Nikon hints at "New Concept" camera release, possibly this year
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Performance Issue: Canon Lenses or Camera Body Causing Softer Focus
Next: What place/s in the world would you most want to take a selfportrait in ?
From: Bruce on 14 Jul 2010 04:44 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:21:39 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >Indeed. All the literature I saw regarding those camera types, >beginning with the Olympus PEN cameras did not characterize them as SLR >cameras. There are a variety of characterizations, however, the one I >see used most frequently, as you assert, is interchangeable lens EVF. >Although that does leave something to be desired. If the above was a >press release, it would appear someone goofed. It wasn't a press release. It was a Bloomberg article, as would have been obvious to anyone who read my posting and/or followed the link to the original article. Obviously you did neither of those things.
From: Bruce on 14 Jul 2010 04:50 On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 13, 5:34�pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...(a)erols.com> wrote: >> >> Please explain the pixel-mapping function. �Is it to be used for >> 'preventative maintenance' or just if a problem is identified? �The >> manual is less than satisfactory. �As an Olympus owner, I never used >> this feature, because I had and have no problems. > >If a hot (or dead) pixel appears (a pixel whose response rate differs >significantly from its neighbours) you can "map" the image of the >adjacent pixel over the bad one, thereby eliminating it from the >image. Kind of like how long exposure dark framing is used to >eliminate hot pixels. I never had to use it on an Olympus either, but >it would have come in handy with a few Nikon's I've seen. It was useful on the Olympus E-20 DSLR which seemed particularly prone to hot pixels - more so than any Nikon DSLR, I suspect.
From: Better Info on 14 Jul 2010 05:04 On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:50:15 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >>On Jul 13, 5:34�pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...(a)erols.com> wrote: >>> >>> Please explain the pixel-mapping function. �Is it to be used for >>> 'preventative maintenance' or just if a problem is identified? �The >>> manual is less than satisfactory. �As an Olympus owner, I never used >>> this feature, because I had and have no problems. >> >>If a hot (or dead) pixel appears (a pixel whose response rate differs >>significantly from its neighbours) you can "map" the image of the >>adjacent pixel over the bad one, thereby eliminating it from the >>image. Kind of like how long exposure dark framing is used to >>eliminate hot pixels. I never had to use it on an Olympus either, but >>it would have come in handy with a few Nikon's I've seen. > > >It was useful on the Olympus E-20 DSLR which seemed particularly prone >to hot pixels - more so than any Nikon DSLR, I suspect. EVERY sensor is prone to hot and dead pixels. Just because you don't have access to mapping them out or know about them doesn't mean that they don't exists. On average, there's at least 2,000 to 15,000 dead or hot pixels on every sensor of every size by every manufacturer. This has been found by the "badpixel.lua" script for CHDK cameras. (Through 3 years of sensors from various providers.). That LUA script required to run before using CHDK's DNG output format. CHDK has to find all the bad-pixels that the cameras already knows about before it can convert the RAW sensor data to a DNG format. If your sensor is reporting ZERO bad photosites someone is most certainly lying to you. EVERY sensor has them, to varying degrees, no matter how much money that you threw at your camera.
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 14 Jul 2010 07:21 Bruce wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:21:39 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> > wrote: > > >>Indeed. All the literature I saw regarding those camera types, >>beginning with the Olympus PEN cameras did not characterize them as SLR >>cameras. There are a variety of characterizations, however, the one I >>see used most frequently, as you assert, is interchangeable lens EVF. >>Although that does leave something to be desired. If the above was a >>press release, it would appear someone goofed. > > > > It wasn't a press release. It was a Bloomberg article, as would have > been obvious to anyone who read my posting and/or followed the link to > the original article. Obviously you did neither of those things. > Reporters get their facts from the events they cover. The 'article' in question cites comments by Nikon's president, in an interview. That said, now unless you are going to assert that the reporter 'embellished' the facts by adding something that was NOT stated( i.e., inserting the term SLR when Nikon's president did NOT use it ), we have to believe that the term was used in the context of the interview. Since any interview by a company official, in this case, Nikon's president constitutes a dissemination of company policy, it can properly be termed a 'press release.' As far as your other comments are concerned, I think that the above explains my use of terminology. As far as your comment that 'obviously you did neither' is concerned, I would only caution you not to jump to conclusions before you go drawing conclusions which may not have the validity you seem to think they do. IOW, ask first before you make assumptions.
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 14 Jul 2010 07:30
Better Info wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:50:15 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Jul 13, 5:34 pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...(a)erols.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Please explain the pixel-mapping function. Is it to be used for >>>>'preventative maintenance' or just if a problem is identified? The >>>>manual is less than satisfactory. As an Olympus owner, I never used >>>>this feature, because I had and have no problems. >>> >>>If a hot (or dead) pixel appears (a pixel whose response rate differs >>>significantly from its neighbours) you can "map" the image of the >>>adjacent pixel over the bad one, thereby eliminating it from the >>>image. Kind of like how long exposure dark framing is used to >>>eliminate hot pixels. I never had to use it on an Olympus either, but >>>it would have come in handy with a few Nikon's I've seen. >> >> >>It was useful on the Olympus E-20 DSLR which seemed particularly prone >>to hot pixels - more so than any Nikon DSLR, I suspect. > > > EVERY sensor is prone to hot and dead pixels. Just because you don't have > access to mapping them out or know about them doesn't mean that they don't > exists. > > On average, there's at least 2,000 to 15,000 dead or hot pixels on every > sensor of every size by every manufacturer. This has been found by the > "badpixel.lua" script for CHDK cameras. (Through 3 years of sensors from > various providers.). That LUA script required to run before using CHDK's > DNG output format. CHDK has to find all the bad-pixels that the cameras > already knows about before it can convert the RAW sensor data to a DNG > format. > > If your sensor is reporting ZERO bad photosites someone is most certainly > lying to you. EVERY sensor has them, to varying degrees, no matter how much > money that you threw at your camera. > Perhaps you can add something to my question. I have never used the pixel mapping function. The manufacturer suggests that it be used once a year. I cannot detect any 'bad pixels' optically, albeit that is a very crude and likely very imprecise function, but I see no evidence of any in photographs. Consequently, I have never used the function. Are you suggesting that I operate it as per the manufacturer's advice anyway? |