uh oh. Sensor failure?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by evilsivan, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. A couple of days ago I posted a thread asking if anyone could tell if some corrupted files were due to the SD card or the camera http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XHEW.
    I put in a different card, and formatted in camera before use. Now I got this on one shot:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilsivan/5022206744/sizes/l/
    that you can see is clearly wrong. The photos taken immediately before and after were fine, they had the same settings (iso, shutter, aperture etc).
    I have about 50k actuations on my D80 which is probably close to the lifespan.
    Has anyone seen this before?
     
  2. you can see is clearly wrong​
    What is wrong? the old man is supposed to be younger?
     
  3. Gotta say I'm with John on this. I can't see what is "clearly wrong." Could you post (preferably here, rather than a link) the shot you feel is wrong, and the shot immediately prior which you feel is fine? This might provide some insight.
     
  4. definitely see the speckly issues with the skin-tones, could be just a one-of screw-up. If it does this again, I would say you have a repair issue.
     
  5. It's possible that the huge amount of light on the older gentleman's forearm just made the camera's processor "go crazy."
    As an old friend, and instructor used to say, "That's beyond the range of film."
     
  6. Sorry, I thought it was "clear" to me :)
    The orange tones are out of whack.
    @John, LOL, we should all be younger!
    @Steve, the other four or five images in the same burst turned out fine, so I don't think I was pushing the sensor too much.
    I will post the adjacent photo in the thread when I get home from work.
     
  7. the d80 is rated at 100k shutter actuations.
     
  8. the d80 is rated at 100k shutter actuations.​
    That's the shutter, not the sensor, though. Different issues.
     
  9. I don't see anything wrong with the new picture other than you have some blown highlights (or they are very close to being blown out). The childs hair is bing lit by the sun and and has a slightly warmer color temperature and is a little bit over exposed. The mans white shirt is reflecting a lot of light onto the childs face also giving it a slightly warm color temperature. The rest is all in shade and has a slighly cooler color temperature.
     
  10. that you can see is clearly wrong. The photos taken immediately before and after were fine, they had the same settings (iso, shutter, aperture etc).​
    Well, something's got to be different. Flash? This picture looks like you blew the red channel, and the blown highlight algorithms in NX or LightRoom tried to make up the lost information. Did you shoot this raw? Can you put the raw someplace where we can get at it? I'll try to take it apart and see what's going on.
    Camera processors don't just "go crazy" and sensors have a near infinite lifespan. I've seen them go a million exposures in industrial environments.
     
  11. I did shoot it in raw.
    No flash used.
    Unfortunately there's no way for me to post the raw where you guys can download it.
    Here is a tight crop of the 'troubled' image and the same crop from the image taken a fraction of a second earlier.
    00XMaf-284277584.jpg
     
  12. Here is the other one, no weird orange colors.
    If anybody knows how/where I can upload the RAW file I will do it.
    00XMal-284278184.jpg
     
  13. Wow, that's a hardware problem, all right, and a weird one. You have, for the most part, entire rows of pixels being lost, and the, randomly, in no more than 4 pixel wide chunks, the rows being present, but the columns being lost. Intermittent connection in the very lowest address line on the sensor. One shot, the vibration opened or shorted the line, the next shot, it cleared the problem.
    That is a sensor, or sensor interface, problem. Probably a problem with the ribbon cable connector from the 1031 board. How often does this weird thing happen?
     
  14. Joseph, this is the first time. The camera has not sustained any impacts recently that I know about.
    I guess I"ll have to buy a D3s now? :)
     
  15. The "yellow" photo is also sharper. I still think probably "writing to card" problem
     
  16. You still haven't eliminated the method of transfer as a possible source of the problem though, have you? (At least, I didn't see anything about it posted.)
    This looks not like a sensor problem but either a RAW demosaicing problem or a transfer problem.
    What RAW converter are you using?
     
  17. Adobe ACR.
    it just occured to me I should have put all this info in the original post.
     
  18. I've had one Canon sensor and one Leica sensor replaced and have another Canon with a sensor being replaced right now. Believe me, this isn't a sensor issue - at least as far as being replaced. (All sensors were replaced under warranty, fyi).
     
  19. Sorry. I hadn't seen closeups in above images of pixels. I don't know. It may just need to be remapped. I'll respectfully bow out of this conversation.
     
  20. How does one remap?
     
  21. It's not a remapping problem. Remapping fixes individual "stuck" pixels.
     
  22. That's a really weird problem. Did anyone else notice how strange the pattern looks at the pixel level?
    What software are you using to view the nef files and create the jpeg? Did it look like this on the camera? Try looking at it with Picasa and try using Dr. Chung's Preview Extractor to look at the embedded jpeg in the nef file.
    It kind of looks like something weird happened to the blue channel. It woud really help for you to post the raw. Just do a google on "free large file storage".
    00XNSJ-284973584.jpg
     
  23. Tom,
    I viewed the .nef and created the jpeg with Adobe ACR. I did not view the image on camera as I normally don't review my pics on camera.
    I will try as you say. What is Dr. Chung's PE?
     
  24. Indeed, opening it in Doctor Chung's Fabtrabulous Extraction reveals nothing weird at all.
    00XNSt-284979584.jpg
     
  25. The embedded basic quality jpeg is what Nikon cameras show when reviewing pics on camera.
    Unfortunately, it still looks like you still have weirdness. The jpeg artifacts are unnatural. The twisty maze pattern is still there but is less prominent because of higher jpeg compression.
    The "normal" example above is a bit soft. I wonder if this is something that could be happening because of hard edges, like that banding problem some Nikons once had.
    But if it's only happened once and hasn't happened again, I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you use the camera for events like weddings. Once it happens on a regular basis, you can decide whether to get it fixed or not.
     
  26. I thought I've seen this problem before and did a quick search and found this:
    http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RbvR
    Might be the same problem?
    (Also, check out the link provided by Rob Bernhard in the linked thread: http://dpanswers.com/content/tech_defects.php#maze )
     
  27. Indeed, I was going to reference that link, but the fact that he's using Adobe ACR and getting these is...strange.
    I guess another test would be to throw the problem RAW files at a different converter and see if you get the same results. If the same, then I'd go back and double-check the transfer method again. If you can eliminate that then I think it would be something internal to the camera and probably should be serviced.
    The fact that Tom sees the same pattern in the embedded JPG though...that's looking more and more like a camera fault. But still, it's good to eliminate variables.
     
  28. Janne and Rob,
    thanks for your inputs. Looks like the same problem in the other threads. It's only happened once so I'm hoping it was an error that occured while importing the RAW files off of the card into the computer.
     

Share This Page