Digi Cam reviews in Japan

[Robert MacLellan]

I agree! I wonder if some of the Photoshop experts could give instructions on fixing these annoyances. Not everybody has Photoshop, of course, some, like me, have Corel Photopaint 9 which has some capabilities. It would be more valuable than just saying or showing it can be fixed. Then we would all learn something and everyone would make better pictures.

Interesting site. Worth a bookmark. Seems as though I've seen it in
some thread of this unending subject, but maybe not presented the same
way with the reference to the Lukas site.

I see differences in most, if not all, of the colors (not just blue)
across the test photos. I would expect similar results if the variable
was different types of film instead of digital cameras. Not sure if I'd
characterize it as a 'problem' for any of the cameras, just a quirk (part
of the individual camera's personality) that a simple tweak in Photoshop
will take care of.

No worries, Mate!

-Ocker

 

[Robert Maclellan]

I have found it difficult to fix this problem without destroying the color in the rest of the picture. It is more than just a WB adjustment and not a quick fix in photoshop.

The problem is that the color shift is only apparent when there is the actual color sample to compare. If the color-shifted pictures are taken on their own, the change is not noticible but there will be situations where accurate color is absolutely essential such as in medical/dermatological photography. I would say that for most people, it will not be an issue.

I agree! I wonder if some of the Photoshop experts could give
instructions on fixing these annoyances. Not everybody has Photoshop, of
course, some, like me, have Corel Photopaint 9 which has some
capabilities. It would be more valuable than just saying or showing it
can be fixed. Then we would all learn something and everyone would make
better pictures.

 

[Bob G.]

Fred,

Have you considered that your monitor you are viewing these pictures on may not be perfect. Or maybe you need a vacation to somewhere where the sky is a vivid blue and the birds are singing. A little less memorex and a little more real world might help you realize it doesn't have to be perfect. Just think of todays digital camera as an Apple II with 48K of RAM. In 10 years, when we are using our 40Mega pixel digital camera with wireless 10gigbit/sec satellite link to our Apple G10 3GHz computer at home, we won't care what the digital camera were like in 1999, we will just know they weren't as good as today (2009).

Michael:
For a shot that appears to be taken at dusk, the sky is much too deep a
blue, and the supposed reflection of the sky is much too deep and vivid a
blue to be real. Just look at how deep a blue the reflections in the
water are. Can you really say that you have seen such a sight as this in
your experience? The sky just does not get this deep a blue![and notice
that there is little or no shading of the blue as one moves toward the
horizon - especially in the sky to the far right] I have serious doubts
that this reflects reality.

Fred H.

 

[chuck]

ROBERT: Great find and examples.....but did you notice the blue "flash/contrast fringe" in the metal pan on the far lower right......this is not evident in all the 2 Meg cameras !!!

As for your challenge...
You have thrown up (and I'm about to do likewise) numerous ANONYMOUS
photos and said "Fix 'em!" Don't you realize that without knowledge of
the conditions under which those photos were taken and whether or not
there was any post-processing, YOU CANNOT REACH A FAIR CONCLUSION. The
camera type, settings, filters, lighting, post-processing, etc. are all
variables in this equation, and NONE of them can be excluded.

Your equation reads:

camera(NIKON) + settings(?) + filters(?) + lighting(?) + post-proc(?) +
other(?) = BLUE HAZE

and you conclude

NIKON = Blue Haze.

What a crock of S. Your logic is so ILL no wonder I feel like throwing up.

 

[Robert Maclellan]

Thanks Chuck, I did notice that but didn't want to bring it up because it wasn't really a color-shift issue. But you are right, it is there in some but not in all. I wonder if it is the result of the positioning of the flash or the lens relative to the lighting. I would imagine that they have a tripod fixed in one place and just mount the cameras one after the other. Some cameras may have a different angle relative to the glare. For example the Sony F55 picked up glare off the wide brush below the metal pan.

ROBERT: Great find and examples.....but did you notice the blue
"flash/contrast fringe" in the metal pan on the far lower right......this
is not evident in all the 2 Meg cameras !!!

 

[Fred H.]

Robert:
I love it!
Fred H.

 

[Fred H.]

No it's not!

 

[Fred H.]

We .......deleted for brevity....artist's supplies. Compare the color of that
tube of paint to the actual samples from the Lukas America site
http://www.lukasamerica.com/htmlos/htmlos/75.3.3545454626
and, yes, you will see the color shift towards the blue in the Nikon 950
or Nikon 700 shot. However, compare the color of the same tube in the
Sony F505, F55, D700 or even Mavica 91 sample and you will see the
correct color of Lukas #356 represented.
I think that this color evidence which is based on controlled and
independent samples and compared with the color swatches provided by the
paint manufacturer (who must be very careful to provide as accurate
swatchs as possible) provide support for Fred's observation of a color
shift towards the blue in CERTAIN digital cameras. NOT ONLY NIKON!! for
example, there is quite a variation between the Oly C-1400XL and the Oly
C-2000Z, Kodak is quite variable as well with some cameras showing a
color shift and others not. It appears that the higher the megapixel
rating then the more likely it will have a blue shift and consequent

I have noted this factor (# of pixels) myself, but had not yet commented on this.

There appears to be a threshold for each manufacturer above which the blue is significantly distorted. I noted that the Nikon 900 for example showed the problem to a nearly insignificant (but still noticeable) degree.

inaccurate color.
We need to admit that this problem is one that can afflict many different
brands of digital cameras and not a Nikon specific issue. The solution
will probably be found in the firmware decisions that the various
manufacturers make as they are doing their tweaking for picture quality
or it could be a quirk of the CCD that needs to have additional
compensation in the engineering.

My take is that it is the latter (some cameras need more engineering).

Others are welcome to check my results for themselves.

Robert:

From my look at numerous images I had come to much the same conclusions as you have - among the top sellers among semipros, both the Nikon 950 and the Oly C2000Z show the problem to about the same degree. Of the Sony mavica images I have seen I saw little of the problem (I had concluded that the F55 did not have a problem but was not sure of the F505). I have seen the problem also in the Epson 750, but Kodak appears to have a good handle on the problem.

I welcome your input on this and hope that it will lower the level of invective toward me and stimulate a reasoned debate on the subject.

Fred H.

 

[Fred H.]

Me? I'm going to stick with my Nikon 900 until the second iteration of
Canon's version of the D-1 comes out.

Will

Will:

I'd definitely stick with the Nikon 900. I don't know if you have come across it or not, but I had determined that the 900 did not show the same problem of the blues as the 950. However, I really would hold off on the D1 until you are fairly certain that Nikon has gotten the problem under control. (and I know - when you need advice from me, you'll ask for it!)
Fred H.

 

[Fred H.]

I have found it difficult to fix this problem without destroying the
color in the rest of the picture. It is more than just a WB adjustment
and not a quick fix in photoshop.
The problem is that the color shift is only apparent when there is the
actual color sample to compare. If the color-shifted pictures are taken
on their own, the change is not noticible but there will be situations
where accurate color is absolutely essential such as in
medical/dermatological photography. I would say that for most people, it
will not be an issue.

Robert: [I'm sure you must be blushing - what with all this praise]

You have done such a good job of bring much more light than heat to this issue that I hesitate to bring a note of disagreement here, but I think that you are minimizing the impact of the problem. From my rather extensive browsing through photo albums, I would have to say that quite a few images would suffer from attempts to fix them. Also, in some images the effect is rather subtle and thus the problem in the blue channel may result in a considerable degradation in image quality overall (that is, the blue 'shift' (as you put it) is not concentrared in a few (or any!) blue object. In addition, just having this problem out in the open will make people more critical of their images and so more likely to fix them to -the extent that they can be fixed.

Fred H.

 

[Fred H.]

Yes, standard points of reference like the Color Control cards may have
eliminated some of the bandwidth that was wasted with "I'm right and
you're wrong!" pingpong that we have had to put up with recently.

Robert:

This is a post of mine which I posted about 9/20/99 regarding a call for some kind of 'reference image'. I do wish that P. Askey would work on something like this.
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=38135

Fred H.

 

[Fred H.]

I'm not about to spend the rest of the day searching through hundreds of
messages and links, but to the best of my knowledge, Peter has posted a
fix to every 'blue-tinged' photo you have presented.

He most certainly has not! He has choked on the 'changing guards' image and the 'yield' image.

Your new rule about
'using only or mainly white balance adjustments' makes no sense. If
you're referring to white balance adjustments in camera when taking the
photo (which can't be repeated anyway since Peter didn't take the photo
in the first place), then you are completely out to lunch and there's no
hope. If you're placing restrictions on the Photoshop tools that can be
used, then you got me. I can't imagine what kind of deranged mind
derives satisfaction from repeatedly issuing an absurd challenge, and
when it's met, changing the rules of engagement. Pointless. Absolutely
pointless.

Phil:

Have you been following the discussion for long? The point is that over and over the excuse was made that the -as you put it - 'blue tinge' is minor and can always be fixed in photoshop using the white balance adjust. Well, I have proved that it can't. It's really as simple as that.
Fred H.

 

[Peter iNova]

Ocker:
My arguement has been made and is currently unchallenged. To see this go
to this URL:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=47023

Also, I have repeatedly challenged PI to provide 'fixes' to three images
using only or mainly white balance adjustments. PI managed through a
series of bald faced bluffs and a great deal of squirming to avoid the
inevitable - a humiliating defeat.

Sorry Fred. No defeat here. I have fixed all of them to a "T" and won't show them to you until you cease your harrangues, name-calling, invective and unhelpfulness. The Ultimatum I posted clearly states that I can instruct any experienced photoshop operator to do the same. Agree to become a nice guy and see the results or get off it.

I can prove my claim and have a thousand people all over the world repeat my results.

To make this some sort of humiliation of me is typical of your sad process. You make it personal and insulting. I want you to reform your foolish, wicked, insulting, arrogant ways and have the PROOF in my hands that will force you to eat your words if you agree to the terms of the ultimatum. Of course, eating your words is the last thing you want to do, so of course you won't call my "bluff". Go ahead. I dare ya.

I'm not showing you squat until you agree to stop acting like such a jerk.

Period.

-iNova

To see the series of challenges and consequent bluffs you only have to
follow (through at least 'arrogance aplenty' I let PI off the hook here)
the following sequence:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=47391

Fred H.

 

[Peter iNova]

I'm not about to spend the rest of the day searching through hundreds of
messages and links, but to the best of my knowledge, Peter has posted a
fix to every 'blue-tinged' photo you have presented.

He most certainly has not! He has choked on the 'changing guards' image
and the 'yield' image.

Freddie, your last name should be Krueger. You are a pluperfect nightmare and a half. I not only have "fixed" it but I can teach anybody how to "fix" it.

The Ultimatum stands.

Your new rule about
'using only or mainly white balance adjustments' makes no sense. If
you're referring to white balance adjustments in camera when taking the
photo (which can't be repeated anyway since Peter didn't take the photo
in the first place), then you are completely out to lunch and there's no
hope. If you're placing restrictions on the Photoshop tools that can be
used, then you got me. I can't imagine what kind of deranged mind
derives satisfaction from repeatedly issuing an absurd challenge, and
when it's met, changing the rules of engagement. Pointless. Absolutely
pointless.

Phil:
Have you been following the discussion for long? The point is that over
and over the excuse was made that the -as you put it - 'blue tinge' is
minor and can always be fixed in photoshop using the white balance
adjust. Well, I have proved that it can't. It's really as simple as that.
Fred H.

To be fair, the fix on both of the mentioned images isn't a white balance adjustment. It's easier to change than that. White balance is a complex of all three primaries.

-iNova

 

[Peter iNova]

We can minimize those variable by looking at samples where several
cameras take shots of the same scene and under the same conditions. There
are lots of examples on the web from people who are not out to do
anything more than show how different cameras handle the same scene. I
think that the samples at
http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/Testbilder/Testbilder-en.asp are quite
useful in that they are taken indoors and so eliminate the "reflected off
the sky" objection.
The sample of the painters easel has samples taken with most of the
current major camera brands (including all the ones in question here).
If you look at the top tube of paint in the left panel artists box you
will see that it is Lukas #356, which I am familiar with since Lukas is a
well known manufacturer of artist's supplies. Compare the color of that
tube of paint to the actual samples from the Lukas America site
http://www.lukasamerica.com/htmlos/htmlos/75.3.3545454626
and, yes, you will see the color shift towards the blue in the Nikon 950
or Nikon 700 shot. However, compare the color of the same tube in the
Sony F505, F55, D700 or even Mavica 91 sample and you will see the
correct color of Lukas #356 represented.

Thank you, Robert.

I downloaded three images from the Sony 700, 505 and Nikon 950. I arranged them next to each other and noticed that the 700's white balance is so far off of white as to be unusable except through major correction. The 505 did a pretty good white balance but was plagued with other issues. Banding, enhancement and clumping of smooth gray transitions, for instance. The Nikon image, true to its "Coolpix" name is rather cooler but when forced to neutrality, its image changed about 20% of the severity it took to white balance the Sony 700.

The color of the offending teal Lucas #356 was still dramatically different from the 700 and 505 portrayal.

Two operations later the bottom row is the result. All colors match fairly well and if you hold a Lucas #356 tube up to the screen and view it in 6500K light I think you will agree that none of them has hit it any closer than the others. The gamut of color from your monitor and the target of the ink on the tube are not compatible. Not even the tall rectangles of Lucas' own color swatch will match what you see.



The upper row is before any manipulation. The paint box wood is extremely too warm in the Sony 700 image. Not only that but the color swatches from Lucas' site show that none of the cameras produce a perfect match. Of course brightness and saturation can be discounted because it's a photo of an object and exposure and light shading would prevent a direct comparison but the HUE of each is not right on. 700's hue is 142. 505's hue is 171. And in last place for accuracy is the Nikon at hue 196. Lucas own web color is 156.

I believe that the Sony 505 and the Nikon 950 use the same chip. This would imply that the choices made for one camera versus another might be an apples to apples comparison. As tests have noted, the Sony 505 doesn't equal certain performance points that the Nikon 950 does. Particularly in low light. I would gladly (and have) trade low light capability for inaccuracy in the teal colors of the spectrum. Especially since color can be fixed and low light performance can't.

To portray any of them perfectly would take several steps. I only did this in the Nikon example of the bottom row after white balancing each to the gray wall in the original image.

The Nikon's color was steered right into hue 156 as a target. Notice how this did not affect other colors. If you read the surrounding threads Fred claims this can't be done. It can be done all right and in less time than it takes to speak somebody through the process. No masking or isolating areas of the image were performed. Anything done to an image segment happened to the whole segment.

That the particular spectral trisection of on imaging chip compared to another is different is to be expected. The same thing happens to the color sensitive chemistries of film. No film I know of can hold all the colors in that paint box exactly perfectly, not even ultra critical, triple exposure color separations from artwork. I have one image in my art collection by Robert Crumb that has over thirty serigraphic color layers. You can't take a picture of it that comes out close with any camera yet made.

Fred isn't just pointing to a minor blue choice in his posts. He's calling Nikon owners fools and worse for putting up with a "technically flawed" piece of "unsoundly engineered" junk. (I can't tell you here how much I had to clean that up.) For a guy who doesn't own one, never toyed with one, never did the post exposure manipulations with images to ready them for fine quality printing, he's grasping at anything that even vaguely agrees with this premise.

I have no idea how anti-Nikon he became but posts like this go clear back to September or earlier and always against Nikon. One of the sad things is that if he had spent as much time learning how to deal with that which offends his eye as he has tilting against these windmills, he would be showing results, helping people to learn how to do similar interesting things and influencing the world in a positive way. But he has posted no examples like many of us have and would rather hurl invective than learn anything. He doesn't even believe blue sky can and does contaminate outdoor shadows as you pointed out in your prologue.

He's already pointing to your post as a "seee, told ya" in other forums.

I think that this color evidence which is based on controlled and
independent samples and compared with the color swatches provided by the
paint manufacturer (who must be very careful to provide as accurate
swatchs as possible) provide support for Fred's observation of a color
shift towards the blue in CERTAIN digital cameras. NOT ONLY NIKON!! for
example, there is quite a variation between the Oly C-1400XL and the Oly
C-2000Z, Kodak is quite variable as well with some cameras showing a
color shift and others not. It appears that the higher the megapixel
rating then the more likely it will have a blue shift and consequent
inaccurate color.

There is no substantiation of that particular claim which rings true in a scientific way. Nikon D1's seem to be much better in accuracy as do other, larger chips. The total number of different chips isn't large. There aren't even sixteen examples of over 1.3 meg chips in the world to draw a statistical claim like that. There is no particular reason at the micro scale of these sensors to make a claim like that have intrinsic validity. It may be just that the formula of the sensor filters is different from materials in last year's chips or something equally non-linear. Can you provide a sound theory of how that might occur? Here's one that sounds good but could be shot down by many contravening ideas: They're bluer because smaller wavelength light fits more efficiently into these tiny four micron sensors than longer rays which are more easily deflected around the edges of the sensor well.

We need to admit that this problem is one that can afflict many different
brands of digital cameras and not a Nikon specific issue.

If the issue is only seen as a PROBLEM then I would disagree. If it is a lowercase engineering "problem" to be conquered in time, then, sure. The cameras are going to get better. They are going to get more accurate in color portrayal. Sony will get its white balance more correct out of the box and do away with banding and so on. Until then, there is Photoshop and the post-exposure necessities.

The solution
will probably be found in the firmware decisions that the various
manufacturers make as they are doing their tweaking for picture quality
or it could be a quirk of the CCD that needs to have additional
compensation in the engineering.
Others are welcome to check my results for themselves.

I'm hoping that the algorithmic manipulations of the D1 filter down to the Coolpix 1000 at three megapixels. Bye bye, film.

-iNova

 

[ian]

Thanks Chuck, I did notice that but didn't want to bring it up because it
wasn't really a color-shift issue. But you are right, it is there in some
but not in all. I wonder if it is the result of the positioning of the
flash or the lens relative to the lighting. I would imagine that they

The purple fringing has been discussed nearly to death in the Nikon
forum, and it is a known problem. In other words, we acknowledge
the problem and generally can reproduce it at will, even without
the flash. It is most prevalent in photos with very high
contrast, especially containing areas that are totally washed out.
I've created several samples indoors and out, flash and no flash.

If you examine that photo closely (3X) you'll see it everywhere
from about half the distance from the center to the edge, on out.
Look for purple fringes where light areas becomes dark moving while
outward.
Better yet, look for green fringes where dark becomes light,
such as in the upper left of the box right next to the
Lukas 356 tube in question. (Zoom in 3-4X and you can't miss it)

Given the way the effect grows away from the center of the image
in a radial pattern current theories are hovering around the
idea of it being a Lateral Color Aberration problem in
the lense that is then somehow magnified by the filters above,
or the CCD itself. The CP950 is not the only camera to show
the same effect. We even picked it up in two of the
Sharpe D1 samples posted recently, but only with a particular
lense.

Back to this photo in question. It's not just a straight
blue shift, or even "extra blue". Note there's no blue
in the white areas which are actually whiter than Sony's.
I looked at the difference in RGB values of the 356 tube
and it turns out that it's RGB (78,19,82).
That means almost equal amounts of blue and red and a little
bit of green where added to create that baby blue color.
What it is by itself? Purple.

What's weird about that, it's that it's almost the same color
purple as that we find in the "purple fringes".
Coincidence?

The other notable color changes in there are the two tubes above and
below the head of the top paint brush. The top one is a difference
of RGB 39,21,49 which is a dark magenta still reminiscient of the purple,
and the second is RGB 88, -32, 30 which I pushed to 120, 0, 62 which
is a deep rose. Much more red was added to there than blue, so you
can't say the problem is entirely with extra blues.

In fact that tube under the brush is supposed to be dark Blue,
and the Sony shows it as medium blue, the Nikon Purple and a
bunch of the other cameras get it right as a dark blue.

It would be cool to make up a chart which had each tube cut
out and put right next to the same tube for every other camera
all at the same time. I see some other strange variations
between different cameras.

ian

 

[Peter iNova]

A small added point.

If the target color had been the next one down from Lucas #356 how accurate should these cameras be regarded?

The "winning" Sony 700, even after white balance correction portrays it as nearly black. But the other cameras reveal it to be a deep blue-purple. Perhaps #340, a dark ultramarine blue. Since this is a favored color by some, they would be seening this microcosm in a different light. And the Nikon is the only camera that matches closely to Lucas' own color swatch.

-iNova

 

[Peter iNova]

Tiz too. Tiz NOT. It is so! NO, NO, NO. But it is the sky, it's the same color as the sky above it, isn't it? No. You snobs aren't going to get me to admit such a pile of crock! Well, then why does my Photoshop show it to be the only other color area in the entire picture with exactly the same color vector, Fred? I don't give a damn what you and the entire Nikon conspiracy have to say, I say it isn't the sky and I say to hell with you. But Fred, calm down, the only place in the picture where the angles of reflection would allow the water to reflect the sky are right where the color ocurrs. You are blathering now, you cretin. Hey, I'm just trying to point to the facts and the reflected area is absolutely consistent with the idea that the deep blue is, in fact, the sky. You are a moron of the first order and I spit in your general direction. No color like that ever occurred in nature. I know this because I've seen it with my own eyes! Now, Fred, we went all throught that. Some things your eyes report to your brain aren't quite what they seem. Bullshoes! I know what I see and I see just what my eyes tell me I'm seeing. Well, then how come the water reflects the other background colors in exactly the same way? No! Not! Never! See I told you that you couldn't fix it. That's not quite the issue, Fred. Aha! Now the cat's out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle the horse is out of the barn and you will never be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together. Again!

(Provided as a space saving way of letting Fred have the Last Word on the Subject.)

 

[Peter iNova]

Michael:
For a shot that appears to be taken at dusk, the sky is much too deep a
blue, and the supposed reflection of the sky is much too deep and vivid a
blue to be real.

Not true. At night things get dark. Including the part of the sky not occupied by the warmth of the sunset. Even after sunset the part of the sky glow above the fading warm area is saturated dark blue. All sorts of cameras including my Nikon report this to me. Even my eyes can see it. Imagine that.

Just look at how deep a blue the reflections in the
water are. Can you really say that you have seen such a sight as this in
your experience?

I can honestly say I have seen such a sight in my experience. As an experienced observer, owner of a number of patents in media display, long time photographer, director of film, HDTV and video I can put the weight of considered visual experience behind my claim.

The sky just does not get this deep a blue![and notice
that there is little or no shading of the blue as one moves toward the
horizon - especially in the sky to the far right] I have serious doubts
that this reflects reality.

Then your doubts are revealing your misconceptions. The sky can and does get this deep blue. Now that you have made a point of it, people all around the world will notice it tonight.

The "reticular activator" will have made it happen. Why, I've even been able to train absolutely non-visually oriented laypeople to detect the sky blue in shadows. When they "get it" they can point to the places where it is and where it isn't. Nikonographs shot immediately heighten the experience by accurately demonstrating where and how much they were right. In other words, you can see if you make it your business to see. But that's another story....

-iNova

Fred H.

 

[Fred H.]

1) The reflection on the water is too deep a blue to be a realistic reflection of the sky (and it may be a reflection of the sky - just not a realistic reflection!)

2) It's clearly dusk - the fountain lights show up much too bright and is the only illumination for the palms for it to be otherwise. I'll ask you, as I asked before, when was the last time that you saw such a bright blue sky after sunset? The sky is not realistic.

Fred H.