5D Sensor Clean mode eliminates hot pixels

[gium]

Come on, you should admit it's at least possible. I'll go as far as
to say it's very probable. And in any case, this whole issue didn't
deserve the demeaning responses it has gotten.

I wonder why all the demeaning responses? "It" has worked for so many other people, yet they still refuse to find it even plausible the 'thing' even exists.

That basically means they call all the others liars, or perhaps: people who don't have the ability to 'critically assess' a very simple observation.

"It" obviously didn't work for blackhawk or Gena, but the insults and continuous responses of denial are just incredibly childish. Like I said before: it works for some, it doesn't work all the time. If it doesn't work with your 5D body, too bad. But it has worked for a LOT of others. Then why still be so negative, so demeaning, so 100% sure it's not true if so many individuals, who have no connection/relationship with eachother, have seen this simple thing happen in front of their eyes?

Is it envy? hate? arrogance? the pure fact to admit that you're wrong? Bitterness? working for Canon perhaps? Trolling?
Pick one I guess. (Combinations are also possible.)

To me it shows what kind of person you are if you think in a way of 'it can only be true if I see it with my own eyes or if it happens to me' when it comes to this matter. This is not Loch Ness. This is not a UFO sighting. This is just counting dots on a before and after picture.

It's just ridiculous to stay so stubborn while so many others, separately, at different times and with no connection to eachother, have counted less dots on their 'after' picture.

 

[blackhawk13]

I can tell you that I have "archived" my 5D's hot pixels since I
got it in December 2005. Some 2-3 times a year I have taken a few
pictures with the lens cap on in reduced light, and archived the
test pictures as both RAW and JPG. In spite of the occasional
sensor cleaning, the number of hot pixels is rising linearly with
time. Very few of them have gone away, but many new have appeared.
As far as I understand, hot pixels may sometimes also disappear
spontaneously without any sensor cleaning mapping built-in. Another
thing to factor in is the effect of the temperature during the test
(which in turn will most likely depend on how many tens of seconds
it is since the last picture was taken). If sensor cleaning were
effective at mapping out hot pixels, not even nearly as many new
ones would appear (or rather, the long-term average number of hot
pixels would remain constant - some new and some gone).

So from the evidence I have, I would say with 90-95% certainty that
"the myth is busted".

See also a previous thread by me here (unfortunately the gallery
picture is no longer available for view):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=18844913

--
B. Slotte
Turku, Finland
http://bslotte.smugmug.com
See profile for equipment

--'Exactly. Canon can easily and permanently program them out. They'll reflash the bios if needed and run a full Dx before shipping it back. There's no magic; even Canon needs to know where they are. They ask for a picture showing the offending pixels in order to find them easer and ensure a fix.

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-

 

[Kung Pao Panda]

the sensor clean function to eliminate/remap dead/hot pixels works.
Just not for every body. There have been numerous people here,
literally dozens who tried it and came back cheering about it on
this forum. One of them is me. It's worked for me, I got rid of a
few hot(or dead? can't remember) pixels after running the sensor
cleaning mode.

But it doesn't work for everyone. Some people have tried it and it
didn't work for them. Tough luck for them, since they had to get
their camera to Canon to get it serviced. And that's probably why
it was never made official: it doesn't work for everyone, so Canon
can't garantuee its functionality for the full 100%.

But I'm a happy camper. If I bump up against one (these things pop
up randomly after usage), I just fix it within seconds.
Those people whose cameras don't do it are just unlucky.
But oh well..trying it out is simple, so this undocumented feature
is really worth it as an advise to people who have problems with
hotpixels.

 

[Barnett236842]

With some people saying it works and others saying it does not I am wondering if it makes any difference whether you use JPG or RAW files?

I tested using RAW files and saw no difference in number of hot pixels before and after sensor clean. I used C1 to test because ACR seems to fix hot pixels automatically.

Barnett

This urban legend keeps popping up.

Here's what Canon's Chuck Westfall has to say to a poster on the
Pro Photo Home forum:

"Let me put it to you this way, Michael: If Canon Inc. wanted to
acknowledge something like this, they would have done so publicly
in all of the promotional material about the 5D. The fact that they
did not ought to tell you something.

I'm glad that you are pleased with your 5D, but for what it's
worth, my informal testing shows that there is no difference in the
number of hot pixels in several before and after tests."

Canon will remap you hot pixels (free if under warranty) if they
bother you.

--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[Barnett236842]

And then we will the option to do it ourselves. Focus adjustments
anyone???

Yea, I was disappointed to hear that this was left out. Oh well, maybe the Mk IV...

Barnett

 

[blackhawk13]

I tested using RAW files and saw no difference in number of hot
pixels before and after sensor clean. I used C1 to test because
ACR seems to fix hot pixels automatically.

Barnett

This urban legend keeps popping up.

Here's what Canon's Chuck Westfall has to say to a poster on the
Pro Photo Home forum:

"Let me put it to you this way, Michael: If Canon Inc. wanted to
acknowledge something like this, they would have done so publicly
in all of the promotional material about the 5D. The fact that they
did not ought to tell you something.

I'm glad that you are pleased with your 5D, but for what it's
worth, my informal testing shows that there is no difference in the
number of hot pixels in several before and after tests."

Canon will remap you hot pixels (free if under warranty) if they
bother you.

--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

--ACR is an post processing removal like the Rebels use.

We're talking about the image sensor/ADC-Digital processor in the camera. Canon can program out hot pixel in the camera itself, but none of Canon's cameras can self correct hot pixels beyond the camera's normal operations; that includes sensor cleaning..

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-

 

[Gary Jean]

The difference is that Adobe acknowleges that it is an undocumented feature.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[Gary Jean]

It's that we don't believe in magic.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[saynomore]

it's not "magic" if it's able to be reproduced by other similar methods, is it? Did you even have a doubt before you went on your crusade?

It's that we don't believe in magic.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[Chez Wimpy]

The difference is that Adobe acknowleges that it is an undocumented
feature.

we would have to consider it magic!

--
-CW

 

[Gary Jean]

The Sensor Clean function is not connected to any pixel mapping.

What you all claim is pixel mapping is not testable because the pixels are not always "hot," what you think are hot pixels may not be hot pixels, and the conversion SW (whether jpeg in camera or RAW converter) are not consistent in what they see as noise.

Thinking that something is going on because there is a delay in the mirror flipping up is a magical orientation, not a scientific orientation.

Why haven't you concluded that your hot pixels are getting unstuck by all the light hitting the sensor when in sensor clean mode? Is that any less likely than a claim than Canon tried to make this a feature, but saw that it only worked for some people?

BTW, I'm not on a Crusade.

--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[saynomore]

The Sensor Clean function is not connected to any pixel mapping.

What you all claim is pixel mapping is not testable because the
pixels are not always "hot," what you think are hot pixels may not
be hot pixels, and the conversion SW (whether jpeg in camera or RAW
converter) are not consistent in what they see as noise.

hot pixels are not the same as noise. Some can be as prominent as to show in low-ISO shots at short shutter speeds. Those are the ones we're talking about, not the ones that show at ISO 1600 in 2-second shots with the cap on, which are the ones who can mix into the noise.

Thinking that something is going on because there is a delay in the
mirror flipping up is a magical orientation, not a scientific
orientation.

You got that in a different order. First, it was observed that somehow very prominent hot pixels that always showed in the same places, suddenly disappeared. Then the OP wanted opinions, as to why this is. THEN after many people contributed, someone (who now shall remain unnamed) suggested that it could be because of sensor cleaning. After that it was observed that the mirror takes a while to flip. In any case, it wasn't inferred because of the delay on the mirror flipping up.

Why haven't you concluded that your hot pixels are getting unstuck
by all the light hitting the sensor when in sensor clean mode? Is
that any less likely than a claim than Canon tried to make this a
feature, but saw that it only worked for some people?

See, now we're talking. That is possible. But I don't think it's a plausible explanation, since just light hitting the sensor, which is turned off, can't possibly guess where the stuck pixels are, and if it somehow affected the whole lot of pixels instead, then you would see screwed-up pictures after a sensor clean.

There might be other explanations, but the ones suggested like all those people are flat-out liars, or just all of them are synchronized in their stupidity, or all of them are dogmatic, seem the lowest ones in the probability scale to me.

BTW, I'm not on a Crusade.

 

[Gena]

That's exactly the point!

It's very easy to believe! All you need to say is I'm a believer....

Telepathy, transfiguration, telekinesis, Big Foot, the list is going on and on with mounds of 'proofs' and 'tests'.

Even in science - take Cold Fusion as a recent example. Reasonably sounding theory, measurable effect. Only after a careful analysis of the experiment, careful checking of the setup the conclusion was that there is no net gain in energy. Still, after all these years, the arguments are still gpoing on.

So go on, count your pixels. And be happy.

 

[gium]

I shot JPG for those comparison pictures.

 

[gium]

The difference is that this ACR feature does work with almost all RAW files, while the Canon feature doesn't have such a high succes rate.

Gary Jean wrote:
The difference is that Adobe acknowleges that it is an undocumented
feature.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[gium]

There you go again. Comparing it to myths. To nessie. To UFOs. And now to magic. With so many people claiming it worked for them, it's better to look for some kind of a technological reason behind it, instead of snobbishly dismissing it by saying its just 'magic'.

Gary Jean wrote:
It's that we don't believe in magic.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[mwillems]

I have about 40 hot pixels when I take a 1sec-plus exposure at night. making the 5D useless for night photography.

Yes, I know, Canon will map them out; I suppose I could drive to Canon, or pay a courier, taking the risk myself (no-one will pay me back if lost or damaged I imagine), and then wait a month for service that may or may not work (Canon cleaning can leave it worse than it went in), and then deal with couriers again on the way back (they always deliver to my home address which has no-one home) - I think I'll save myself the trouble.

Why does Canon not just release the tools to do this? I am perfectly willing to use them and take the risk. But no, Canon must keep control. A bit like car manufacturers not releasing engine interface details to third party repair shops, but in that case antitrust law is changing that. I can only hope the camera market will eventually attract some antitrust attention!

Mike

 

[gium]

So go on, count your pixels. And be happy.

I am happy since I don't have to count any more pixels. I'm even more happy that the feature didn't work for someone as sweet as you. Nice going with bringing even more ridiculous references into this, bigfoot, telepathy? ... Talking about comparing apples to oranges..

 

[Gary Jean]

I don't believe in miracles either.

Explain to the guy who posted at the bottom how to make his 40 hot pixels go away.
--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/

 

[gium]

Take test shot with exposure setting to see hot pixels.
Count pixels and take note of their positions.

Put the camera into sensor clean mode with the bodycap or the lenscap on your mounted lens on.
Wait for the mirror to pop up, then wait one second.
Now turn off camera.
Turn on camera.
Take test shot with same exposure setting to see hot pixels.
Count pixels and take note of their positions.

I hope it worked. For many it has worked. For others it unfortunately hasn't. If it doesn't work for you: too bad, it doesn't work for everyone, you then need to go through the hassle of sending it to Canon.

mwillems wrote:
I have about 40 hot pixels when I take a 1sec-plus exposure at
night. making the 5D useless for night photography.

Yes, I know, Canon will map them out; I suppose I could drive to
Canon, or pay a courier, taking the risk myself (no-one will pay me
back if lost or damaged I imagine), and then wait a month for
service that may or may not work (Canon cleaning can leave it worse
than it went in), and then deal with couriers again on the way back
(they always deliver to my home address which has no-one home) - I
think I'll save myself the trouble.

Why does Canon not just release the tools to do this? I am
perfectly willing to use them and take the risk. But no, Canon must
keep control. A bit like car manufacturers not releasing engine
interface details to third party repair shops, but in that case
antitrust law is changing that. I can only hope the camera market
will eventually attract some antitrust attention!

Mike