"Fix" for banding

[aznndave]

4000 shots in 1 month... hm... where can i see your work? I expect at least 10% of that 4000 shots to be considered "good".

--
David Z
http://www.pbase.com/aznndave

 

[fuzzytalz]

Kerry made some legitimate points -- you seem to have nothing in
your corner other than denigration.....in the battle of wits, you
appear unarmed. Since you can't seem to see that, just thought
I'd point it out...

However, I've long since learned the pointlessness of engaging raging Kerry in a bout of anything resembling resonable discourse.

He does, however, seem to take a shine to denigration, as you so aptly put it, so I'm happy to oblige.

Still, perhaps you can help me see the valid points that were made, and hold my hand to the two questions he posed that beg my response?

--
Garland Cary

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Kerry, you did not answer many of my questions. Why do you have
double standards?

Why should I bother? You didn't get the contradictions that were plain to see. I responded to the first page of your book, but you didn't respond, so what's the point?

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Kerry Pierce]

I asked you two questions, fanboy. Instead of obfuscation and
evasion as is your usual nonsense, try answering the questions. Of
course, you could always ignore them as usual and just continue to
spout your normal, double standard drivel.

What are those two red-hot questions, Kerry? All I gleaned from
your post was ranting. Or do you not even know yourself what you
were trying to ask?

Questions have question marks at the end of the sentence, fanboy. Just like yours.

Are you really that simple minded that you must play this stupid game to evade answering the questions?

It's the same old story, fanboy, just like the first bashing thread you had, where you where again bashing the d200, only a few days after posting your excuse laden missive for your canon's faults. Would you like to replay that one?

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[THomasAdams]

Kerry, you did not answer many of my questions. Why do you have
double standards?

Why should I bother? You didn't get the contradictions that were
plain to see. I responded to the first page of your book, but you
didn't respond, so what's the point?

You do not have to bother, I had no contradictions as you propose. If you would read what was written, without injecting your personal feelings you will see many of your points were unfounded as well as some of your statements. My point is you have double standards, and you do not use any facts, you are being emotional about a camera.

Best regards,
Thomas

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

--
http://www.photosbytom.com/gallery/

Removed D200 from my wish list. Until Nikon fixes it correctly.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Kerry, you did not answer many of my questions. Why do you have
double standards?

Why should I bother? You didn't get the contradictions that were
plain to see. I responded to the first page of your book, but you
didn't respond, so what's the point?

You do not have to bother,

I won't. I showed you the contradictions, twice. You continue to deny that they exist.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Adam Kmiec]

you should see my smile right now. it goes from ear to ear. kerry is a passionate guy that is a true nikon believer. there isn't anything wrong with that. just like there isn't anything wrong with me or you having a more neutral stance. where I, and it looks like you, have had problems with Kerry is that the conversations, always seem to go around in circles. kerry defends nikon, I defend my point, he defends nikon, i defend my point. at the end of the conversation neither he nor I is anywhere further along than we were at the beginning. i always leave those discussions feeling like i just ran a marathon: winded, tired, and ready to nap.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com

 

[Adam Kmiec]

take the advice you freely give me. just back out and move along...
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com

 

[Skidpan]

I'm the guy who first accussed Kerry of being a fanboy, and gave him a definition thereof, which fits him like a glove.

Now he's using it out of context to accuse others of what he is himself.

What can I say ?

 

[Kerry Pierce]

I'm the guy who first accussed Kerry of being a fanboy, and gave
him a definition thereof, which fits him like a glove.

You're way off base, dude. I've done my fair share of complaining about nikon and certainly don't believe that they're above reproach. I also believe that canon's are excellent cameras, equal to nikon's.

Now he's using it out of context to accuse others of what he is
himself.

How silly. The canon fanboy makes asinine statements about a camera he doesn't own, after defending his own camera in the canon forum, for that camera's "limitations". Unlike him, you'll not find any posts of mine on any other forum, bashing that forum's brand. In fact, you'd have to go back quite some time, to find any posts of mine, in another forum.

What can I say ?

Saying nothing at all would have been much better than the silly stuff you did say.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Skidpan]

Not necessary.

 

[fuzzytalz]

fuzzytalz wrote:
Questions have question marks at the end of the sentence, fanboy.
Just like yours.

The difference being, I don't ask a question and then answer it for myself, thereby, effectively, asking no question at all. Again, simply ask a question, particularly one to which you are actually open to having answered - even if not in the manner you desire - and I'm happy to do so.

Are you really that simple minded that you must play this stupid
game to evade answering the questions?

Nah, it's just a great way to deal with hysterical hotheads! As you've proven time and time again to be incapable of an intelligent discussion, this approach is at least entertaining for me. Much less typing as well.

It's the same old story, fanboy, just like the first bashing thread
you had, where you where again bashing the d200, only a few days
after posting your excuse laden missive for your canon's faults.
Would you like to replay that one?

Sure, replay away! It'll only serve to bolster the impression that you're not only one of the most vocal corporate whores on these forums, but also among the very least lucid.

--
Garland Cary

 

[fuzzytalz]

The canon fanboy makes asinine statements about a camera
he doesn't own, after defending his own camera in the canon forum,
for that camera's "limitations". Unlike him, you'll not find any
posts of mine on any other forum, bashing that forum's brand. In
fact, you'd have to go back quite some time, to find any posts of
mine, in another forum.

A familiar, yet enduringly vacant refrain. Sort of like white noise.

What can I say ?

Saying nothing at all would have been much better than the silly
stuff you did say.

...said the pot to the kettle.

--
Garland Cary

 

[fuzzytalz]

he's got high entertainment value, though. I can just picture him there, huddled at his keyboard, seething; clumsy fingers hunting and pecking out his paean to illogic!

--
Garland Cary

 

[Kerry Pierce]

open to having answered - even if not in the manner you desire -
and I'm happy to do so.

Here are the 2 questions that were in my original post to you.

Who says that you can't print large?

Who says that all of the d200 images are marred with banding?

Have at it, fanboy. Evade them again with more of your nonsense.

Sure, replay away! It'll only serve to bolster the impression that

Here's the link to your apologist missive about the "issues" with the 5d. It'll serve to bolster the impression that you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=17058408

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[nik1024]

Here's the link to your apologist missive about the "issues" with
the 5d. It'll serve to bolster the impression that you speak out
of both sides of your mouth.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=17058408

Thanks for pointing to this fuzzytalz's mini-review, it's truly excellent. Excellent does not mean I agree with everything but due to my general interest in cameras and photography I like to read qualified reasonable opinions about everything. His website is not yet finished but is really good already, you should check it out. I wish images were bit bigger.

So, again, thanks, it was an interesting thread in general. Whatever is there you two got going is between you, but your link only further proves fuzzytalz is just an excellent photographer and a reasonable person, whether I personally agree with him or not I feel we can always discuss it normally. You know, as a matter of exchanging opinions without bringing in personal beliefs, faith, and words like "troll", "whining" and "bashing".

 

[Zorpie]

Hi Thomas,

That (to me anyway) is a well rounded response and again, you have mirrored my own thoughts EXACTLY with that reply.

I have never, put down Nikon nor the D200 in all of the posts I have input to on DPreview, believing that both, should get a fair crack of the whip and that Nikon should get a chance to rectify the D200 issues. I have been waiting since 15th December (when I had my first D200) and I have given Nikon a fair chance by a) sending the original D200 back and waiting for another and b) by sending the second D200 to them for the 'fix'.

As yet, I don't know what my next line of action will be. D2X or wait for a third D200 ?

Regards,

Zorpie
--
pbase supporter

 

[fuzzytalz]

Now, if you'll attempt, in earnest, to reserve your festering vexation until after I'm done with your questions, I will address them both.

Here are the 2 questions that were in my original post to you.

Who says that you can't print large?

As is typical, you've taken a single word from my post, placed it utterly out of context, and used it as the basis of a highly puritanical counterpoint. In fact, what I said to the OP was:

"What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?"

Notice, if you will, that I never said (as you suggest) that images from the D200 can't be printed "large." What I have said - and quite plainly, I think - is that in the case of D200 cameras afflicted with banding/striping, and speaking purely from a photographic consideration, what good has been gained by the additional resolution and expense of the D200 if one cannot capitalize on its most obvious photographic advantage over its predecessors/brethren, higher pixel, to make superior-quality large prints? I have see the examples of how easily banding can be fixed in PP in Photoshop, but if we're being completely honest, the process does take its toll on fine detail in the image, resulting in an image of not appreciably more sharpness and fine detail than one could get (assuming one has not run afoul of that camera's image quality handicaps, moire and blooming, as well) from a D70. One certainly, in the case of cameras with banding/striping, from a purely photographic perspective (and this is all I really care about; ergonomics are entirely subjective, easily adapted to, and, thus, of little practical impact on image making), can't then objectively say the D200 is worth the $700 premium over the D70s, and certainly not over the also-6.1MP D50.

And I'm not randomly assuming that A3 size prints are the limit at which images with banding/striping can be printed without those artifacts becoming noticeable, and thereby objectionable (assuming one doesn't want the creative effect of horizontal or vertical lines, depending on orientation, throughout their image); that size comes from Nikon itself:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021101nikond200banding.asp

I shall quote here directly the relevant verbiage:

"Images printed at a print size of A3 (297 mm x 420 mm / 11 in x 14 in.) or smaller this pattern is almost undetectable, and therefore should have little impact on general photography and printing."

Even here, the banding is described to be not undetectable, but almost undetectable.

Moreover, there is apparently not a true fix of the problem, whereby banding is eliminated entirely, but instead a way to minimize it:

"If you experience this, Nikon will, without charge, evaluate your camera to determine if adjustment to the camera’s image output level is required. Adjustment, if required, will optimize the camera’s image output level, thereby reducing visible banding to a minimal level."

I can only speak for myself, but I find this unacceptable in a camera clearly marketed to professionals and/or those seeking professional-level performance. And, though I know your very next thought will be to attack the 5D for its occurrences of banding as a result of radio frequency interference when used in AI Servo AF mode with certain Canon EF lenses, this is defect manifests itself in a far less regular way and can be completely cured by sending your camera to Canon for repair. As for the noise issues at ISO 1600 and 3200 - horizontal (in the horizontal image orientation) pattern noise - that's been addressed my other post. There is no need to repeat it here.

Who says that all of the d200 images are marred with banding?

Of course, no one does - I certainly have not. However, if addressing the OP - who's D200 is afflicted with banding/striping, I wrote:

"Call me crazy, but isn't the point to make images? What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?

Following your (and Nikon's logic), since large prints from the D200 may be not practical because of banding or no more detailed than that of a D70 because of PP measures to eliminate the banding, might not many users be better served by either the D100 (on the soft size, but at least you can blow them up as much as you like) or the D2x (if you can live with the expense and the weight/bulk)?"

Perhaps you can quote directly for me from this passage where I claimed that all images from the D200 are marred with banding. I didn't say it, and without some highly liberal verbal gymnastics, you're going to have a tough time showing that I did.

Rather, as has proven to be your predilection, you've read what you wanted to read, not what was actually said. Seems on some level, you need this selective comprehension to fuel your outraged diatribes in the face of clear facts to the contrary.

Have at it, fanboy. Evade them again with more of your nonsense.

Hope that's been evasive enough to meet your expectations, my entertainingly dim-witted, narrow-minded friend. You may now feel free to work your magic and distort and misconstrue everything I've written in any way you need to make yourself feel better about whatever it is that's got you so irate.

--
Garland Cary

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Now, if you'll attempt, in earnest, to reserve your festering
vexation until after I'm done with your questions, I will address
them both.

Why didn't you do that the first few times, instead of evading the issue?

As is typical, you've taken a single word from my post, placed it
utterly out of context,

It's not out of context at all.

"What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with
banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing
techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you
wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?"

The implication is that all images have banding and that you then can't print large because of that. You didn't bother to put in the qualifier that you did, immediately below this paragraph, that your statement only applies to the cameras that are defective. That's a significant omission.

quite plainly, I think - is that in the case of D200 cameras
afflicted with banding/striping,

prints? I have see the examples of how easily banding can be
fixed in PP in Photoshop, but if we're being completely honest, the
process does take its toll on fine detail in the image,

That depends on the level of banding and the fixes utilized in PS. Defective cameras should be sent for repair. The cameras that have very minor problems with the issue, are easily fixed in PS, without needing to affect the rest of the image.

about; ergonomics are entirely subjective, easily adapted to, and,
thus, of little practical impact on image making),

I agree with the ergonomics thing, in general. But that only goes so far. Better features, along with better IQ, cost money.

can't then
objectively say the D200 is worth the $700 premium over the D70s,
and certainly not over the also-6.1MP D50.

As an owner of both the d70 and d200, there's no doubt that the d200 is a better camera. The same analogy could be used for the 5d vs 20d or 350d. You know that boat don't float, or are you prepared to admit that the 20d is a much better camera than the 5d, because it's much cheaper?

Moreover, there is apparently not a true fix of the problem,
whereby banding is eliminated entirely, but instead a way to
minimize it:

That's not apparent at all. There are lots of reports of complete fixes.

I can only speak for myself, but I find this unacceptable in a
camera clearly marketed to professionals and/or those seeking
professional-level performance. And, though I know your very next
thought will be to attack the 5D for its occurrences of banding as

No, I'm not going to attack the 5d. It's a fine camera, but it also has it's limitations, that you have addressed in the canon forum. You insist that the d200 be perfect for the money, but do not do the same for the 5d, which costs a great deal more money than the d200. That's just fanboy stupidity.

Here's a quote from your post in the canon forum.

deem problematic with a camera such as the 5D. Tyros, breaking the bank to move up directly from a digital P&S, or novice film SLR users (meaning those who never bothered to master their film cameras) seem to expect nothing short of perfection for their extravagant spending. Meanwhile, experienced users - particularly those with plenty of experience with DSLRs, realize that the 5D represents a real bargain for a high pixel-count, full frame DSLR and are happy to live with the handful of quality compromises (relative to the 1D-series cameras) required to deliver its imaging capabilities at roughly half the cost. [end quote]

You decry the "tyro" users that expect perfection. Then you "reason" with them to realize that the 5d is bargain, in spite of the "handful" of quality compromises.

Nothing like double standards there, fanboy. ;-)

That's the bottom line.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[fuzzytalz]

Why didn't you do that the first few times, instead of evading the
issue?

In light of the fact that, no matter what I say, you're going to read what you need to have been said to fuel your ire, it's simply much more fun to verbally joust than waste the effort to make a point that can never be made.

"What good is foolproof metering if your images are marred with
banding and can't, without detail-robbing post processing
techniques, be printed at a size sufficient to show just why you
wanted/needed the extra resolution of the D200 in the first place?"

The implication is that all images have banding and that you then
can't print large because of that. You didn't bother to put in the
qualifier that you did, immediately below this paragraph, that your
statement only applies to the cameras that are defective. That's a
significant omission.

"significant omission?" It's right there in front of you, my myopic friend:

I stated in unambiguous language "IF your images are marred with banding..." If that doesn't imply to you that not all images made with the D200 are afflicted with banding, then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the true meaning of the word "imply."

Clearly, my comment - indeed, my entire post - is directed to the OP, whose camera does exhibit banding.

That depends on the level of banding and the fixes utilized in PS.
Defective cameras should be sent for repair. The cameras that have
very minor problems with the issue, are easily fixed in PS, without
needing to affect the rest of the image.

Here's where we disagree: I don't think any digital camera should suffer from banding and certainly it should not be purported by its manufacturer to be a normal matter of the design of its product. And most certainly, no user should accept such a limitation (a flawed image from a produce designed to produce images) from a device costing nearly two thousand dollars (that typical user being a non-professional for whom that amount of money represents a significant investment).

I agree with the ergonomics thing, in general. But that only goes
so far. Better features, along with better IQ, cost money.

Ergonomics are entirely subject - as is the value of "features" that do not directly affect the process of making images - thus, I will not presume to debate the matter of either with you, especially.

As an owner of both the d70 and d200, there's no doubt that the
d200 is a better camera. The same analogy could be used for the 5d
vs 20d or 350d. You know that boat don't float, or are you
prepared to admit that the 20d is a much better camera than the 5d,
because it's much cheaper?

The difference being that, in every case, the 5D definitely produces a higher quality end result where it is designed to: large-scale printed images, than any of its lesser siblings. Whereas, given the shenanigans required to quell banding artifacts in images made WITH CAMERAS SO AFFLICTED, and the detrimental impact (regardless of your assertions to the contrary) they inevitably have on image quality, the D200 (that is cursed with banding), for significantly more money than its less expensive Nikon sablemates, does not present a commensurate improvement in quality of the same end result: large-scale printed images.

Moreover, there is apparently not a true fix of the problem,
whereby banding is eliminated entirely, but instead a way to
minimize it:

That's not apparent at all. There are lots of reports of complete
fixes.

There are also a great many indications that, for a majority of Nikon D200 users, some level of banding is perfectly acceptable or that they've never even bothered to examine their images for it - you know, the old "head in the sand" mentality. Thus, how much can be attributed to "lots of reports of complete fixes" when so many are willing (even desperately wanting ) to overlook the defect altogether?

No, I'm not going to attack the 5d. It's a fine camera, but it also
has it's limitations, that you have addressed in the canon forum.
You insist that the d200 be perfect for the money, but do not do
the same for the 5d, which costs a great deal more money than the
d200. That's just fanboy stupidity.

No, I insist that the D200 perfect its most fundamental task to a high a degree of perfection as possible: making images. I hold the 5D to the same standard, and it is to the 94% of its current potential a perfect imaging tool.

Here's a quote from your post in the canon forum.

...Tyros, breaking the
bank...seem to expect nothing short of perfection for their
extravagant spending. Meanwhile, experienced users...
are happy to live with the handful of quality compromises
(relative to the 1D-series cameras) required to deliver its imaging
capabilities at roughly half the cost. [end quote]
You decry the "tyro" users that expect perfection. Then you
"reason" with them to realize that the 5d is bargain, in spite of
the "handful" of quality compromises.

Nothing like double standards there, fanboy. ;-)

Double standards? I think not. I "decry" tyros for expecting perfection from any camera, particularly in regards to peripheral matters such ergonomics, perceived quality, etc simply because they've plunked down an inordinate sum of money relative to their photographic experience. However, I do (as should we all) expect a camera to perform its most basic function making images (that's what it's all about, after all, for those who love "photography" as opposed to "gadgets") without interjecting artifacts that are not endemic to either the medium or the technologies used in its implementation. When all Nikon's exhibit banding, I'll accept that it's simply part of the deal; meanwhile, I'll leave that insipid viewpoint to real fanboys such as yourself.

--
Garland Cary