GH1 sensor variation/burn-in efficacy proof
- Thread starter Trucci
- Start date
True. However, people seem to be OK with the idea that there is variation between cameras although there hasn't been any hard proof that it exists.. So what's the difference?
A controlled test would however show the variation, which is a normal part of gathering data for analysis. I would expect some variation and I don't think that it would significantly hinder the burn-in experiments.
A controlled test would however show the variation, which is a normal part of gathering data for analysis. I would expect some variation and I don't think that it would significantly hinder the burn-in experiments.
1600 iso sample vid.
1600 iso sample vid.
As Vimeo details -
Forgive the general crappiness - it was just a quick first test with an old Vivitar lens, but I hope it makes my point about the lack of banding with some cams.
http://vimeo.com/16894125
1600 iso sample vid.
As Vimeo details -
Forgive the general crappiness - it was just a quick first test with an old Vivitar lens, but I hope it makes my point about the lack of banding with some cams.
http://vimeo.com/16894125
Cavemandude
Well-known member
I doubt any GH1 would have banding in that situation either, way too bright, you need to turn the lights off.
Randy
Randy
Ah....how did I know that you'd come back with that?
FWIW (and you really must understand that I don't care tuppence whether you accept my word, or not) the room is certainly not 'bright' - just two 60 watt bulbs (should be three, but one has blown, and can't be a*sed to change it)
In daylight, the artificial illumination is barely even noticeable.
I chose that clip because of the amount of black objects in it - if there was banding it would be seen against the lenses and cases, irrespective of the rest of the scene.
The fact is - that GH1 does not band. Sorry if yours does - but that's life.
Cavemandude
Well-known member
Your GH1 doesn't band in a room with 120 watts of light with white walls and black objects using a lens at f2.8 and neither would mine. That's a perfect situation not to have banding occur. Take the test further and shoot the same shot with one 60 watt light on a then 30 watt light then no lights. Better yet use a dimmer and go from full brightness to completely off.
At least I know now why you claim that your GH1 doesn't have banding.
Randy
At least I know now why you claim that your GH1 doesn't have banding.
Randy
Last edited:
I know! - let's cut out the middleman and go straight to a night shot.
Is this dark enough for you - or do you demand a total blackout?
Plenty of defects (flare, artefacts, wrong shutter speed, etc) - but Señor Banding seems to be absent from the Guy Fawkes celebration....
I'm giving up after this one - somehow, I get the impression that you wouldn't believe that some GH1's don't band, even if an Angel were to descend from Heaven and show you
http://vimeo.com/16897515
Pietro Impagliazzo
Well-known member
People are expecting a $1000 camera to behave like a RED One M-X or maybe an Arri Alexa...
It's 8-bit H264 people! A little better if you can live with 720p for MJPEG.
Cavemandude
Well-known member
Like many others here have said before, put a bright light source no matter how small in a scene that is very dark and you won't get banding even at 1600 ISO. This video says it all:
Randy
Randy
Ah....I see.
Well, that makes this test - just taken in my garden in conditions of near total darkness - pretty worthless then?
Don't moan about the focus, btw - I could barely see!
Keep a firm hold of that straw, Cavemandude :smile:
http://vimeo.com/16899391
In the video with the kid holding the the sparkler, I would have expected to see banding when the sparkler goes out of frame and just the kid's face is illuminated. Can you do another shot with something like someone standing under a street light and then cycle through your F stops?
Sure - but, presumably, it could be an object instead of a person? (it's freezing cold tonight, and I might have a job persuading my family to stand in the street
BTW, I forgot to mention - I always have 'long shutter noise reduction' switched on. I know that this is for 'bulb' type still exposures - but is it possible that it's doing good things for video as well?
Cavemandude
Well-known member
The sparkler was barely out of the shot and that's what I was waiting for but it immediately comes back in the shot. Take the sparkler out of the picture completely for more than a split second then zoom into the face full frame is how I would have shot it.
Randy
Cavemandude
Well-known member
Every video you've shown so far is exactly what I would shoot if I wanted to avoid seeing banding at high ISO's, so maybe it's something you are unconsciously doing to avoid banding.
This pitch black video is really no better that the "lens cap on" video. Why don't you simply do some shots indoors in poor lighting conditions? You could have even stopped down the aperture in that first video that was way too bright for banding.
All you really need to do is underexpose some flat surfaces by around 3 stops and that should produce some level of banding. Here is an ISO 1600 example I did from another thread. Even though the room had a light on, all I had to do is stop down the aperture and the banding appeared. You do see the banding in the first pic, right?
Randy
Last edited:
As requested - starts at f1.8 then (double clicks to reach marked stops) f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22 - I forgot to do WB, btw.
http://vimeo.com/16901478
I don't see any vertical banding - which I assumed was the whole subject of this thread.
As far as producing banding by grossly underexposing - if you go around deliberately doing that, no wonder you're unhappy!
You could try running your car without oil, and then you could complain about GM!
This is becoming a farce! - first you say the indoor scene was 'too bright', then you say that the outdoor sparkler shot was compromised because of an intense light source, *then* you ask for videos shot in 'poor lighting conditions', when it's obvious to anyone with partial sight that the second garden vid was too dark to walk properly in - with not a 'bright' light source to bless itself with!
Are you for real? - I posted videos that no-one in their right mind would expect to be perfect given the conditions - and *still* there was no vertical banding in them!
Yet, like a dog with a bone, you simply refuse to accept that some GH1's are much better than others in this respect.
That's your choice - but I'm more than happy with my GH1, and I don't intend to play the part of your Monkey while you grind out ridiculous tunes. So I'm out of this thread.
I see that you've turned me into a senior member, btw - thanks
Last edited:
Cavemandude
Well-known member
Should have done a close up of the wood surface on the fence, that scene is too complex.
Randy
Randy
Cavemandude
Well-known member
Well, the whole point is to shoot a video or pic to show banding not to avoid it and that is done by underexposing which is easiest to see on flat surfaces like walls or even faces when zoomed in not complex textured images like your latest outdoor video.
Randy