Canon 5D Mark II: Banding... c'mon, still?

<p>I have previously brought up the issue of banding in shadows for Canon digital SLRs (http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RBTe). Very evident in Rebels, less evident in higher-end cameras like the 5D. But, nonetheless, there.</p>

<p>Disappointingly, it's still there in the 5D Mark II... you'll see some examples below.</p>

<p>These are more easily seen by lightening shadows using 'Fill Light' or whatever algorithm you choose. But sometimes they're visible on their own.</p>

<p>First question: Nikon CCD camera based users: do you see this?</p>

<p>Now, am I to understand that this banding results from variations in the amplifiers for each row OR from temporal variation in read-outs? And do these banding effects essentially result when these variations in gain or readout exceed the signal:noise ratio (which is much more likely to occur at low signal, i.e. shadows... OR, at high ISO where the gain for each amplifier is increased)?</p>

<p>Here are some examples from the new Canon 5D Mark II (sadly, yes):</p>

<hr />

<p>Here's an example of some <strong>horizontal</strong> banding (note, the image was significantly brightened in DPP):<br /> <img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/BandingInShadows.jpg" alt="Horizontal banding in shadows_ISO100" width="682" /></p>

 

<hr />

<p>Here's a comparison of the same area of a shot, at ISO 50 & at ISO 100, on the 5D Mark II, with Fill Light set to +100 to exaggerate the <strong>vertical</strong> banding in shadows:<br>

<img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/Canon5DMII_ISO50vsISO100.jpg" alt="" width="808" /> <br /> Here's the link to the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/Canon5DMII_ISO50vsISO100.jpg" target="_blank">full-size image.</a></p>

 

<hr />

<p>And here's the banding seen in a high ISO image (ISO 25600):<br /> <img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/BandingAtHighISO.jpg" alt="" width="589" /></p>

<p>One thing that confuses me though -- sometimes it seems like the direction of the banding changes from image to image, by 90 degrees (and no, not because the image was portrait vs. landscape). I'm confused...</p>

<p>Anyway, the purpose of this post, to really figure out why it's there. Berg previously suggested that it's temporal variation, and if I understand this concept correctly, I don't understand why this temporal variation has to exist if scanners like the Nikon LS-9000, which scans 1 (or 3?) lines at a time, doesn't exhibit this sort of banding in extremely dense areas of Velvia 50 slide scans, as is evidenced below:<br>

<img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/Banding&Dmax-LS9000Shadows.jpg" alt="LS-9000: See? No banding!" width="800" height="776" /><br>

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/Banding&Dmax-LS9000Shadows.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p>

<p>And that scan was significantly lightened with the Shadows/Highlights tool in Adobe PS CS3 (Shadows: +100, tonal width=14, black clipping = 0.01%).</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your help,<br>

Rishi</p>

<p>Rishi,</p>

<p>Unusual concept, go buy a camera, take pictures, enjoy!</p>

<p>C'mon, still!</p>

<p>Can you see the banding without going nuts on the fill lights? The fact that banding appears at ISO25600 should not be a surprise. It seems to me that you are creating unrealistic conditions that no photographer would encounter.</p>

<p>Scott: If I did that, my life would actually be less complicated! Wait a minute... I think that's a good thing :)</p>

<p>Juergen: sure you can see it in real world images. Here's one before/after where I added +50 Fill Light... certainly reasonable.</p>

<p>Before:<br>

<img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/DarkImage-Original.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br>

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/DarkImage-Original.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p>

<p>After +50 Fill Light:<br>

<img src="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/DarkImage-FillLight+50.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br>

<a href="http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/DarkImage-FillLight+50.jpg">Link to Full-Size Image</a></p>

<p>The banding is more easily seen at 100%, so please follow the links. Maybe I'm a pixel peeper but I don't want to see that in a high-end digital camera.</p>

<p>I admit I'm interested in this for rather academic reasons (probably what Scott was getting at) but also for practical reasons. Because I want to make the switch from Velvia to digital & I have a holy trinity of lenses so I've already spent a lot of money and I want to make a wise purchase in the future. Part of 'wise purchase' = no banding. Which is why I'm especially curious if NIKON users see this.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rishi</p>

 

<p>Man I totally posted this in the wrong forum. Moving it...</p>

<p>Rishi, no you didn't but the people here use the cameras you are talking about every day, the vast majority of the time they have no issues. Post it on the Nikon forum and everybody will agree with you, but they don't use the things.</p>

<p>The worst Canon DSLR I have used for this is the 1D, I have used it for years and it is easy to work around, certainly no more awkward than working round Velvia's limitations. I used the 1D professionally today, it paid my rent, yet again..... (actually wrote that bit about Velvia before I noticed your reference to it). Seriously if you are used to using Velvia then controling exposure to eliminate this "problem" is just not an issue.</p>

<p>Go for the less complicated life, or, jump on the black dots next to spot lights on the new 5D MkII that will run much better.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott :-)</p>

<p>Or the disgusting purple fringing of highlights... :)</p>

<p>Rishi,<br>

Although the 'how and why' of your banding question is interesting, this is 'state of the art' in 2008.  I am sure that the NR software that is normally applied in multipass sharpening (reference Bruce Fraser's Real World Sharpening text) of high ISO digital capture images will greatly reduce the visibility of these artifacts. <br>

I would suspect that Velvia pushed to 25600, even if it is possible, would not be attractive at all.</p>