I think finally I found banding in a D200?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

    > Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group that
    > posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."
    >
    > http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634
    >
    > Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?


    It doesn't look like the "banding" examples I've seen that are what people
    have been screaming about.

    There have been quite a few examples posted at dpreview, but they may be
    difficult to find since there have been millions of posts there about
    "D200 banding". It does seem to show up most often when you have blown
    highlights next to a dark area. (I shoot a lot of night street stuff,
    so I have that in my shots a lot, so I'd hesitate to buy a D200 for that
    reason unless I saw something to indicate that the people reporting the
    problem are on crack.)

    It seems to be a pretty minor issue at this point (post-Nikon-fix) *unless*
    your shots have that particular situation in them. But that's just going
    on the posted reports, most of which I don't read since I wasn't planning
    on buying the camera anyway.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Mar 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Toby Guest

    "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group
    >> that
    >> posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."
    >>
    >> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634
    >>
    >> Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?

    >
    > It doesn't look like the "banding" examples I've seen that are what people
    > have been screaming about.
    >
    > There have been quite a few examples posted at dpreview, but they may be
    > difficult to find since there have been millions of posts there about
    > "D200 banding". It does seem to show up most often when you have blown
    > highlights next to a dark area. (I shoot a lot of night street stuff,
    > so I have that in my shots a lot, so I'd hesitate to buy a D200 for that
    > reason unless I saw something to indicate that the people reporting the
    > problem are on crack.)
    >
    > It seems to be a pretty minor issue at this point (post-Nikon-fix)
    > *unless*
    > your shots have that particular situation in them. But that's just going
    > on the posted reports, most of which I don't read since I wasn't planning
    > on buying the camera anyway.


    I have a D200 back at Nikon to fix the banding--what you're seeing is
    completely different, whatever it is. To see banding--the so called long
    banding or "corduroy effect" you need to view an A3 size print up close--the
    bands are only a couple of pixels wide, but they are definitely there, and
    the regularity of the pattern makes them quite annoying one you notice them.
    They can't be seen at all in an A4 size print (8x10).

    My camera exhibited banding only across the top and bottom 1/4 of the
    frame--the middle was fine. The bands appear at ISO 400 and higher and
    usually in slightly darker areas--around zone 4 for those of you who know
    the zone system. Mine had nothing to do with areas of high and low
    contrast--they reliably showed up when those two conditions were met.

    At first Nikon said everything was fine, but after I returned the camera
    with a few web pages devoted to banding and the recognition of banding as a
    problem in North America and Europe (I live in Japan) they seem to be doing
    something, as it has been a couple of weeks since I brought it to them.

    Toby
    Toby, Mar 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Dimitris M Guest

    Rita,

    Therte is no banding in this picture. In the small samlpes of the photo,
    (hoping that I have understand what you mean) that looks like banding in the
    horizontal white tube and in the yachts decorative lines, is an effect
    generatated from resizing the image and not form the camera. If you dowload
    the full size image (it is 9 Mb) I believe that you realize that there is no
    banding at all.

    The above effect can be visible even in full size pictures when the photo
    includes horizontal lines with a slight inclination from 0 degrees. It is
    the same effect that generates "moire" and all cameras produce it (is a
    product of scan). More intence is this as lower is the CCD's resolution in
    Mpix and as smaller is the inclination of the lines from the horizontal.

    From the other hand, I believe that this picture have more than normal
    luminance noise. The exif shows ISO200, T=6sec, NR=OFF. At 6 sec the long
    exposure NR should be ON. Also the picture looks like it have a post process
    in levels. If this is true (I believe it is), this explain the increased
    level of noise in the mid shadow areas.
    --
    Dimitris M


    > Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group
    > that posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."
    >
    > http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634
    >
    > Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?
    Dimitris M, Mar 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Dimitris M wrote:

    > Therte is no banding in this picture. In the small samlpes of the
    > photo, (hoping that I have understand what you mean) that looks like
    > banding in the horizontal white tube and in the yachts decorative
    > lines, is an effect generatated from resizing the image and not form
    > the camera. If you dowload the full size image (it is 9 Mb) I believe
    > that you realize that there is no banding at all.


    I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)? Yes, I was
    looking at the full size image at 100% and what I am seeing are vertical
    lines above the brightest light above the boathouse. Granted they aren't
    that noticeable, but I did notice he was shooting at ISO 200 and I am
    curious if it would be more pronounced at higher ISOs.

    > The above effect can be visible even in full size pictures when the
    > photo includes horizontal lines with a slight inclination from 0
    > degrees. It is the same effect that generates "moire" and all cameras
    > produce it (is a product of scan). More intence is this as lower is
    > the CCD's resolution in Mpix and as smaller is the inclination of the
    > lines from the horizontal.


    I didn't notice this at all.

    > From the other hand, I believe that this picture have more than normal
    > luminance noise. The exif shows ISO200, T=6sec, NR=OFF. At 6 sec the
    > long exposure NR should be ON. Also the picture looks like it have a
    > post process in levels. If this is true (I believe it is), this
    > explain the increased level of noise in the mid shadow areas.


    I wonder if Cynicor can post the RAW file?







    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Dimitris M Guest

    > I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)?

    No, it was to the 600px x 402px "medium" version.

    > Yes, I was
    > looking at the full size image at 100% and what I am seeing are vertical
    > lines above the brightest light above the boathouse.


    I didn't see any banding there. There are only some vertical stripes that
    are the rigging of the masts and the masts, in interference with the star
    stripes from the light and the iris (the photo was shooting at f8).
    --
    Dimitris M
    ????????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????????
    Dimitris M, Mar 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Dimitris M <> wrote:
    >> I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)?

    >
    > No, it was to the 600px x 402px "medium" version.


    you will see banding in 100% (select Original size), just above
    overblown area on left side, above and below moon (this one is clearly
    visible) and around bridge.


    B.
    Bronek Kozicki, Mar 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Dimitris M Guest

    In the moon , yes it is banding.

    In other areas, there is some, but soft and difficult to detect, cause of
    the luminance noise. Above the stong light, there can not be detected cause
    the interference I have already mentioned, but left and right of the light
    it can be detected. From the above the only one that could be visible in a
    50% print is that in the moon. Seems that indeed this D200 is "infected".
    --
    Dimitris M



    > you will see banding in 100% (select Original size), just above overblown
    > area on left side, above and below moon (this one is clearly visible) and
    > around bridge.
    Dimitris M, Mar 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group
    > that posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."
    >
    > http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634
    >
    > Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?


    First of all, I am no gentleman.

    Second of all, it's banding near the moon, but I found it more severely
    on another (out of focus) photo I took. Here's a slightly sharpened
    crop. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60242130
    Cynicor, Mar 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:21 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Cynicor
    <> wrote:

    >Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    >> Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group
    >> that posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."
    >>
    >> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634
    >>
    >> Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?

    >
    >First of all, I am no gentleman.
    >
    >Second of all, it's banding near the moon, but I found it more severely
    >on another (out of focus) photo I took. Here's a slightly sharpened
    >crop. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60242130


    Have you tried any other raw converters other than Capture 4.4.0 to
    see if they make any difference?
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
    Ed Ruf, Mar 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Cynicor Guest

    Ed Ruf wrote:
    > Cynicor <> wrote:
    >>Second of all, it's banding near the moon, but I found it more severely
    >>on another (out of focus) photo I took. Here's a slightly sharpened
    >>crop. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60242130

    >
    > Have you tried any other raw converters other than Capture 4.4.0 to
    > see if they make any difference?


    No I haven't. That would make too much sense.

    Maybe I'll try it this afternoon. Not like I can return the camera
    anyway, as I can't read the Japanese service center address.
    Cynicor, Mar 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:00:07 -0500, in rec.photo.digital Cynicor
    <> wrote:

    >Ed Ruf wrote:
    >> Have you tried any other raw converters other than Capture 4.4.0 to
    >> see if they make any difference?

    >
    >No I haven't. That would make too much sense.
    >
    >Maybe I'll try it this afternoon. Not like I can return the camera
    >anyway, as I can't read the Japanese service center address.


    If you wouldn't mind mailing a copy of the original nef to the address
    in my sig, I'd like to take a try as well. I haven't taken anything
    which has seemed to trigger this with mine yet. Maybe I'll go out and
    try some shots of the local powerplant after dark tonight just to see
    what comes.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
    Ed Ruf, Mar 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Cynicor wrote:

    > Second of all, it's banding near the moon, but I found it more
    > severely on another (out of focus) photo I took. Here's a slightly
    > sharpened crop. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60242130


    I didn't yet even make it over to the section where the moon was when I
    first looked at it. Looking at the moon section now and it is definitely
    much worse than what I pointed out. Here is the section I was talking
    about. After looking at the whole image I did find a lot more banding.

    http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/D200_banding.jpg







    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

    >I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)? Yes, I was
    >looking at the full size image at 100% and what I am seeing are vertical
    >lines above the brightest light above the boathouse. Granted they aren't
    >that noticeable, but I did notice he was shooting at ISO 200 and I am
    >curious if it would be more pronounced at higher ISOs.


    I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
    darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
    likely. At least some of the problem is an offset, and not scalar,
    because in those 1/4 of the columns that are darker, many are clipped to
    zero. If you cut'n'paste the image into photoshop, change the levels to
    gamma 2.7, and zoom into the top of the halo area above the moon, you'll
    see that every fourth column has an excess of almost-black pixels.
    These, I assume, are clipped in the WB process and only get some
    luminance from the demosaicing. Run a 90 degree motion blur of 200
    pixels on the entire image, and you will see the bands in every tonal
    range.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Mar 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Rich Guest

    On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:15:21 -0500, Cynicor
    <> wrote:

    >Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    >> Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group
    >> that posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."
    >>
    >> http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634
    >>
    >> Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?

    >
    >First of all, I am no gentleman.
    >
    >Second of all, it's banding near the moon, but I found it more severely
    >on another (out of focus) photo I took. Here's a slightly sharpened
    >crop. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60242130


    It looks like "pixel bleed" or "blooming" but only in a straight
    line! Odd.
    -Rich
    Rich, Mar 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >> Second of all, it's banding near the moon, but I found it more
    >> severely on another (out of focus) photo I took. Here's a slightly
    >> sharpened crop. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60242130

    >
    > I didn't yet even make it over to the section where the moon was when I
    > first looked at it. Looking at the moon section now and it is
    > definitely much worse than what I pointed out. Here is the section I
    > was talking about. After looking at the whole image I did find a lot
    > more banding.
    >
    > http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/D200_banding.jpg


    I'll give hotbuyselectronics.com a ring. I'm sure they'll be right on
    top of it. :-(

    So for people who are paying attention, does this seem like something
    that will be fixable in a firmware rev?
    Cynicor, Mar 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    <> wrote:

    > I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
    > darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
    > likely.


    There is definitely (very noticeable) vertical banding, but we have sort
    of a terminology problem; that's not the "banding" that has caused all the
    controversy with the D200.

    Still, there are so many different kinds of "banding" reported with this
    camera, it's hard to keep up. It makes me glad I wasn't needing a new
    camera when it came out. It's very unlike Nikon to have early-release
    problems of this magnitude.

    I'm wondering, was this camera made after Nikon's "fix" for the problem?

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Mar 17, 2006
    #17
  18. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Jeremy Nixon <> wrote:

    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
    >> darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
    >> likely.

    >
    >There is definitely (very noticeable) vertical banding, but we have sort
    >of a terminology problem; that's not the "banding" that has caused all the
    >controversy with the D200.


    The banding I see all over has *exactly* the same geometry as the
    banding above the clipped highlights. The darkest lines in the bands
    above the light are also the darker lines above and below in the darker,
    flatter areas. The clipping-related lines *below* the lights are the
    only exception to the pattern. Obviously, some kind of blooming or
    readout "memory burn" is occuring. The problems are somewhat related.

    >Still, there are so many different kinds of "banding" reported with this
    >camera, it's hard to keep up. It makes me glad I wasn't needing a new
    >camera when it came out. It's very unlike Nikon to have early-release
    >problems of this magnitude.


    There are a few types of banding; there is vertical and horizontal,
    scalar and offset, and repeating (within the image, and frame to frame)
    and random.

    I don't know if anything short of a replacement is going to remove that
    memory effect. It may be possible to calibrate the general banding
    effect, though.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #18
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Cynicor Guest

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
    >>darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
    >>likely.

    >
    > There is definitely (very noticeable) vertical banding, but we have sort
    > of a terminology problem; that's not the "banding" that has caused all the
    > controversy with the D200.
    >
    > Still, there are so many different kinds of "banding" reported with this
    > camera, it's hard to keep up. It makes me glad I wasn't needing a new
    > camera when it came out. It's very unlike Nikon to have early-release
    > problems of this magnitude.
    >
    > I'm wondering, was this camera made after Nikon's "fix" for the problem?


    It's a Japanese model. Got it in late Feb, but I don't know offhand
    which model numbers were unfixed.

    If anyone wants to look at the NEF, it's an 8+ MB ZIP file on my slow
    site. http://www.trupin.com/Banding.zip. Enjoy!
    Cynicor, Mar 18, 2006
    #19
  20. Cynicor wrote:

    >> I'm wondering, was this camera made after Nikon's "fix" for the
    >> problem?

    >
    > It's a Japanese model. Got it in late Feb, but I don't know offhand
    > which model numbers were unfixed.


    This has me wondering about another variable in the "banding" equation,
    geography. Does anyone know what the *true* incidences of afflicted D200s
    are US or gray market models? Nikon wasn't specific on this when they
    released the announcement.

    The other question I have is would Nikon US fix the banding issue since this
    camera was bought under false pretences from a US based vender advertising
    it as a US model with a full Nikon US warranty. I would hope Nikon US would
    honor a warranty claim since this is a manufacturer's defect.







    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ThomasH
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    793
    Philip Homburg
    Nov 2, 2005
  2. GTO

    Banding problem with D200 finally confirmed

    GTO, Feb 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    259
  3. Cynicor

    D200 banding per RAW viewer

    Cynicor, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    640
    Paul Furman
    Mar 20, 2006
  4. Gisle Hannemyr

    Pictures wanted: D200/20D banding example

    Gisle Hannemyr, Apr 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Apr 17, 2006
  5. §ñühw¤£f

    FINALLY! I think they've got it...

    §ñühw¤£f, Feb 18, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    389
Loading...

Share This Page