Not to troll (much) but, those of you who are calling the burn-in *nonsense* and *ridiculous*, are you calling those of us who have had good results with it liars? How come you haven't been able to disprove or otherwise show us the proof that it doesn't work if you know without a doubt that it's bogus? We all *knew* the earth was flat at some point right? What happened when folks started saying that it wasn't? They also heard the words "nonsense" and "ridiculous" too probably(right between "heretic" and "blasphemy"). All I'm saying is that being negative or contrary just because you don't believe in something is neither productive nor helpful and it certainly doesn't show that you are open-minded to new ideas or possibilities. I've been proven wrong enough times in my life to stop making judgments before at least hearing out the rest of the details.
Seriously though, the burn-in saved my camera from being returned. I might be in the minority but as implausible as it sounds I know what I saw. Had I known at the time that this would be a big deal, I would have saved my initial test videos. I deleted them during the process because I read one of these threads saying it was all BS and that the burn-in didn't work which I took to heart. I wish I hadn't. I figured that I'd clear the cards while getting everything boxed back up to return it. Little did I know that the camera would actually be improved. Right now I really wish that I had saved those videos but I'll have to settle to seeming like a "trust me" poster because frankly it's all I can be.
Also, my camera might have actually been the worst-case exception. Most of the videos I've seen that were shot by folks crying foul about "banding" aren't really that bad to begin with. My camera had HORRIBLE streaks of yellow and purple that seems to radiate from the lower right portion of the frame. They were visible at all ISO and regardless of exposure. These weren't the faint bands that people see in the shadows when they try to shoot by starlight with an F4.5 lens..
I design electronics so i know all about supposed *burn-in* tales from all different kinds of groups, mostly the audiophiles. Most of them are baseless and misleading but are also relatively harmless to try regardless. Some, like speaker break-in, actually do work to some degree.
Unfortunately I see two sides of the coin here but very little in the way of serious investigation. I can't afford to purchase another camera just for testing and my friend bought a GH1 that worked straight from the box as good as my burned-in one(almost exactly the same) so I don't have much to compare. It also seems that the (anecdotal?) evidence shows that the sensors vary pretty wildly between different cameras made at different times. That randomization might make things hard for anyone willing to find a NEW old stock camera that hasn't been hacked yet and shows the bad banding.
We also don't really know what *could* cause the changes either.
Some hypothesize that its a coating on the sensor, which I'll be honest, I disagree with due to a number of details.
Some hypothesize that it's a noise reduction routine that takes some time to calibrate itself to the sensor. This is the one that is more likely, and the one that I believe. The later/better cameras could simply be the same sensor and electronics but just turned on at the factory for burn-in. It's not unheard of to do, I've done things like this for different reasons on some designs. Either way, my friend's camera's output looks pretty much identical to my camera. We shot some scenes for a short with the cameras side-by-side with everything matched. the only difference was the lens focal length. Both cameras were WB'd at the same time and both were metered identically using an external meter. The shadows in some scenes show the exact same amount of banding, etc. This leads me to believe that, when compared, the cameras were probably performing at their best for their design. The only questions are how did they both get there and how long did it take?
However, we don't know what is going on at all, just a bunch of guessing.
Until we can prove something either way, I say that people should at least keep their minds open about it.
Seriously though, the burn-in saved my camera from being returned. I might be in the minority but as implausible as it sounds I know what I saw. Had I known at the time that this would be a big deal, I would have saved my initial test videos. I deleted them during the process because I read one of these threads saying it was all BS and that the burn-in didn't work which I took to heart. I wish I hadn't. I figured that I'd clear the cards while getting everything boxed back up to return it. Little did I know that the camera would actually be improved. Right now I really wish that I had saved those videos but I'll have to settle to seeming like a "trust me" poster because frankly it's all I can be.
Also, my camera might have actually been the worst-case exception. Most of the videos I've seen that were shot by folks crying foul about "banding" aren't really that bad to begin with. My camera had HORRIBLE streaks of yellow and purple that seems to radiate from the lower right portion of the frame. They were visible at all ISO and regardless of exposure. These weren't the faint bands that people see in the shadows when they try to shoot by starlight with an F4.5 lens..
I design electronics so i know all about supposed *burn-in* tales from all different kinds of groups, mostly the audiophiles. Most of them are baseless and misleading but are also relatively harmless to try regardless. Some, like speaker break-in, actually do work to some degree.
Unfortunately I see two sides of the coin here but very little in the way of serious investigation. I can't afford to purchase another camera just for testing and my friend bought a GH1 that worked straight from the box as good as my burned-in one(almost exactly the same) so I don't have much to compare. It also seems that the (anecdotal?) evidence shows that the sensors vary pretty wildly between different cameras made at different times. That randomization might make things hard for anyone willing to find a NEW old stock camera that hasn't been hacked yet and shows the bad banding.
We also don't really know what *could* cause the changes either.
Some hypothesize that its a coating on the sensor, which I'll be honest, I disagree with due to a number of details.
Some hypothesize that it's a noise reduction routine that takes some time to calibrate itself to the sensor. This is the one that is more likely, and the one that I believe. The later/better cameras could simply be the same sensor and electronics but just turned on at the factory for burn-in. It's not unheard of to do, I've done things like this for different reasons on some designs. Either way, my friend's camera's output looks pretty much identical to my camera. We shot some scenes for a short with the cameras side-by-side with everything matched. the only difference was the lens focal length. Both cameras were WB'd at the same time and both were metered identically using an external meter. The shadows in some scenes show the exact same amount of banding, etc. This leads me to believe that, when compared, the cameras were probably performing at their best for their design. The only questions are how did they both get there and how long did it take?
However, we don't know what is going on at all, just a bunch of guessing.
Until we can prove something either way, I say that people should at least keep their minds open about it.
.