Comments: 68
BrianWolfe [2008-06-25 12:51:41 +0000 UTC]
To me it looks like a result of shooting a long exposure with no noise reduction turned on in-camera. 1213/1 second is quite an exposure, when I shoot exposures like I get the same thing, unless I turn on noise reduction. I know there are ways to create a noise reduction profile in PS that is supposed to work just as well as in-camera noise reduction, but I havent tried it myself. Been meaning to considering it would really save on eating up batteries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to BrianWolfe [2008-09-08 17:41:44 +0000 UTC]
Its not the noise. Its the sensor. Lets say, its about time the camera has to be put to sleep.
I wouldnt like to turn on the noise reduction, because it will take another 1213 sec just to wait.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
alysonhart [2008-06-23 13:36:44 +0000 UTC]
The contrast it's great, i like so much! +fav
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
shiftis [2008-06-07 00:13:36 +0000 UTC]
Very nice photo.
How did you calculate the exposure?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to shiftis [2008-09-08 20:16:48 +0000 UTC]
I boost up the iso to 1600 and 3200. Then I calculate how many stops of aperture i'm going to use then compensate it with the shutter speed.
It isnt that complicated, and most of the time I just assume it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
couleur In reply to jyi1693 [2008-09-27 16:57:32 +0000 UTC]
Yes. It is, Canon asked for RM1000 to fix, crazy right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
jyi1693 In reply to couleur [2008-10-06 06:30:34 +0000 UTC]
Whoa, RM1000.. That really is crazy. Maybe because the CMOS needs to be replaced.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
couleur In reply to Quatroversion [2008-09-27 16:59:24 +0000 UTC]
Yes, I was very disappointed about my camera.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
pagaman [2008-05-29 20:05:14 +0000 UTC]
Hmm.
I've found this
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to pagaman [2008-09-27 17:03:47 +0000 UTC]
Yes, it is called a Hot Pixel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
couleur In reply to dlt2 [2008-05-29 14:03:05 +0000 UTC]
I know. I'm so disappointed about this issue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
dlt2 In reply to couleur [2008-05-30 17:51:34 +0000 UTC]
i understand. relax. it's not like some permanent life-changing growth or sort
wtf
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to julienpier [2008-05-29 14:03:04 +0000 UTC]
I bet your view is far better then this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
julienpier In reply to couleur [2008-05-30 01:49:32 +0000 UTC]
I depends on where
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
baumaxx1 [2008-05-29 00:04:37 +0000 UTC]
Same about the camera, but I like the way the picture blends day and night.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to baumaxx1 [2008-05-29 14:03:02 +0000 UTC]
day and night? I think you got it all wrong. This is night... all night.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
baumaxx1 In reply to couleur [2008-05-30 13:20:08 +0000 UTC]
Yeahm I know... but it looks like both... part of it looks like day time is what I meant, but it's just the lighting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
UberGabzz [2008-05-28 21:36:08 +0000 UTC]
Actually, you might want to try getting a more adapted ISO. I just think it's a heavy case of GRAIN...
wait a sec... That doesn't work... aren't you using digital?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to UberGabzz [2008-05-29 14:02:55 +0000 UTC]
It's ISO 100. By far this is the most stable ISO to use. And this is no grain or noise. It's something to do with the sensor.
Yes, I am using digital as always.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
radol [2008-05-28 19:38:08 +0000 UTC]
well exposure was very long, so it might be noise from overheating camera sensor. thats why digital astrophotographers use special sensor cooling. anyway, try free tool from polaroid to clean up - [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to radol [2008-05-29 14:13:44 +0000 UTC]
I can agree with what you said about the over heating. I'm not sure. But this is definitely not grain. The ISO on DSLRs are more stable compared to compacts, unless you boost it up to 3200. But by then it would still be better and much less visible then this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
radol In reply to couleur [2008-05-30 16:30:13 +0000 UTC]
it's definitely too much noise for 20 minute exposure, so sensor might broken anyway. the most important question is, how "standard" exposure time photos look.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to radol [2008-09-07 19:51:27 +0000 UTC]
The sensor is fucked up. Canon quoted me a super ridiculous price. But I sold the camera and bought a new 40D. And now, after a month, 50D is out. Super suck... oh well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to radol [2008-09-12 06:51:13 +0000 UTC]
Erm, the technology of 5D was pretty old and out dated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VictorAZZuRo [2008-05-28 19:35:00 +0000 UTC]
ah, and they are not dead pixels. a dead pixel is not RGB . it is another kind of problem from the sensor . and the funny thing is that they appeared only at iso 200 and higher and alwaysin the same spot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to VictorAZZuRo [2008-05-29 14:13:43 +0000 UTC]
You mean, your camera produces this too? I dont think it's anything related to the ISO, but more towards the sensor. I'm using 100, how bad can it be even if it was 10,000 seconds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
VictorAZZuRo In reply to couleur [2008-05-29 15:33:34 +0000 UTC]
i know, i don;t think it is related to the long exposure ....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to VictorAZZuRo [2008-05-29 14:13:42 +0000 UTC]
Is it like an X mark when you zoom in 100%? I had some white X's and blues and red like LED, and whites which are sharp edged pixels, all over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
couleur In reply to VictorAZZuRo [2008-09-07 19:54:42 +0000 UTC]
X. Interesting isn't it?
It means, the camera is dying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
draftwave [2008-05-28 19:29:29 +0000 UTC]
no words...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>