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

[rishij]

<p>OK I see it. Nice, not so evident on the 40D...</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Here's another example from 40D at ISO 400, again underexposed.</p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>and crop, only at ISO 400 it shows a little bit of banding as far as I can see on my screen</p><div></div>

[rishij]

<p>I, also, hardly see the banding, Arash, in either of your 40D posts.</p>

<p>Man... not looking good for the 5D Mark II...</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Rishi,<br>

I looked at some of my older photos which were taken with my 20D, interestingly I found that 20D is more prone to this issue, I am posting only one example here, unfortunately I have neither the time nor the energy to post more samples and do exhaustive comparisons, but qualitatively my 20D shows more banding than my 40D. Without quantitative measurements from several cameras of each model it's hard to tell whether this is sample variation or specific design issue related to sensor readout circuit. I am going to the IEDM (International Electron Device Meeting) next week, I will try to talk to the core technical people from Canon who will also attend the conference (this will be difficult as I can't speak Japanese!) and ask them about this issue as well as the black pixel problem. If I succeed and they consent, I will reword and share my findings here.<br>

Rishi, I am not such a great photographer as you can tell from my gallery but one thing that I have learned from all the workshops and some really talented people here and over on the BPN forum is that if you take a good picture it will be a winner even if it shows some noise or banding. Look at all the grainy photos which won the Pulitzer prize. If you haven't ordered the camera yet just wait a few months and see what happens, if you have be happy, grab it and go take some pictures, worry about banding whenever you see it in your photos.</p><div></div>

[hawkman]

<p>100% crop-good night!</p><div></div>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Agh, this is one thing I hate. I'm extremely suprised its popping up in such a high end camera. It reminds me of the sort of results I used to get with older generation CCD based DSLR's (A100, 7D).</p>

<p>Give me noise, that's fine, as long as you still get sharp detail and no smudgy NR applied. But banding, oh dear, I don't think you can do much about that in PP. It's just ugly to my mind. This issue obviously isnt going to be an issue with everyones style of shooting, but then if you are paying that much for a camera it just shouldnt be there at all IMO. Some mention it's the users fault that he has underexposed & then pushed the image in PP... well, sadly, you have to do that under some circumstances. Bottom line, I just don't think this "character" should be there at all.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Some mention it's the users fault that he has underexposed & then pushed the image in PP... well, sadly, you have to do that under some circumstances.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Specifically because these cameras have such limited dynamic range. Possibly not as much of a problem with the Fuji S5 since with that camera you can expose for the shadows and not worry about the highlights.</p>

<p>Arash, cool, see what information you can glean. I agree that this sort of banding, Richard, is hard to get rid of in post-processing... I certainly don't know how. Neat Image & Noise Ninja certainly do not get rid of it, as these programs look for random noise and typically preserve lower frequency detail (the banding falls under 'lower frequency noise'). So, sometimes, the banding is enhanced when you remove all the other higher frequency noise.</p>

<p>Random noise is not as easily picked out by the eye as regular patterns like banding. The 5D Mark II banding above kinda looks like the banding you get when Epson printer heads are not aligned... and I notice those things immediately. Even on prints made by the Epson R2400 and higher models at the Art Wolfe gallery here in Seattle. To me, it's distracting, and takes away from the 'realism' of a landscape photo.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>>>I know $2700 for a body may be nothing for you folk in the industry, but it's a lot for a hobbyist.<<<br>

<br /> Well, which is your hobby, taking pictures or pixel peeping? ;P<br /> <br /> Seriously, if can't make a GREAT print using images shot with the 5MKII I would not know what could possibly satisfy you.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Thanks Rishi, glad you appreciated my point. Now, i know one can dwell on the bad points of a camera... we should appreciate that this is still a very unique camera with some very interesting features. But the topic is the sensor... and it's noise control... The simple fact is that it shouldnt, be there, should it? I never knew CMOS sensors could band actually, but i do have very limited experiences with such cameas (I get no banding off my A700 at ISO6400)...<br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3070445131_8aa83ed68c.jpg" alt="ISO6400 off the A700 (no noise king, but still no banding)" width="500" height="354" /><br />"Seriously, if can't make a GREAT print using images shot with the 5MKII I would not know what could possibly satisfy you."<br />Likewise, if you need a "5MKII" to take GREAT photos, you have to question what you're satisfying :)</p>

[iqbal]

<p>WILL ALL YOU PRO SITTING ON HIGH HORSES BE COURTEOUS ENOUGH TO FIRST DEFINE AND EXPLAIN "BANDING." THEN GIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE/EXAMPLES OF BANDING... I THOUGHT PHOTO.NET IS INCLUSIVE AND CONTRIBUTORS HAVE AN ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DISSEMINATE KNOWLEDGE OF PHOTOGRAPHY TO ALL WHO ARE WILLING TO LEARN & PRACTICE. PERHAPS I AM WRONG & SHOULD MOVE TO SOME OTHER FORUM.</p>

[rishij]

<p>Hahaha... that was actually kind of funny.</p>

<p>Also, why are you shouting?</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>"WILL ALL YOU PROS SITTING ON HIGH HORSES BE COURTEOUS ENOUGH TO FIRST DEFINE AND EXPLAIN 'BANDING'"?<br>

It's when the photograph contains bands ("stripes") that weren't in the scene photographed.</p>

[igor_jarm]

<p>I just redid the test on 20d. The banding looks the same, but the fixed pattern noise I got out of averaged 16 exposures is totaly different than the pattern from a year ago.<br>

Obviously to reduce banding it only makes sense to subtract average of dark frames from about the same time as the photos were taken.<br>

One important difference I noticed is noticable amplifier glow which was not present a year ago. Exposure was the shortest possible so it's not from long exposure. I'm not sure what exactly this means, but it seems electronics degrade as time passes. This may affect the photos.<br>

I might repeat the test tomorrow, to see if it changes from day to day.</p>

[rishij]

<p>I've heard of amplifier glow as a camera ages. Not exactly sure what it is, but seems like it's typical.</p>

<p>Also, the averaged banding may just be something that changes every single time you perform the test. Have you tried doing 16 exposures, merging them, and then immediately doing 16 more exposures, merging them, etc.?</p>

<p>It may be a pattern that results from an otherwise random process, in which case, it'd change every time</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>Rishi- could you post the RGB histograms for the shot?</p>

[igor_jarm]

<p>Out of curiosity I just did the test again. One day later the fixed pattern noise is the same. Thru all the noise I can't spot the difference. But it is totally different than the pattern from a year ago. The fixed pattern is obviously changing but this is a slow process.<br>

I have two more ideas to try. I will change the lens and redo the test, and then take the battery out and again redo the test tomorrow. I already changed the card so this is obviously not a factor.</p>

 

[rishij]

<p>Nice work Igor. Thanks! I'm glad someone else takes this seriously.<br>

-Rishi</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>Buy a Nikon? <br>

Use fill flash?</p>

[igor_jarm]

<p>I redid the test as I said. The fixed pattern noise was the same.<br>

My findings are as follows:</p>

<ol>

<li>Horizontal bands are random from shot to shot </li>

<li>Vertical bands are random but change very slowly - after two days I can't tell the difference, but a year earlier it was totally different</li>

<li>The lens being used or the changing of batteries don't seem to have an effect on read noise</li>

</ol>

<p>The tests were done on a Canon 20d.</p>

[rishij]

<p>Wonderful, Igor.</p>

<p>So that points to the banding resulting from column/row (I forget which one) amplifier static (as opposed to temporal) variation. Amplifier characteristics can probably change slowly over time, but for a day-to-day basis, may remain largely the same.</p>

<p>So, Berg, or someone -- can't we fix this in software by shooting a black frame(s) prior to our shoots?</p>

<p>More importantly, can Canon fix it? Even though I doubt they'd really care to given that there are already people in this thread telling me to ignore the banding. Which I find to be a just plain dumb solution. Or lack thereof.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>

<p >Hi I don’t no why this thread is getting so muct response as any digital image that needs that much lifting is scrap way before any banding ... unless you like that look the only way I can see for you is</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1 expose correctly or</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2 sell your digital kit and shoot print film </p>

<p >I did think that I had never seen banding in any my images from 5D and 20D but then I remember a photo I take inside when I had been using 20D on manual out side on a sunny day A friend I not see for some time came to see me I picked up the 20D and shot him proberly 7 or 8 stops under</p>

<p >I had to lift it so much that all the shadows went a red banded mess. But I turned it to black and whit and I like the canvas affect</p>

<p >Dave</p>

</p><div></div>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>

<p >Hi I don’t no why this thread is getting so muct response as any digital image that needs that much lifting is scrap way before any banding ... unless you like that look the only way I can see for you is</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1 expose correctly or</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2 sell your digital kit and shoot print film </p>

<p >I did think that I had never seen banding in any my images from 5D and 20D but then I remember a photo I take inside when I had been using 20D on manual out side on a sunny day A friend I not see for some time came to see me I picked up the 20D and shot him proberly 7 or 8 stops under</p>

<p >I had to lift it so much that all the shadows went a red banded mess. But I turned it to black and whit and I like the canvas affect</p>

<p >Dave</p>

</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>I suspect that this results from Canon's basic technology. <br>

Perhaps that's why Nikon stayed with CCD's for so long.<br>

You probably need to prevent this by exposing to the right and fill flash.<br>

A shoe flash with a head that tilts and turns will let you amplify existing light. <br>

Many pictures that look like existing light were done with flash.<br>

A most common source of existing light is a window or door. That's easy to simulate with flash.</p>

[rishij]

<p>Thanks Steve. Yeah it's disappointing. Here are what some Nikonians say when they see it in shadows of their D70 (which is really cheap):</p>

<p>"i just don't think it's as high a quality camera. i'd be willing to bet it's just a mediocre sensor."</p>

<p>Yet here are Canonites defending seeing the banding on the newest, latest & greatest $2700 price tag Canon 5D Mark II.</p>

<p>Dave, I don't have a digital setup. I shoot film & was trying to justify switching but am unable to given the latest performance reviews of the 5D MII.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>