Firmware 1.3.0 an improvement for EOS-1D

[William Castleman]

I shot my first gymnastics meet with version 1.3.0 firmware and notice a significant reduction in banding at ISO 800 and 1600 from version 1.2.0 The Canon site indicated that there wouldn’t be much of a change noticeable between 1.2.0 and 1.3.0, but there seems to be. The reduced banding appears to be associated with a decrease in dynamic range…but the results are very pleasing to my eye.

What do others think?

Here is the link to the gymnastics meet shot with firmware version 1.3.0

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/030102/uf/index.htm

Most of it was shot at ISO 800. The uneven bar routines of Hilary Thompson and Kara Waterhouse were shot at ISO 1600.

Here is the link to the previous meet I shot with firmware version 1.2.0 . All are at ISO 800.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/021502/uf/index.htm

--William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

Are you using ONLY the firmware upgrade? Or are you also shooting with the new tone curves and overexposing 1/3 and 2/3 stops (depending on which tone curve).

I'd hate to have to give up 2/3 stop to eliminate the banding.

I shot my first gymnastics meet with version 1.3.0 firmware and
notice a significant reduction in banding at ISO 800 and 1600 from
version 1.2.0 The Canon site indicated that there wouldn’t be
much of a change noticeable between 1.2.0 and 1.3.0, but there
seems to be. The reduced banding appears to be associated with a
decrease in dynamic range…but the results are very pleasing to my
eye.

What do others think?

Here is the link to the gymnastics meet shot with firmware version
1.3.0

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/030102/uf/index.htm
Most of it was shot at ISO 800. The uneven bar routines of Hilary
Thompson and Kara Waterhouse were shot at ISO 1600.

Here is the link to the previous meet I shot with firmware version
1.2.0 . All are at ISO 800.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/021502/uf/index.htm

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[William Castleman]

Only firmware upgrade. No tone curves or exposure compensation. Lighting and exposure settings are for the most point the same as well as shooting locations in the coliseum.

Are you using ONLY the firmware upgrade? Or are you also shooting
with the new tone curves and overexposing 1/3 and 2/3 stops
(depending on which tone curve).

I'd hate to have to give up 2/3 stop to eliminate the banding.

--William Castleman http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[Pips]

Can you give usa breif write up of the experience using a 1D at the sports meeting, any ,limitations, suprises, comments

I shot my first gymnastics meet with version 1.3.0 firmware and
notice a significant reduction in banding at ISO 800 and 1600 from
version 1.2.0 The Canon site indicated that there wouldn’t be
much of a change noticeable between 1.2.0 and 1.3.0, but there
seems to be. The reduced banding appears to be associated with a
decrease in dynamic range…but the results are very pleasing to my
eye.

What do others think?

Here is the link to the gymnastics meet shot with firmware version
1.3.0

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/030102/uf/index.htm
Most of it was shot at ISO 800. The uneven bar routines of Hilary
Thompson and Kara Waterhouse were shot at ISO 1600.

Here is the link to the previous meet I shot with firmware version
1.2.0 . All are at ISO 800.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/021502/uf/index.htm

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com

--Pips

 

[mark kay]

William. Spectacular shots!!! I agree with you-- there is a noticeable difference between the two and I can hardly see any banding if any in the shots I looked at with 1.3. There are clearly banding shots in the earlier photos.

I took a few practice shots with Ron Haley's 1D at isos 1000-1600 and I cannot see any banding (v1.3). Mark

I shot my first gymnastics meet with version 1.3.0 firmware and
notice a significant reduction in banding at ISO 800 and 1600 from
version 1.2.0 The Canon site indicated that there wouldn’t be
much of a change noticeable between 1.2.0 and 1.3.0, but there
seems to be. The reduced banding appears to be associated with a
decrease in dynamic range…but the results are very pleasing to my
eye.

What do others think?

Here is the link to the gymnastics meet shot with firmware version
1.3.0

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/030102/uf/index.htm
Most of it was shot at ISO 800. The uneven bar routines of Hilary
Thompson and Kara Waterhouse were shot at ISO 1600.

Here is the link to the previous meet I shot with firmware version
1.2.0 . All are at ISO 800.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/021502/uf/index.htm

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[William Castleman]

I am in the process of writing up a longer review to put on my website. I am waiting to do a dance performance under stage lighting so I can have more experience under variable and colored state lights.

So far, all I have to say is a conservative, THIS CAMERA IS FANTASTIC. - a quantum leap in still performance and action photography. I say this after using EOS-1v's, the D-1, D-1x, and D-30.

The camera has a few unforgiving/quirky characteristics. The biggest problem I have encountered is moire in architectural photography applications. That is another story. As a sports/performance camera under low light...nothing I have seen even comes close to it in capability.

Can you give usa breif write up of the experience using a 1D at
the sports meeting, any ,limitations, suprises, comments

--William Castleman http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

I can still see banding, but it's not as noticeable as before.

Do you have any larger samples? maybe b391 and b425 ?

I realize those are ISO1600, but they have the easiest banding to spot. I thought I could see some in b298, too.

BTW, they cleaned up rather nicely (in their small form) using Fred Miranda's noise reduction algorithms.

If I played around with Levels, I could still bring the banding out. But I think they looked better than the previous shots with FW 1.2 (when no levels were applied).

I'd like to see the dance performance shots, as well. From what I've seen, banding should be LESS of an issue there -- for some reasons, banding is more of a problem in the lighter shadows than in the darker ones.

I'd say that your ISO1600 looks compareable to ISO800 on the D-30.

Drool!

I am in the process of writing up a longer review to put on my
website. I am waiting to do a dance performance under stage
lighting so I can have more experience under variable and colored
state lights.
So far, all I have to say is a conservative, THIS CAMERA IS
FANTASTIC. - a quantum leap in still performance and action
photography. I say this after using EOS-1v's, the D-1, D-1x, and
D-30.
The camera has a few unforgiving/quirky characteristics. The
biggest problem I have encountered is moire in architectural
photography applications. That is another story. As a
sports/performance camera under low light...nothing I have seen
even comes close to it in capability.

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[mark kay]

I honestly do not see true banding in b425

Do you have any larger samples? maybe b391 and b425 ?

I realize those are ISO1600, but they have the easiest banding to
spot. I thought I could see some in b298, too.

BTW, they cleaned up rather nicely (in their small form) using Fred
Miranda's noise reduction algorithms.

If I played around with Levels, I could still bring the banding
out. But I think they looked better than the previous shots with
FW 1.2 (when no levels were applied).

I'd like to see the dance performance shots, as well. From what
I've seen, banding should be LESS of an issue there -- for some
reasons, banding is more of a problem in the lighter shadows than
in the darker ones.

I'd say that your ISO1600 looks compareable to ISO800 on the D-30.

Drool!

I am in the process of writing up a longer review to put on my
website. I am waiting to do a dance performance under stage
lighting so I can have more experience under variable and colored
state lights.
So far, all I have to say is a conservative, THIS CAMERA IS
FANTASTIC. - a quantum leap in still performance and action
photography. I say this after using EOS-1v's, the D-1, D-1x, and
D-30.
The camera has a few unforgiving/quirky characteristics. The
biggest problem I have encountered is moire in architectural
photography applications. That is another story. As a
sports/performance camera under low light...nothing I have seen
even comes close to it in capability.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[William Castleman]

The IS0 1600 shots have more general noise and some banding. I shot this in RAW + small jpg mode. The small jpg's are on the website. I printed a few of these out full size (12 x 18) on my Epson 1270, and they look great. Image quality is much better than I am aware can be produced with any other mass produced camera at ISO 1600 (film or digital).

Do you have any larger samples? maybe b391 and b425 ?

I realize those are ISO1600, but they have the easiest banding to
spot. I thought I could see some in b298, too.

BTW, they cleaned up rather nicely (in their small form) using Fred
Miranda's noise reduction algorithms.

If I played around with Levels, I could still bring the banding
out. But I think they looked better than the previous shots with
FW 1.2 (when no levels were applied).

I'd like to see the dance performance shots, as well. From what
I've seen, banding should be LESS of an issue there -- for some
reasons, banding is more of a problem in the lighter shadows than
in the darker ones.

I'd say that your ISO1600 looks compareable to ISO800 on the D-30.

Drool!

I am in the process of writing up a longer review to put on my
website. I am waiting to do a dance performance under stage
lighting so I can have more experience under variable and colored
state lights.
So far, all I have to say is a conservative, THIS CAMERA IS
FANTASTIC. - a quantum leap in still performance and action
photography. I say this after using EOS-1v's, the D-1, D-1x, and
D-30.
The camera has a few unforgiving/quirky characteristics. The
biggest problem I have encountered is moire in architectural
photography applications. That is another story. As a
sports/performance camera under low light...nothing I have seen
even comes close to it in capability.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--William Castleman http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[mark kay]

Wm have you tried a noise reduction program with any of these shots. I just added a small amount of PS noise reduction and it really made an improvement. mark

I shot my first gymnastics meet with version 1.3.0 firmware and
notice a significant reduction in banding at ISO 800 and 1600 from
version 1.2.0 The Canon site indicated that there wouldn’t be
much of a change noticeable between 1.2.0 and 1.3.0, but there
seems to be. The reduced banding appears to be associated with a
decrease in dynamic range…but the results are very pleasing to my
eye.

What do others think?

Here is the link to the gymnastics meet shot with firmware version
1.3.0

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/030102/uf/index.htm
Most of it was shot at ISO 800. The uneven bar routines of Hilary
Thompson and Kara Waterhouse were shot at ISO 1600.

Here is the link to the previous meet I shot with firmware version
1.2.0 . All are at ISO 800.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/gymnastics/2002/021502/uf/index.htm

--
William Castleman
http://www.wlcastleman.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

Fred's noise reduction algorithms worked great on the pics.

Wm have you tried a noise reduction program with any of these
shots. I just added a small amount of PS noise reduction and it
really made an improvement. mark

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

Wishing that you and I had ordered those 2 that were available Friday night at BPAV?

Wm have you tried a noise reduction program with any of these
shots. I just added a small amount of PS noise reduction and it
really made an improvement. mark

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[mark kay]

LOL my thoughts exactly.. I was just looking through some test shots i took today at iso 1000 and in my mind it is unbelievable that they were taken at such high isos and look this good. mark

Wm have you tried a noise reduction program with any of these
shots. I just added a small amount of PS noise reduction and it
really made an improvement. mark

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

If what I'm seeing is really banding, it runs VERTICALLY in this shot.

So, if this shot was taken horizontally, then I'm imagining it. If it was taken in portrait mode, then it's probably banding.

Very subtle, indeed.

I honestly do not see true banding in b425

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

for playing with one.

Lee Rothman could've warned ya about that.

LOL my thoughts exactly.. I was just looking through some test
shots i took today at iso 1000 and in my mind it is unbelievable
that they were taken at such high isos and look this good. mark

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[mark kay]

I think Canon placed a virus on the camera.. one touch you become infected and then you fall in love..

Lee Rothman could've warned ya about that.

LOL my thoughts exactly.. I was just looking through some test
shots i took today at iso 1000 and in my mind it is unbelievable
that they were taken at such high isos and look this good. mark

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

one of the side effects is banding.

I think Canon placed a virus on the camera.. one touch you become
infected and then you fall in love..

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise

 

[mark kay]

I see a very subtle band towards the right side of the photo and one just below the gymnasts blue outfit near her rear. Not sure i can absolutely convince myself this was true banding. Do not want to accept it.. lol However, I will rarely use is 1600. mark

So, if this shot was taken horizontally, then I'm imagining it. If
it was taken in portrait mode, then it's probably banding.

Very subtle, indeed.

I honestly do not see true banding in b425

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[mark kay]

Next tip on 1D availability give me an email. I told my wife today i was getting a new camera...

I think Canon placed a virus on the camera.. one touch you become
infected and then you fall in love..

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'll be sure to let you know.

Next tip on 1D availability give me an email. I told my wife today
i was getting a new camera...

--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise