Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
I was really looking at the top of the '0'. Those sure like vertical non random noise bands at the interface of an extreme highlight and running into the dark area. What I thought we were all calling Type I banding.

The edges of the '3' look odd as you say, but what about the '0'?
 
Although I think banding exists, this looks totally ridiculous :), are you having fun?

Hmm. What if I enlarge the image such that one pixel covers my entire screen? I wonder if it'll be all even or I'll some vignetting? I've got to try it.
 
Do you need to borrow my nomex suit? Sorry to have dragged you into this. I agree, to me - for this level of banding - inconsequential is too substantial of a word for the minute effect on the photograph.
 
bobm666 said:
I was really looking at the top of the '0'. Those sure like
vertical non random noise bands at the interface of an extreme
highlight and running into the dark area. What I thought we were
all calling Type I banding.

The edges of the '3' look odd as you say, but what about the '0'?
Click to expand...
both are mostly results of Bayer pattern and demosaicing.

--
Julia
 
Julia,

I usually agree with most of what you post, however I think you are wrong on this one. That looks like type I to me.

However, let me state emphatically. All of the Type I banding I have seen is too inconsequential to be of any concern to me.

Just curious, what about my sample at the top of the post. Do you agree that it is a sample of type I banding?
 
nik1024 said:
Although I think banding exists, this looks totally ridiculous :),
are you having fun?
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous as few would ever run into this exact situation in real life - This is an extreme example, and my not be relevant to people's actual concerns on banding - but it jumped out at me right away when I was looking throught the review and looked very similar to the banding that I've seen on my units.
 
I'll contact you.

Come on, folks. I see the banding in that contrived example but really!

Bob Peters
 
Bob,

No. They are not wrong. There is type II banding in the brickwork. Personally, I found it very hard to drag out, but I could identify it. It runs vertical all through the brickwork. I don't remember which post, but somebody put up a 100% crop of the brickwork. I had to zoom in twice before I could see it, but it was there. I didn't want it to be there, but I am neither surprised nor dismayed. Here's why:

Phil's camera was an early serial number. He specifically said that in the review. It has not received the fix, so it's not out of the realm of possiblility that it would show banding, and having done so, the only conclusion is that it wasn't bad enough that Phil could detect it with the equipment he used during the review. So, while a bunch of people have their knickers in a twist over nothing, I'll simply comprehend that this is a meaningless result, as the fix is in. All it means is that Phil's camera needs fixing. No big deal.
--

Cheers,
Eric
 
I noticed that today - despite Phil's insistence that his D200 was not affected by banding. That is the most minimal degree of banding you're seeing - Type I, is it? Likewise the snippet from your own picture.

You can call it "specular highlights" if you want, but specular highlights, if they flare, tend to do so radially rather than linearly, unless one is photographing through either a screen or filter that polarizes the light. (Not to mention, specular flaring tends to be not quite so perfectly manifest as what you're showing - precisely the same width, and very regularly spaced.) What you have - and what Phil has/had, is a D200 (like the majority of them, I sadly suspect) that exhibits, to one degree or another, the infamous banding.

Great for you if it's no problem, the D200 has many features to recommend it and, indeed, is a lovely camera to hold, very gratifying to the touch. But don't expect every out there to be so either forgiving of the banding/striping/specular highlights. And, for $1700, I wouldn't expect them to just lie down and accept it either.

--
Garland Cary
 
bobm666 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is one of the most outrageous things I've read through the entire banding travesty.

It HAS been fixed? For the small number?

How the heck do you know?

In the last few days, four people here got their cameras refunded because, after two or three tries, Nikon was unable to remove bad type II and type II banding (I have type II)

You don't know the numbers, you don't know that they're fixed and your statement was amazing arrogant, and dismissive of those of us who are still struggling with bad cameras.

--
AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
 
Ok, I'm sorry to intervene here into yoru discussion with Julia but I think it's quite clear most d200 have this type of short banding, at least Nikon thinks so.

I believe Phil meant long banding when he said he didn't have any. But I may be wrong.

Much more tantalizing question is how many exactly units have long banding, when no new d200 will have it and if those units which have it can be reliably fixed by Nikon at the first try and without any risk of damaging overall image quality.
 
ImolaRed said:
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.
Click to expand...
What kind of place has this become, when people who don't see a problem call other people who do names? What is your age?

I guess you never have to raise the EV on your pictures becuase you're a PERFECT photographer who gets perfect exposure every time. You never raise the brightness and contrast on your images?

Because if you do, you'll get the exact same thing you get when you raise the "contrast and brightness on your screen".

Oh my revered, superior one, I bow down to your towering intellect as a humble moron who earns my living shooting art and events. Oh great one, forgive my presumption.

--
AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
 
Garland,

I will agree that my use of 'Specular Highlight' to describe the circle of reflected light is only marginally correct.

However, the radiating vertical lines, are not what I was calling a specular highlight. They are in fact the modest Type I banding that Nikon refers to.

On my D70 I would have blooming on this shot. The D200, does a much better job with these highlights but in high ISO high contrast this very modest banding is the result.

In Phil's picture I refered too, I looked for this type of banding but found none.

However, the more dreaded - but fixable type II banding - does lurk in Phil's picture. See my concession speech here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17328009
 
Please, I'm not an anti-banding advocate (isn't that statement bizarre right on the face of it?)

But what you're showing is NOT banding. Banding is only vertical.

You're just seeing blooming, it extends in all directions. Banding can only be in one direction as the sensor is only read out in one direction.

--
AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
 
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