Reading mode: Light Dark

Banding zealots & Phil's image. You're simply wrong...

Go to last post
B

bobm666

Well-known member
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, USA, IL, US
The image - dsd_0267.jpg - on Phil's review page does not show banding. Period.

Link to it if you must, but if you see banding, you don't know what you're talking about, are badly misinformed or both.

Here is a 100% snippet of a photo I took that shows type one banding. Note: this was at the Chicago Auto Show under very hot pinpoint light sources leading to lots of specular highlights. It was shot at ISO-800, RAW and postprocessed with ACR.



Here is a context image. It is the large light oval in the lower left hand corner of the windshield.

This was a grab shot, I'm glad to have it!!

That's it, that's what all the fuss is about now that type II banding has been identified and fixed for the small number of D200's that actually had it.

 
... dsc_0128.jpg (11 of 38) on the sample page of Phil's review does show type I banding, and it is even less inconsequential than in my image.

In fact, if one was to find flaws of the pixel peeping kind in this image, it would be in chromatic aberation and noise first, without the banding even in the running.

...And that in a very nice image.

... by the way, if you can't find it, and it is quite possible that you won't, it is around the small oval light at the top of the tunnel in the upper left corner of the frame.
 
what I would call very mild striping in a number of places. Take a close look at the underside of the plane.

Now you should put on your Nomex suit :)

Bob Peters
 
... thanks for you kind reply however. My nomex is ready for the not so kind.

I would be happy to change my opinion if I could see what you are looking at. Could you give me better direction to what you are looking at or post a small snippet?

I have looked over the entire photograph and found nothing, even in the most likely place, the three lights in the upper right hand corner.
 
Many folks that can see the banding are using moitors that are uncalibrated and set for extremely high contrast. If you look at that image with a quality calibrated monitor all you will see at 200% is some random noise that appears to orient itself more in vertical groups. I don't see how it would be visible in a print. The place I am referring to is the dark underside of the plane. It is extremely subtle.

Or of course I could be going blind. :)

--
Jerry Faircloth
http://www.pbase.com/nikonsrme/gallery_images
Gallery: 'The Studio', Mount Dora, FL
 
of the plane. You can crank up the brightness and contrast to see where it is. Never mind that doing that kills the image. Or, as Julia Borg suggested (with a large dose of implied sarcasm), subject the image to usm of (500,2,0). Eith of these 'methods' results in a truly ugly image.

It's am imperfect world we live in :)

Bob Peters
 
Wow wow wow.

If people have to turn up the contrast and brightness on their screen to complain about banding then they are morons.

Sorry but that simple. It's not the camera's fault it's the dumb person who thinks it's the camera.
 
My monitor is calibrated, and I see it plain as day at 100% without any image manipulation.

I don't even have a dog in this fight since I own a D100 and have no intention of upgrading. I've also been a skeptic about this whole banding issue...until seeing Phil's images. It's not just noise. I hope this is the type of artifact Nikon's fix resolves.

BB
 
I have to admit that I was so focused on type I banding I was only looking at the edges!!!

In the numbers and on the underside of the plane, I can see the fainest type II banding samples I have looked at to date. I have searched my images far and wide for this type II effect and have never found any.

Would you agree that the banding is what has been called type II?

I have a Eye One calibrated 23" Apple HD LCD display and it is barely indistingushable from random noise.
 
the more you post, the uglier it looks.

don't you see that the image is enlarged, extremely brightened?

but the most funny thing is that what you are showing is not Type I banding. look, it rotates :)
zakdl said:
Take a look at his review at the dynamic range page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page22.asp

Here is graphic that should point in the direction of what I am
seeing:

Click to expand...
--
Julia
 
That is type I banding and in a different image.

My post conceeds that there is type one banding in the D200 in general. That is why I posted my sample.

I was referring to the specific image of the hanging airplane.

Thanks for your sample though, because it is a specific and credible sample of type I banding. It is also my personal opinion that this type of banding is inconsequential.

See my earlier post conceeding to the faintest type II banding in the airplane picture.
 
Julia Borg said:
the more you post, the uglier it looks.

don't you see that the image is enlarged, extremely brightened?

but the most funny thing is that what you are showing is not Type I
banding. look, it rotates :)

Julia
Click to expand...
Ah-ha. . it's the dreaded E.B.R.T.1.B. (extremely brightened, rotating, type 1 banding)

--
http://www.pbase.com/bigconig
 
think the striping shown in this image amounts to anything to be concerned about. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't there!

Now please do not put words into my mouth. My response was solely for the purpose of illustrating how the trivial banding present can * be viewed while, at the same time, destroying the image.

Bob Peters
 
David Beckham said:
You forgot the caption Phil had under the example you use....

"ISO 1600 (image brightness boosted)"
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct.

This is an example of what Nikon is talking about in their FAQ answer -

"The digital imaging artifact commonly known as banding can, in specific and unusual conditions, such as extreme exposure and/or exposure compensation settings and high contrast scenes, become visible."

This ISO 1600 (image brightness boosted) example is a 'specific and unusual condition(s), such as extreme exposure' that shows you what to expect if one was to run into extreme conditions. This is acknowledged and explained on Nikon's web site: http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=13872&p_created=1139520527&p_sid=UqW_fW*h&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MSZwX3Byb2RzPTE5LDIxNyZwX2NhdHM9MTc3JnBfcHY9Mi4yMTcmcF9jdj0xLjE3NyZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9YmFuZGluZw**&p_li=&p_topview=1

If buying a D200 this should be expected and understood.
 
Julia,

I don't get your post? I agree this sample is wildly exagerated, but it appears to me to be type I banding, similar to the effect I posted at the start of the thread.
 
bobm666 said:
That is type I banding and in a different image.

My post conceeds that there is type one banding in the D200 in
general. That is why I posted my sample.

I was referring to the specific image of the hanging airplane.

Thanks for your sample though, because it is a specific and
credible sample of type I banding. It is also my personal opinion
that this type of banding is inconsequential.

See my earlier post conceeding to the faintest type II banding in
the airplane picture.
Click to expand...
I do respect your opinion bobm666 - and you provided a good example of type I banding.

Here is a recent sample of mine:



For my interior shots, this is unfortunately, consequential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top