Dr. Leonard
Senior Member
Has the R5 solved the banding problem of the R4?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
R5 and banding?
- Thread starter Dr. Leonard
- Start date
I haven't seen any sign of it in the photos I've taken so far, but that's not to say it's definitely gone - after all, it only appeared very irregularly with my R4.
Very strong sun is required, the longest zoom position, a lot of blue (and some black/red) and ISO 100 or over ..
Dr. Leonard
Senior Member
Well, this seems to describe a fair number of scenarios, although I don't know why one would go over ISO 100 in strong sun. Although many describe the banding as relatively infrequent, still, that one shot on safari in Kenya... I'm still waiting for Ricoh to solve the problem or, less satisfactorily, someone to come up with a PP solution.
Detlef J
Leading Member
Don't forget banding is very different on different devices.
I had one R4 here which showed banding in nearly every shot at 33.0mm, I did not even needed direct sun. Very, very bad.
In addition this device couldn't focus at long end, may because of this banding issue.
I had one R4 here which showed banding in nearly every shot at 33.0mm, I did not even needed direct sun. Very, very bad.
In addition this device couldn't focus at long end, may because of this banding issue.
JohnLA
Active member
I don't have an R5 but I thought I'd give an update on my R4 which was sent back to Ricoh to fix the banding problem. They replaced the lens (or part of it at least) and after using it extensively on a Sierra backpack, I can say that the bands have been completely eliminated. But as you can see below, I'm now getting a vignette in the upper left corner. It seem to only be apparent when the lens is at 28mm or close to it. So, once again, I'm sending it back to the Ricoh repair center in Arizona.
I must say that I have never, ever had this much trouble with a camera before. In my opinion (and experience) Ricoh seems to have a quality control problem lately. I know everyone is hyped up over the new R5, but I would advise anyone considering the R5 to hold off for a while until a few test reports come in or others who have already purchased it can say that there are no major problems with it.
Just a suggestion.
I must say that I have never, ever had this much trouble with a camera before. In my opinion (and experience) Ricoh seems to have a quality control problem lately. I know everyone is hyped up over the new R5, but I would advise anyone considering the R5 to hold off for a while until a few test reports come in or others who have already purchased it can say that there are no major problems with it.
Just a suggestion.
Many of the R4s have minor vignetting in the top left corner, mine does, but no where near as bad as the images here. I think the service centre got something very wrong. I agree it is poor, and I would be very annoyed.
Brian
Brian
Detlef J
Leading Member
Wow, thats pretty bad. Both vignetting and that the service center did not repaired the device correctly.
I just checked some of my sky foto and did not find such bad vignetting.
Sure, such lens produce some vignetting. But on my device it is very mild and I can live with it.
I just checked some of my sky foto and did not find such bad vignetting.
Sure, such lens produce some vignetting. But on my device it is very mild and I can live with it.
lettingg0
Senior Member
I guess I am fortunate that I have not had any of these issues with my camera. At this point, I would say, that Ricoh owes you a new camera.
LG
LG
MapleLeafBryon
Forum Enthusiast
I am thinking of getting one next month when they come in to the local shop. Would love the extra zoom and tight macro in the compact body ... all for a very reasonable price (unlike the C vendor).
Some concerns about the low light and flash under powered, but I may still go for it. Not sure what I'll do. Interested in what the rest of you with R5's find out in the coming weeks.
Saw this example of banding on the R5 (thinkcamera.com's Ricoh R5 review). It could be just an early production model that was tested as nobody else with one has said anything, yet.
--
Bryon
My LX1 Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapleleafbryon/
Some concerns about the low light and flash under powered, but I may still go for it. Not sure what I'll do. Interested in what the rest of you with R5's find out in the coming weeks.
Saw this example of banding on the R5 (thinkcamera.com's Ricoh R5 review). It could be just an early production model that was tested as nobody else with one has said anything, yet.
--
Bryon
My LX1 Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapleleafbryon/
Prognathous
Veteran Member
And don't forget the wider angle...
This is what I plan to do:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1013&message=19882655
I wouldn't worry about this picture. It's severely overexposed and is totally useless regardless of banding. So far, there isn't any example of a properly exposed picture with banding, so I don't see any reason to be concerned.
Prog.
MapleLeafBryon
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks Prog. I did wonder about that shot and whether overexposure was at the root.
Yes, I hadn't forgotten about the wide. I still have the LX1, but am keen for any even more compact digicam with a long zoom. There is no other than the R5.
--
Bryon
My LX1 Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapleleafbryon/
Yes, I hadn't forgotten about the wide. I still have the LX1, but am keen for any even more compact digicam with a long zoom. There is no other than the R5.
--
Bryon
My LX1 Gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapleleafbryon/
Detlef J
Leading Member
I had one similar picture.
But I pointed directly into the sun at a very sunny day, for accident.
I don't think you have to be worry about.
But I pointed directly into the sun at a very sunny day, for accident.
I don't think you have to be worry about.
lettingg0
Senior Member
It just goes to show if you look for something hard enough, you will be sure and find it. The incidence of banding, even on the R4 has been low with many (like mine) never showing any incidence after several thousand pics. but then, I don't pixel peep and haven't tried to look at every pic to see if I can find it.
Anyway, as Prog said, that pic was so bad it almost looked like someone doctored it trying to create a banding issue.
Get the R5, you'll love it.
LG
Anyway, as Prog said, that pic was so bad it almost looked like someone doctored it trying to create a banding issue.
Get the R5, you'll love it.
LG
M Pearce
Forum Enthusiast
Having learned about the "Banding Problem" from this forum, I finally became sufficiently curious to have a look at some of the low light pics that I had saved from a family wedding. These were taken with my old Canon S40 (DpReview considered it a good small camera in its day). As soon as I blew then up a little, I found banding as bad as anything shown on the thread.
I'd never spotted the phenomenon when making our album prints and don't propose to worry about it in the future.... A future which, if it ever arrives in Spain, will hold an R5!
--
Martin
I'd never spotted the phenomenon when making our album prints and don't propose to worry about it in the future.... A future which, if it ever arrives in Spain, will hold an R5!
--
Martin
I had a search about banding in general in digital images and came up with this:
In a RAW, i.e., linear file, the pixel level is proportional to light intensity. An exposure change of one zone or f-stop involves halving or doubling the pixel level. Therefore, half the pixel levels are in the top (brightest) zone, a quarter are in the second zone, a fourth are in the third zone, etc. A linear file with a bit depth of 8 (256 discrete levels) would contain 128 levels in the top zone, 64 levels in the second, and so on. The top zone would have far more levels than the eye can distinguish, while the lower zones would have relatively few levels-- only 8 and 4 in zones 5 and 6, respectively. "Banding" would be visible in shadows. If much editing were applied to the image-- if shadow areas had to be lightened (dodged) or increased in contrast, the banding could become severe. In a color space with gamma = 2.2, the distribution of levels is much more uniform: there are 69 levels in zone 1 (close to Weber-Fechner's magic number), 50 in zone 2, and so on. Zone 6 would still have 14 levels. Banding is invisible unless considerable editing is applied. Gamma = 2.2 may well be the ideal value for files with a bit depth of 8 (8-bit B&W and 24-bit color).
Taken from this web site: http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
If I understand this right, taking a slightly overexposed shot may be better than underexposing as there would be less of the image in the darkest band. It also sounds like if Ricoh applied a slightly different gamma value to the in camera image then the problem would be reduced, but then the look or appeal of the image may be changed.
Any other opinions on this from those technically minded.
Brian
In a RAW, i.e., linear file, the pixel level is proportional to light intensity. An exposure change of one zone or f-stop involves halving or doubling the pixel level. Therefore, half the pixel levels are in the top (brightest) zone, a quarter are in the second zone, a fourth are in the third zone, etc. A linear file with a bit depth of 8 (256 discrete levels) would contain 128 levels in the top zone, 64 levels in the second, and so on. The top zone would have far more levels than the eye can distinguish, while the lower zones would have relatively few levels-- only 8 and 4 in zones 5 and 6, respectively. "Banding" would be visible in shadows. If much editing were applied to the image-- if shadow areas had to be lightened (dodged) or increased in contrast, the banding could become severe. In a color space with gamma = 2.2, the distribution of levels is much more uniform: there are 69 levels in zone 1 (close to Weber-Fechner's magic number), 50 in zone 2, and so on. Zone 6 would still have 14 levels. Banding is invisible unless considerable editing is applied. Gamma = 2.2 may well be the ideal value for files with a bit depth of 8 (8-bit B&W and 24-bit color).
Taken from this web site: http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
If I understand this right, taking a slightly overexposed shot may be better than underexposing as there would be less of the image in the darkest band. It also sounds like if Ricoh applied a slightly different gamma value to the in camera image then the problem would be reduced, but then the look or appeal of the image may be changed.
Any other opinions on this from those technically minded.
Brian
Here is another site with tips on taking a good digital image and it refers to banding and how to avoid it. It appears to back up the information in my previous thread on the cause of banding: http://www.pcphotomag.com/content/2006/marapr/digital_camera_tips.shtml
Here is an extract:
5. Minimize banding. The smaller tonal range represented by an underexposed image must be expanded when processed in Photoshop. This expansion can cause banding because there isn’t enough tonal information left to smoothly cover certain tonality variations. Since JPEG starts out with much less tonal information than RAW, this can quickly present a problem in that format (although banding can occur in RAW, too). If JPEG is carefully exposed, you can get an excellent image file that can be well-processed in Photoshop.
6. Overexposure is bad, too. Overexposure puts details too high in the tonal range. When highlights themselves start losing important detail, there’s no magic in Photoshop that can bring them back. Overexposure can also make colors go too high in the tonal range. They lose color up there, too, so when they’re darkened, they look gray and lack their normal saturation (if they have any color at all).
Brian
Here is an extract:
5. Minimize banding. The smaller tonal range represented by an underexposed image must be expanded when processed in Photoshop. This expansion can cause banding because there isn’t enough tonal information left to smoothly cover certain tonality variations. Since JPEG starts out with much less tonal information than RAW, this can quickly present a problem in that format (although banding can occur in RAW, too). If JPEG is carefully exposed, you can get an excellent image file that can be well-processed in Photoshop.
6. Overexposure is bad, too. Overexposure puts details too high in the tonal range. When highlights themselves start losing important detail, there’s no magic in Photoshop that can bring them back. Overexposure can also make colors go too high in the tonal range. They lose color up there, too, so when they’re darkened, they look gray and lack their normal saturation (if they have any color at all).
Brian
Detlef J
Leading Member
LG, don't get me wrong.
But I had an R4 here for testing which showed really bad bandings. I still have this pictures. It was at full long end and ISO100 without direct or directional sun. It was really, really bad in nearly every shot at long end. Completely unusable.
I did returned the cam because R5 was anounced. Otherwise I would probably had it sent to Ricoh to fix it.
Anyway, I think there are differences how bad bandings come up on the R4. With my R5 I did exactly the same shots, nearly same or worse conditions and there are no banding at all.
But I had an R4 here for testing which showed really bad bandings. I still have this pictures. It was at full long end and ISO100 without direct or directional sun. It was really, really bad in nearly every shot at long end. Completely unusable.
I did returned the cam because R5 was anounced. Otherwise I would probably had it sent to Ricoh to fix it.Anyway, I think there are differences how bad bandings come up on the R4. With my R5 I did exactly the same shots, nearly same or worse conditions and there are no banding at all.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
The banding they are talking about is when you manipulate an image by using curves or levels adjustments too severely and areas of smooth gradation, like the sky, can end up with distinct tonal bands.
This usually comes about because most people are working with 8 bit jpegs, and the file can get "damaged" very easily. If first converting to 16 bit, then doing the fiddles, and then converting back to 8 bit the problems are lessened if doing adjustments.
In any edit program, get to the levels or histogram adjustment and radically alter the black point or white point or mid point, then you will see lots of spikes and/or gaps appear on the histogram, that is the bunching up or spreading of data that leads to tonal banding in the image.
Our Ricoh banding is an entirely different animal. Nikon have a D200 banding problem and it is something to do with the CCD being unloaded simultaneously from both sides, and some circuitry is obviously out of balance, so odd/even bands may appear in some conditions. The R4 is a bit weirder with good/bad pairs of lines, ie 2 good beside 2 bad.
Regards........... Guy
This usually comes about because most people are working with 8 bit jpegs, and the file can get "damaged" very easily. If first converting to 16 bit, then doing the fiddles, and then converting back to 8 bit the problems are lessened if doing adjustments.
In any edit program, get to the levels or histogram adjustment and radically alter the black point or white point or mid point, then you will see lots of spikes and/or gaps appear on the histogram, that is the bunching up or spreading of data that leads to tonal banding in the image.
Our Ricoh banding is an entirely different animal. Nikon have a D200 banding problem and it is something to do with the CCD being unloaded simultaneously from both sides, and some circuitry is obviously out of balance, so odd/even bands may appear in some conditions. The R4 is a bit weirder with good/bad pairs of lines, ie 2 good beside 2 bad.
Regards........... Guy
You may be right on this, I was also investigating the D200 which I did not post here. It is exactly like the Ricoh case, except I think they were using a 4 port CCD so maybe that is something to do with the number of pixels per line, I am not sure.
I still canot see how the tele end of the lens is affecting this, maybe if a theory was proposed that would lead to a greater understanding of the cause and then to a workaround.
Brian
I still canot see how the tele end of the lens is affecting this, maybe if a theory was proposed that would lead to a greater understanding of the cause and then to a workaround.
Brian
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum