I think finally I found banding in a D200?

Rita,

Therte is no banding in this picture. In the small samlpes of the photo,
(hoping that I have understand what you mean) that looks like banding in the
horizontal white tube and in the yachts decorative lines, is an effect
generatated from resizing the image and not form the camera. If you dowload
the full size image (it is 9 Mb) I believe that you realize that there is no
banding at all.

The above effect can be visible even in full size pictures when the photo
includes horizontal lines with a slight inclination from 0 degrees. It is
the same effect that generates "moire" and all cameras produce it (is a
product of scan). More intence is this as lower is the CCD's resolution in
Mpix and as smaller is the inclination of the lines from the horizontal.

From the other hand, I believe that this picture have more than normal
luminance noise. The exif shows ISO200, T=6sec, NR=OFF. At 6 sec the long
exposure NR should be ON. Also the picture looks like it have a post process
in levels. If this is true (I believe it is), this explain the increased
level of noise in the mid shadow areas.
--
Dimitris M


Here is a picture from a gentleman by the name of Cynicor in the group
that posted pics in a thread titled "Treasure Island night shots."

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1279919/1/60120634

Is this "banding" or is it random noise with a pattern?

I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)?

No, it was to the 600px x 402px "medium" version.

Yes, I was
looking at the full size image at 100% and what I am seeing are vertical
lines above the brightest light above the boathouse.

I didn't see any banding there. There are only some vertical stripes that
are the rigging of the masts and the masts, in interference with the star
stripes from the light and the iris (the photo was shooting at f8).
--
Dimitris M
????????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????????

Dimitris M wrote:
I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)?

No, it was to the 600px x 402px "medium" version.

you will see banding in 100% (select Original size), just above
overblown area on left side, above and below moon (this one is clearly
visible) and around bridge.


B.

In the moon , yes it is banding.

In other areas, there is some, but soft and difficult to detect, cause of
the luminance noise. Above the stong light, there can not be detected cause
the interference I have already mentioned, but left and right of the light
it can be detected. From the above the only one that could be visible in a
50% print is that in the moon. Seems that indeed this D200 is "infected".
--
Dimitris M



you will see banding in 100% (select Original size), just above overblown
area on left side, above and below moon (this one is clearly visible) and
around bridge.

In message ,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

I thought the link I posted was to the full size image (8.43MB)? Yes, I was
looking at the full size image at 100% and what I am seeing are vertical
lines above the brightest light above the boathouse. Granted they aren't
that noticeable, but I did notice he was shooting at ISO 200 and I am
curious if it would be more pronounced at higher ISOs.

I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
likely. At least some of the problem is an offset, and not scalar,
because in those 1/4 of the columns that are darker, many are clipped to
zero. If you cut'n'paste the image into photoshop, change the levels to
gamma 2.7, and zoom into the top of the halo area above the moon, you'll
see that every fourth column has an excess of almost-black pixels.
These, I assume, are clipped in the WB process and only get some
luminance from the demosaicing. Run a 90 degree motion blur of 200
pixels on the entire image, and you will see the bands in every tonal
range.

--


John P Sheehy

wrote:

I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
likely.

There is definitely (very noticeable) vertical banding, but we have sort
of a terminology problem; that's not the "banding" that has caused all the
controversy with the D200.

Still, there are so many different kinds of "banding" reported with this
camera, it's hard to keep up. It makes me glad I wasn't needing a new
camera when it came out. It's very unlike Nikon to have early-release
problems of this magnitude.

I'm wondering, was this camera made after Nikon's "fix" for the problem?

--
Jeremy |

In message ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

wrote:

I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
likely.

There is definitely (very noticeable) vertical banding, but we have sort
of a terminology problem; that's not the "banding" that has caused all the
controversy with the D200.

The banding I see all over has *exactly* the same geometry as the
banding above the clipped highlights. The darkest lines in the bands
above the light are also the darker lines above and below in the darker,
flatter areas. The clipping-related lines *below* the lights are the
only exception to the pattern. Obviously, some kind of blooming or
readout "memory burn" is occuring. The problems are somewhat related.

Still, there are so many different kinds of "banding" reported with this
camera, it's hard to keep up. It makes me glad I wasn't needing a new
camera when it came out. It's very unlike Nikon to have early-release
problems of this magnitude.

There are a few types of banding; there is vertical and horizontal,
scalar and offset, and repeating (within the image, and frame to frame)
and random.

I don't know if anything short of a replacement is going to remove that
memory effect. It may be possible to calibrate the general banding
effect, though.
--


John P Sheehy

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
wrote:

I see banding throughout the image Every fourth column of pixels is
darker than the three between it; an amplifier calibration issue, most
likely.

There is definitely (very noticeable) vertical banding, but we have sort
of a terminology problem; that's not the "banding" that has caused all the
controversy with the D200.

Still, there are so many different kinds of "banding" reported with this
camera, it's hard to keep up. It makes me glad I wasn't needing a new
camera when it came out. It's very unlike Nikon to have early-release
problems of this magnitude.

I'm wondering, was this camera made after Nikon's "fix" for the problem?

It's a Japanese model. Got it in late Feb, but I don't know offhand
which model numbers were unfixed.

If anyone wants to look at the NEF, it's an 8+ MB ZIP file on my slow
site. http://www.trupin.com/Banding.zip. Enjoy!