Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sensor cleaning mode maps out hot pixels

Reply
Thread Tools

Sensor cleaning mode maps out hot pixels

 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2006
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:11:17 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>There is a benefit to pixel mapping, it doesn't take any time. You do
>>it maybe once every six months.
>>Blackframes are fine, as long as your exposure times aren't too long
>>since the BF takes just as long to do. With regular photography,
>>exposures lasting maybe 10 seconds, it's not much of an issue, but if
>>(for eg) you had to wait 10 extra seconds for a RAW frame to be
>>processed, you'd complain, so doesn't 10 extra seconds to do the BF
>>bother you?

>
>Why would I complain when dark framing does so much more than just
>fixing any hot pixels that may appear, and even does that so much better
>than pixel mapping ever could, without any loss of image content!
>
>You are imagining problems that simply don't exist, but you have a
>record of doing that on this forum, so its not unexpected.


No, I'm pointing out the "selectivity" of those defending a brand.
Those who would (they did) complain about RAW write times in one
brand, while saying "Why would I complain" about another
time-consuming process because it happens to be a "no choice"
option when using the brand they support.
-Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:11:17 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>
>>>There is a benefit to pixel mapping, it doesn't take any time. You do
>>>it maybe once every six months.
>>>Blackframes are fine, as long as your exposure times aren't too long
>>>since the BF takes just as long to do. With regular photography,
>>>exposures lasting maybe 10 seconds, it's not much of an issue, but if
>>>(for eg) you had to wait 10 extra seconds for a RAW frame to be
>>>processed, you'd complain, so doesn't 10 extra seconds to do the BF
>>>bother you?

>>
>>Why would I complain when dark framing does so much more than just
>>fixing any hot pixels that may appear, and even does that so much better
>>than pixel mapping ever could, without any loss of image content!
>>
>>You are imagining problems that simply don't exist, but you have a
>>record of doing that on this forum, so its not unexpected.

>
>No, I'm pointing out the "selectivity" of those defending a brand.
>Those who would (they did) complain about RAW write times in one
>brand, while saying "Why would I complain" about another
>time-consuming process because it happens to be a "no choice"
>option when using the brand they support.


Since I was the person who said "why would I complain", reference the
post where I complained about RAW write times - as usual, are you just
imagining that all owners of a brand speak with one voice!

One day, you will get a camera and know a little of you are talking
about.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2006
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 02:43:01 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:11:17 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>>
>>>>There is a benefit to pixel mapping, it doesn't take any time. You do
>>>>it maybe once every six months.
>>>>Blackframes are fine, as long as your exposure times aren't too long
>>>>since the BF takes just as long to do. With regular photography,
>>>>exposures lasting maybe 10 seconds, it's not much of an issue, but if
>>>>(for eg) you had to wait 10 extra seconds for a RAW frame to be
>>>>processed, you'd complain, so doesn't 10 extra seconds to do the BF
>>>>bother you?
>>>
>>>Why would I complain when dark framing does so much more than just
>>>fixing any hot pixels that may appear, and even does that so much better
>>>than pixel mapping ever could, without any loss of image content!
>>>
>>>You are imagining problems that simply don't exist, but you have a
>>>record of doing that on this forum, so its not unexpected.

>>
>>No, I'm pointing out the "selectivity" of those defending a brand.
>>Those who would (they did) complain about RAW write times in one
>>brand, while saying "Why would I complain" about another
>>time-consuming process because it happens to be a "no choice"
>>option when using the brand they support.

>
>Since I was the person who said "why would I complain", reference the
>post where I complained about RAW write times - as usual, are you just
>imagining that all owners of a brand speak with one voice!
>
>One day, you will get a camera and know a little of you are talking
>about.


You don't need a camera to recognize "herd" mentalities.
-Rich
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 02:43:01 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:11:17 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rich
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a benefit to pixel mapping, it doesn't take any time. You do
>>>>>it maybe once every six months.
>>>>>Blackframes are fine, as long as your exposure times aren't too long
>>>>>since the BF takes just as long to do. With regular photography,
>>>>>exposures lasting maybe 10 seconds, it's not much of an issue, but if
>>>>>(for eg) you had to wait 10 extra seconds for a RAW frame to be
>>>>>processed, you'd complain, so doesn't 10 extra seconds to do the BF
>>>>>bother you?
>>>>
>>>>Why would I complain when dark framing does so much more than just
>>>>fixing any hot pixels that may appear, and even does that so much better
>>>>than pixel mapping ever could, without any loss of image content!
>>>>
>>>>You are imagining problems that simply don't exist, but you have a
>>>>record of doing that on this forum, so its not unexpected.
>>>
>>>No, I'm pointing out the "selectivity" of those defending a brand.
>>>Those who would (they did) complain about RAW write times in one
>>>brand, while saying "Why would I complain" about another
>>>time-consuming process because it happens to be a "no choice"
>>>option when using the brand they support.

>>
>>Since I was the person who said "why would I complain", reference the
>>post where I complained about RAW write times - as usual, are you just
>>imagining that all owners of a brand speak with one voice!
>>
>>One day, you will get a camera and know a little of you are talking
>>about.

>
>You don't need a camera to recognize "herd" mentalities.


And you are demonstrating recognition of something that is not present
in the data set available - in short, you are delusional.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why don't Sony and Pentax have this problem? Dead pixels, defective pixels RichA Digital Photography 9 04-12-2011 08:54 AM
Can hot pixels become dead pixels? kl_tom Digital Photography 4 10-05-2006 06:52 PM
std::maps within std::maps -- optimisation Simon Elliott C++ 4 03-10-2005 10:11 AM
Pse explain "3.1m effective pixels and 6.0m redorded pixels" notreallyme Digital Photography 14 12-28-2003 03:41 PM
What's the difference between effective pixels and recorded pixels? Mark Grady Digital Photography 10 09-28-2003 11:11 PM



Advertisments