|
(Ignore the subject matter, though this might explain what borked my camera!) Pic 1 Pic 2 Nothing unusual right? OK look again, with the anomaly shown.. Pic 1 with anomaly Pic 2 with anomaly Would any experts here say that's a borked CCD? Be aware that this shows up on both the back of the camera (display) AND in any images. No marks on the lens, or anything like that... Any help appreciated. Peej Edited by pjmaybe at 10:45:13 13-07-2004 |
Digital Photography Expert? Have a look at these...
-
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years ago -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoI don't know much about the anomaly. However you should post pic1 to the messy desk competition website that was linked two a couple of days ago!
[MH] -
cyk 306 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agoIt looks like a hot pixel. I think my mate has the same problem with his Canon A40. Its similar to the problem with some TFT's. It should be easy enough to clean up with Photoshop. -
lost_soul 9,372 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 19 years agoI had that problem with my old digital camera. I assumed it was a dead element on the CCD, but it started working again after a couple of weeks. -
TennesseeStiff 372 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoApart from the anomaly, both pictures are quite noisy. What camera is it and what ISO were these taken at? -
Is there a manufacturing tolerance for hot pixels?
Never noticed one on my pics, but I better not start searching thoroughly..gif)
-
Day 319 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 19 years agoYeah I reccon it is...
I had a Fuji 602 Zoom which took images with marks on like that...
I even sent the images to Fuji who confirmed it was a fault with the camera. Sent the camera back to the retailer in the end and was sent another one with the same problem but the mark in a different location...
Got a Konica Minolta Z2 now and well happy with it... -
Peej, if you have a warranty on that camera you could get it fixed/replaced. If the pixel is in the same position it's definitely a hot pixel. The clone tool in Photoshop will deal with it in 1 second though. -
gizmo 2,100 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 19 years agoThat is very odd.
None of my pictures have flying red doughnuts on them. -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years ago/was waiting for the "flying red donuts" comment.
Seriously the camera's about 2 days old so just "coping" with it and sorting images out in photoshop isn't an option really. It's like having a tiny scratch on your brand new car. No one else can see it, you can and you know it's there and it just fucks the thing up for you.
Anyway it's gone back, and I should be getting a replacement..I did break my own rule of thumb with the camera which was "never spend more than a couple of hundred on tech goods!" - But I thought it was a decent enough camera...!
images are noisy/pixellated because they were 1.3 second exposures (ie open the camera up, and shoot. No autofocus or anything flashy)
Peej -
ssuellid 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoRead the warrenty and see if dead pixels or stuck pixels are covered. -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agoWell the thing's 2 days old so it should be covered by the seller (Bought it from Amazon and basically if the goods are faulty, they're obligated to provide a replacement or a refund within 30 days...)
I'm just paranoid I'm going to get my brand spanking new replacement and there'll be fucked pixels somewhere else. Being a digicam noob I didn't know this was common (typically most of the cheapo cameras I've looked at, and even my shitty old HP 120 doesn't have this prob).
Annoying though innit...
/gnashes corner of desk
Peej -
gizmo 2,100 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 19 years agoDead pixels really bug me - I know exactly what you mean. I think I heard somewhere that the industry accepted level is 2 pixels dead on a given device? Each time I have a new laptop/digital camera/anything with an lcd/ccd device I am like a cat on a hot tin roof until I check it out! -
scitzoid-pingu 786 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 18 years agoMike_Hunt wrote:
I don't know much about the anomaly. However you should post pic1 to the messy desk competition website that was linked two a couple of days ago!
[MH]
You cheeky Mike_Hunt!
/Oooh! see what I did there!
It's not messy it's organised chaos. Will have to make it worse before I leave. -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoscitzoid pingu wrote:
Oh is that Mr Pingu sitting at the desk?
Mike_Hunt wrote:
I don't know much about the anomaly. However you should post pic1 to the messy desk competition website that was linked two a couple of days ago!
[MH]
You cheeky Mike_Hunt!
/Oooh! see what I did there!
It's not messy it's organised chaos. Will have to make it worse before I leave.
Would that be your password that's written on the postit note taped to the side of your PC?
[MH] -
Tiger_Walts 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years agoAh, the old 'volcano' filing system, the newest material to surface is deposited on the top. -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agogizmo wrote:
Dead pixels really bug me - I know exactly what you mean. I think I heard somewhere that the industry accepted level is 2 pixels dead on a given device? Each time I have a new laptop/digital camera/anything with an lcd/ccd device I am like a cat on a hot tin roof until I check it out!
I can believe that about display systems but on a CCD it's entirely unacceptable.
It's annoyed me enough to make me consider chucking in digital photography and going back to film if the replacement camera I get is similarly fucked.
Not a happy bunny today. Damned annoying thing is that the bloody camera was excellent apart from that. Best digicam I've used by a long way.
Peej -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoTennesseeStiff wrote:
I'd put most of the noise down to JPEG compression. The artifacts are quite noticable in a number of places.
Apart from the anomaly, both pictures are quite noisy. What camera is it and what ISO were these taken at? -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agomal wrote:
TennesseeStiff wrote:
I'd put most of the noise down to JPEG compression. The artifacts are quite noticable in a number of places.
Apart from the anomaly, both pictures are quite noisy. What camera is it and what ISO were these taken at?
Yep - Photobucket does some further compressing. The original images are huge and reduce quite well until you start doing horrible things to make them a uniform size on a page.
Anyhoo, some of the B/W stuff I took last night was breathtaking. So you can understand why I'm gutted the thing had to go back.
Peej -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoYou want a camera that has a TIFF option...
...and takes 20 seconds to save a photo!
[MH] -
unwashed 1,857 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoGod yes, TIFF. My Nikon Coolpix 885 does that, at full size it takes at least 30 seconds to save the image, and IIRC I can get about twenty on a 256Mb card... :/ -
Mike_Hunt 23,524 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoYeah. It's crazy, but the do look good. Mine creates a 9.2MB file. So you can hardly take a lot.
[MH] -
I'd say it was probably a ghost. Or magic. Or a magic ghost.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
