Canon Line Offset Noise

Started Oct 20, 2009 | Discussions thread
JimH Forum Pro • Posts: 12,911
Re: Let me just say...

I feel like things have gotten stirred up in this thread and the few others that lead up to it. And John's been outright attacked, with a few people questioning his knowledge and beating it to death. That seems to me to be what's caused his temper to flare (and, to me, understandably).

So I think the anger you're seeing in John's posts are uncharacteristic of him, and are the result of his having been badgered mercilessly on this point by a few people whose names I don't recognize from this forum.

So I think that's what's lead to this "argument".

John has mentioned this kind of problem on here for years. And he's right that with better use of the existing masked areas or perhaps with even more masked pixels, a lot could be done to fix some of the problems that have bedeviled (to my knowledge, and at the least), the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and now 7D as well as, I guess, the 5DII.

My 20D suffers from pretty nasty horizontal pattern noise. Oddly, my old version of ACR which runs under CS2 automatically suppresses this banding for the 20D. DPP does not.

So for long exposures or shots taken in dark conditions, I use that old version of ACR to convert my 20D files, and they're great. I use DPP for everything else because I greatly prefer its colors.

So Adobe had this figured out for the 20D years ago. But as I understand it, they've dropped the ball on that in newer versions and for newer cameras. I find that interesting.

And John's talked about this all before, and he has not been very forgiving of Canon for not doing the obvious and easy things about it. I suspect that as time goes on and we see more and more cameras introduced, and still, nothing is done about these easy-to-fix issues, a lot of us have gotten a bit impatient with Canon.

I don't think anyone has to be a Nikon or Canon engineer to see this. And it's not logical to imagine that an "outsider" (to any company or organization) can see problems and offer good solutions. I think that the rudeness shown by some of the people who have been attacking John in these threads is unwarranted.

OK, maybe he's being a bit strident in his knocking of Canon. But this problem has persisted, year after year, model after model. It's kind of baffling and I think John's just been trying to get the point across that there doesn't seem to be any rational explanation for why something so obvious would go overlooked for so long.

I would say that while those participating in these threads (and I'm not just talking about John here, because there are a number of true experts in this field who have posted to this very thread) may not be fully informed as to all of the various tradeoffs and reasons why Canon does what they do, I do believe that they are capable of seeing faults and performing some fairly in-depth analysis of them.

I truly do believe that some of the posters to this very thread could offer quite a bit of insight to the engineers at Canon who are designing these cameras. You might be extremely surprised at how sharp some of these folks are.

As far as Canon's motivations for overlooking these things year after year, that really is baffling. One would imagine that they'd want to produce the very best products possible at the price points they've established so that they could compete better in the market.

I wonder if there are patent issues preventing them from implementing some of these seemingly obvious fixes. It's hard to know without being inside the companies.

I think what you're seeing is John's frustration with being hounded constantly by a few select folks who don't seem interested in the actual nuts and bolts of this, but instead are harping over and over on John's lack of faith in Canon.

Fine. Some people want to believe the best in Canon. John seems to have lost faith in that particular religion. So be it.

But I'm pretty sure that the vitriol you're seeing from John is his reaction to being constantly told that he's not qualified to make the observations he's made. That's simply not true.

He's proven how easy it is to fix the vertical pattern noise. He and others have established that the maze artifact is a result of the imbalance in the greens in even/odd vertical lines. All of that is easily fixed.

I'm not sure what the real reason is that Canon has not implemented the easy fixes for these issues. It's strange.

Don't just take John's word for it, read the posts by the others in this thread.

I don't think anything John has written on the technical details of this subject has been wrong.

And as for the flame war: That didn't exist until some people started attacking John over and over and over. That's the part of all of this that I'd like to see go away. It serves no purpose.

We know John's and Mark's opinions already. I, for one, don't need to hear it repeated over and over and over.

Let's get on with the technical and practical side of this and agree to disagree about Canon's motives, etc.

-- hide signature --

Jim H.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow