2 dead pixel - where? on CCD!!!
- Thread starter gadrian
- Start date
- Status
obviousdude
Senior Member
this possiblity of dead pixels is precisely why i can't convince my friend to dump his film slr and go digital.
he's a super firm supporter of his film cam.
he's a super firm supporter of his film cam.
heh... then let him live with vignettes and expensive telephotos and grainy high iso shots.. grinz..obviousdude said:this possiblity of dead pixels is precisely why i can't convince my friend to dump his film slr and go digital.
he's a super firm supporter of his film cam.
but basically, if shooting for hobby and enjoyment, i would still prefer film/slide. digital cannot capture the color of a sunrise or a sunset like film/slides can..
obviousdude said:this possiblity of dead pixels is precisely why i can't convince my friend to dump his film slr and go digital.
he's a super firm supporter of his film cam.
Well dead pixels is a common issue.. nothing to worry about.. it is most of the time a pixel mapping issue and can be resolved easily.
as a hobbyist. many people have found that going digital has helped them grow at such rapid paces with minimal costings compared to film.. I guess it is to each his own..
obviousdude
Senior Member
gadrian said:
yes, very good point, i totally agree with you. if it weren't for the ability of almost instantly letting me analyse my shots, i'd still be fumbling abt and growing much more slowly.
i guess long time film users who have already achieved a certain skill level will not need this advantage. they've already learnt the hard, traditional way.
obviousdude said:yes, very good point, i totally agree with you. if it weren't for the ability of almost instantly letting me analyse my shots, i'd still be fumbling abt and growing much more slowly.
i guess long time film users who have already achieved a certain skill level will not need this advantage. they've already learnt the hard, traditional way.
I used film for 13 odd years.. and digital has been really a huge learning curve for me.. There are many people that will die hard and advocate film.. but I believe digital has reached a comfortable level to over take that..
My Cam's going in to Nikon again.. long exposure sure dont work well on this cam's CCD..
I am wondering all those that do night photography.. 20-50 seconds on ISO200 @ f/11 & 16.. do you ever end up with hot pixels? Or is this just the fault with my current CCD... It is however documented in the Manual about hot pixels due to long exposure.. or over usage..
sigh.. need to get the CCD remapped. Hehe.. the bane of digital photography.. But I still love it for commercial work..
I am wondering all those that do night photography.. 20-50 seconds on ISO200 @ f/11 & 16.. do you ever end up with hot pixels? Or is this just the fault with my current CCD... It is however documented in the Manual about hot pixels due to long exposure.. or over usage..
sigh.. need to get the CCD remapped. Hehe.. the bane of digital photography.. But I still love it for commercial work..
Urm gadrian, did you turn on NR? I know roughly what you mean. I did LE @ Benjamin Sheares bridge not too long back with agape01 and ^chaotic^.
Without NR on, the sky and certain areas seems like hot pixels. Turning the NR on the 'hot pixels' dissappear after you shoot.
Hope it helps.
Without NR on, the sky and certain areas seems like hot pixels. Turning the NR on the 'hot pixels' dissappear after you shoot.
Hope it helps.
gooseberry
Senior Member
Actually with the way NR works by taking another frame of the same length of time and subtracting it from the original exposure - it removes stuck/dead pixels or pixels excited from dark current from the image.
Wouldn't it therefore imply then that having NR on and still having stuck pixels mean that the pixels which were hot/stuck for your image exposure, were not excited to the same degree for the dark frame exposure ?
Hmmm... weird.
Wouldn't it therefore imply then that having NR on and still having stuck pixels mean that the pixels which were hot/stuck for your image exposure, were not excited to the same degree for the dark frame exposure ?
Hmmm... weird.
sykestang
Senior Member
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: That's a good one. :thumbsup:Clown said:
Any of the photographer knows that.
Anyway, back to the topic. From the recent incidents on CCD's failures due to prolong use really worries one who is thinking of switching over to digital.
Previously, in the film days, once you commit in a camera body, it will last you a lifetime. Good examples are the old FM2, FM, F3, etc. These models has already been running around the market for the past 20yrs and is still functioning well.
Whereas in digital, even the best built, weather sealed professional bodies, would still have CCD failures after prolong use of maybe 3-5yrs.
Maybe a hybrid camera can be the solution where one can still at least fall back on film when the CCDs fails.
Wondering whether the rumour on F6 Hybrid film/digital is true...
Digital are electronics and they do fail over prolonged usage, something you can't avoid. My ex-colleague's Fuji 401 failed after slightly over a year's usage.
Even FM cameras will fail due to tear and wear, basically I'd say it's more of taking care of it well and servicing it regularly. It helps to maintain the status of the equipment (but it can't help to maintain brains)
Ultimately when Murphy's law kicks in, new, old, just serviced, haven't service, nothing will stop it.
Just remember: "always prepare yourself for the worst".
Even FM cameras will fail due to tear and wear, basically I'd say it's more of taking care of it well and servicing it regularly. It helps to maintain the status of the equipment (but it can't help to maintain brains)
Ultimately when Murphy's law kicks in, new, old, just serviced, haven't service, nothing will stop it.
Just remember: "always prepare yourself for the worst".
- Status
Similar threads
