pixels of the wrong color

Hello,

I don't know the correct name for what I'm talking about, otherwise I
would use it.

In many of the digital pictures I've taken, a few pixels are way off
color. For example, a few random pixels on a face might be purple or
green. A few random pixels of a blue sky might be pink, for no reason
outside of the camera itself.

This effect increases with low light, but it is present at all light
levels.

If there is a correct name for this phenomenon, someone can tell me.
Until then, we can call it mis-pixelation.

Anyway:
It's pretty obvious that I'm not using a top-of-the-line camera. (Nor
do I spend all of my money on a car, aquarium, garden, computer, books,
etc. I have a budget. Please don't tell me that my only option is to
"get serious" and spend a year's income, or else I'd better forget it.)

How much, realistically, should I expect to spend on a digital camera
that doesn't "mispixelate"?

Thank you for all answers!

Ted Shoemaker

wrote:
Hello,

I don't know the correct name for what I'm talking about, otherwise I
would use it.

In many of the digital pictures I've taken, a few pixels are way off
color. For example, a few random pixels on a face might be purple or
green. A few random pixels of a blue sky might be pink, for no reason
outside of the camera itself.

This effect increases with low light, but it is present at all light
levels.

If there is a correct name for this phenomenon, someone can tell me.
Until then, we can call it mis-pixelation.

Anyway:
It's pretty obvious that I'm not using a top-of-the-line camera. (Nor
do I spend all of my money on a car, aquarium, garden, computer, books,
etc. I have a budget. Please don't tell me that my only option is to
"get serious" and spend a year's income, or else I'd better forget it.)

How much, realistically, should I expect to spend on a digital camera
that doesn't "mispixelate"?
What camera are you using now?

Do you see these off pixels even when shooting with bright sunlight?

Scott

Are the off colour pixels always in the same location on the image?

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

wrote in message
ups.com...
: Hello,
:
: I don't know the correct name for what I'm talking about, otherwise
I
: would use it.
:
: In many of the digital pictures I've taken, a few pixels are way off
: color. For example, a few random pixels on a face might be purple
or
: green. A few random pixels of a blue sky might be pink, for no
reason
: outside of the camera itself.
:
: This effect increases with low light, but it is present at all light
: levels.
:
: If there is a correct name for this phenomenon, someone can tell me.
: Until then, we can call it mis-pixelation.
:
: Anyway:
: It's pretty obvious that I'm not using a top-of-the-line camera.
(Nor
: do I spend all of my money on a car, aquarium, garden, computer,
books,
: etc. I have a budget. Please don't tell me that my only option is
to
: "get serious" and spend a year's income, or else I'd better forget
it.)
:
: How much, realistically, should I expect to spend on a digital
camera
: that doesn't "mispixelate"?
:
: Thank you for all answers!
:
: Ted Shoemaker
:

wrote:
Hello,

I don't know the correct name for what I'm talking about, otherwise I
would use it.

In many of the digital pictures I've taken, a few pixels are way off
color. For example, a few random pixels on a face might be purple or
green. A few random pixels of a blue sky might be pink, for no reason
outside of the camera itself.

This effect increases with low light, but it is present at all light
levels.

If there is a correct name for this phenomenon, someone can tell me.
Until then, we can call it mis-pixelation.

snip

Ted Shoemaker

This sounds like noise to me. Especially if it happens more in dim
shots. If it is always the same pixels it is called fixed pattern
noise and is a fault in the CCD chip. If it varies in position it is
normal "electronic" noise.

wrote:
Hello,

I don't know the correct name for what I'm talking about, otherwise I
would use it.

In many of the digital pictures I've taken, a few pixels are way off
color. For example, a few random pixels on a face might be purple or
green. A few random pixels of a blue sky might be pink, for no reason
outside of the camera itself.

This effect increases with low light, but it is present at all light
levels.

If there is a correct name for this phenomenon, someone can tell me.
Until then, we can call it mis-pixelation.

I *think* what you're talking about is "noise". The correlation with
low light is highly indicative. (If it's always the *same* pixel or
three, then it's a "hot pixel" problem instead, a completely different
issue.)

Anyway:
It's pretty obvious that I'm not using a top-of-the-line camera. (Nor
do I spend all of my money on a car, aquarium, garden, computer, books,
etc. I have a budget. Please don't tell me that my only option is to
"get serious" and spend a year's income, or else I'd better forget it.)

How much, realistically, should I expect to spend on a digital camera
that doesn't "mispixelate"?

Look at the noise values for cameras given on dpreview.com in their
camera reviews. And while you're at it look closely at their noise
sample photos and see if that's really the issue you're dealing with.

You won't find any digital camera at any price that doesn't do it at
all; however, some cameras do it less than others, even in the cheap
range. For example the Fuji F30 handles low light and high ISO shots
much more cleanly than other cameras in its price range. And the DSLRs
generally do much better than the point-and-shoots. And there's a lot
variation between the DSLRs still. In general, physical pixel size
correlates with low noise -- larger sensors, or lower resolution, mean
lower noise (at any given technology level).

Software like Noise Ninja or Neat Image (or others I don't currently
remember) can mitigate the problem significantly without creating too
many other problems if used with restraint (is that guarded enough to
avoid starting a flame war?).

Since I moved to DSLRs (a Fuji S2 for a few years, and now a Nikon D200)
I've found that noise, with a bit of mitigation, is less of a problem
than film grain in the low-light situations I shoot in a lot. But film
grain has been my constant enemy my whole photographic life, so "less of
a problem than film grain" still leaves LOTS of room for some pretty
hideous noise artifacts.

On 5 Jan 2007 15:24:03 -0800, wrote:

It's pretty obvious that I'm not using a top-of-the-line camera. (Nor
do I spend all of my money on a car, aquarium, garden, computer, books,
etc. I have a budget. Please don't tell me that my only option is to
"get serious" and spend a year's income, or else I'd better forget it.)

You might not have to spend anything if you have your camera set
to use a high ISO. If you're doing that, set the camera to its
lowest ISO and shoot some pictures in bright daylight. In any case,
it might help others to diagnose your cameras problem if you provide
more information, such as the brand and model of your camera, the
ISO you've been using, and the lighting condition (bright, dim,
etc.) of the pictures that have the biggest problem.

Judging from everyone's comments, my problem is NOISE. I'll keep that
in mind when shopping for the next camera.

Thanks to all who responded.

Ted Shoemaker

wrote:
Judging from everyone's comments, my problem is NOISE. I'll keep that
in mind when shopping for the next camera.

Thanks to all who responded.

Ted Shoemaker

If it is an interchangable lens camera, keep it in mind when shopping
for lenses also. Faster lens (lower f/#) gives less noise in dim light
situations.

On 7 Jan 2007 08:28:06 -0800, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
wrote:


wrote:
Judging from everyone's comments, my problem is NOISE. I'll keep that
in mind when shopping for the next camera.

Thanks to all who responded.

Ted Shoemaker

If it is an interchangable lens camera, keep it in mind when shopping
for lenses also. Faster lens (lower f/#) gives less noise in dim light
situations.

Well, it will *allow* for less noise, if the ISO speed is lowered to
take advantage of the increased aperture.
But you knew that. :-)

--
Hillary Clinton was sworn
into the Senate Thursday
with her hand on a Bible
which was held by her husband
Bill. You could see it was
an old dog-eared family Bible.
It still has the yellow
highlighting on the passages
that say oral sex is not adultery.