a problem for me and I haven't lost a sale or customer because of banding. I can't say I have notice it either but I do try to expose properly and don't try to change the exposure levels radically in post. I also recognize the DR limitations of the camera I'm using too and work around it with my light source and location.
Dan, your logic seems little odd, do you think? fyi, all my previous 5d2 banding crop samples do show in print. Well, why printing has anything to do with real 5D2 hight DR low iso shadows banding issues...imo, no one but you test the camera that way
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, in terms of being able to actually show your purported horrible noise banding in a real world display of a photograph, which do you think would be most likely to reveal said noise banding, the full screen image on a 27" high-density computer monitor or a 20" x 30" print?
Here is a heavily pushed 5DM2 banding example (100% fill light and +1EV exposure, I know, extreme example) at various downsampled resolutions (bicubic). Note how the random noise "disappears" but the banding remains, esp. the demosaicing artifacts of the banding.
Jim Victory wrote:
I really think it boils down to those three words.
I have sold my share of prints using the 5D MKII and I have yet to have a client, whether commercial or individual, that have noticed or complained about banding.
If you can't use the 5D MKII for your work then don't use it. It hasn't been a problem for me and I haven't lost a sale or customer because of banding. I can't say I have notice it either but I do try to expose properly and don't try to change the exposure levels radically in post. I also recognize the DR limitations of the camera I'm using too and work around it with my light source and location.
Jim, it is not about obsession. It's more like the facts and hopefully we won't see this type of defects in the next generation cam from Canon. i've only commented when seeing something bending from the facts. I agree with you that it is a fine tool as long we know how to work around its known issues.
There is some SW (not sure how effective), that is supposed to remove banding. I think its from Topaz, part of Denoise, tho never tried that one (kinda dont have need to).
Would be interesting if someone tried that and reported how it works. If it works..
Otherwise, noise isnt from sensor, but from camera interference. You can see similar or worse stuff if you keep cellphone near camera. Apparently there are some pieces of 5DMK2 that have very low banding and some that have pretty high.
Ive read some "rumors" about ppl that complained about banding, shipped camera to Canon and apparently "noise was gone". And another rumor, some user with dead AF in 5Dc reported that he notice that banding disappeared few weeks after AF died. Tho take that with big bag of salt..
Im not engineer so I cant say if AF system can result in some EMF interference, but it seems to me just by simple logic, that it might be possible. Tho I guess, hard to test it..
Mescalamba wrote:
There is some SW (not sure how effective), that is supposed to remove banding. I think its from Topaz, part of Denoise, tho never tried that one (kinda dont have need to).
Would be interesting if someone tried that and reported how it works. If it works..
cputeq wrote:
Works very well, part of Topaz Denoise.
I'd be interested in giving that a try. I noticed something about the banding found in the 5DII... it seems to get worse in back-lit situations. I'll find a sample when I'm home, but I ran into at least one photo where it seemed worse.
abqnmusa wrote:
The 5D had excellent image quality, but seems to attract dust spots to the sensor.
The 5D II upgrade was worth it just to avoid all the removal of dust spots in post processing.
both camera give excellent image quality; I vote for 5D II
I think I would use live view for focus more than I initially thought if I had a II, though at first I scoffed at the video/live view upgrades. The only body I had w/ sensor cleaning was an XTi, and admittedly it did work very well.
But every time I seriously consider upgrading from my old 5D, I look at the prints and images from it, and just can't bring myself to do it.
i put up with its constraints for sure. imo, it is the best canon ff to work with manual lenses - LV and video are awesome - love it when banding virus let me alone
I had just been thinking about the color from the 5D II. IMO, in early days the color was better balanced out of the camera (5DII) than from the original 5D (though I am in that camp that feels that the bigger pixels of the original produce images with more 'presence'), but it seems to me that somewhere along the line of firmware updates (I'm up to 2.0.9, haven't yet done 2.1.1), or maybe it's my Mac OS change from 10.4.11 to 10.6.8, who knows?, color balance straight from the camera has definitely improved so that even less adjustment is now required (though it's always worthwhile to make a few trials with the grey balance). Does anyone else also find that the 5D II color balance has improved?
The saturation and hue are different matters. I'm speaking strictly of overall balance. I liked the color out of the 5DI, though it needed more editing.
Re: banding from the 5DII - that was one of the issues supposed to be addressed by firmware update 1.0.7.
pjbishop wrote:
I had just been thinking about the color from the 5D II. IMO, in early days the color was better balanced out of the camera (5DII) than from the original 5D (though I am in that camp that feels that the bigger pixels of the original produce images with more 'presence'), but it seems to me that somewhere along the line of firmware updates (I'm up to 2.0.9, haven't yet done 2.1.1), or maybe it's my Mac OS change from 10.4.11 to 10.6.8, who knows?, color balance straight from the camera has definitely improved so that even less adjustment is now required (though it's always worthwhile to make a few trials with the grey balance). Does anyone else also find that the 5D II color balance has improved?
The saturation and hue are different matters. I'm speaking strictly of overall balance. I liked the color out of the 5DI, though it needed more editing.
Re: banding from the 5DII - that was one of the issues supposed to be addressed by firmware update 1.0.7.
It was also my understanding before buying the camera that the banding issue was addressed by the 1.0.7 update. But to be fair, the problem still exists but in a very minor way.
I think that the 5DII's color isn't too different from the 5Dc, but I think both cameras have better colors than the D700 when used indoors with different type of light sources.
Out of any issue the 5DII has, I'd say the auto focus is the biggest problem. It can be really flaky in low-light. Luckily, the live-view is stellar.
Brody LeBlanc wrote:
.
Out of any issue the 5DII has, I'd say the auto focus is the biggest problem. It can be really flaky in low-light. Luckily, the live-view is stellar.
I've got to work more with Live View. I've been slow about changing my shooting habits.
cputeq wrote:
Works very well, part of Topaz Denoise.
Can you show some example? Im pretty sure lots of ppl would like to see what it can do. Especially cause if it really works, it pretty much solves that banding problem.
If it works..