Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good day! I have a Fujifilm GFX 100s camera. I really like the camera, it's great! But there is a nuance that worries me, according to the results of shooting, if it lasts 20-40 minutes, for example, in the studio, then in some frames in the gray-dark areas there periodically appear many bright color images, and not noise from ISO (this can be (for example, 500 or 640), but glowing pixels, dozens of them throughout the photo. The most successful is that in a frame taken in one series, they can be absent after a split second, and then suddenly appear again in the same places (in the application, two frames in a row, one has many, the second none). Most of them are in the pendant control and in the upper right corner. . I do not understand what this could be connected with, taking into account the model, overheating of the matrix or a software failure? Does anyone have experience? Thanks in advance for your answer! Best regards, Mikhail!   https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11xvPI-f59PchaEiQy3TEUkN0VqRdVKWJ?usp=sharing

 

Edited by MikhailGFX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum.

There are different ways these can appear, pixels are stuck “on” — called hot pixels or stuck “off” called dead or cold pixels. Also you can get pixels behaving badly from thermal noise creeping in, the camera is too hot at that moment and the issues disappear after the camera cools down.

Therr are also various ways of dealing with this. For the seemingly permanently stuck pixels, run the camera for a while to get it warmed up and then use the menu option to perform a pixel mapping, this lets the software know where the bad spots are so they can be managed, so to speak. For thermal noise, if you are shooting stills, then every so often, put the lens cap back on, or cover the lens and shoot a dark frame. In your editing software, put that appropriate dark frame as a layer over your image layer. Set the dark frame’s blend mode to subtract, then merge the two layers. The bright or noisy pixels will be gone, but note that in the merged layer, the spot where the pixels were will be darker, you may need to do some minor touch up there.

If you are shooting video, the idea is similar, but the how-to depends on your video editing software.

Edited by jerryy
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jerryy said:

Добро пожаловать на форум.

Есть разные способы, которыми это может проявиться, пиксели застряли «включенными» — их называют горячими пикселями или застряли «выключенными», их называют мертвыми или холодными пикселями. Также вы можете заставить пиксели вести себя плохо из-за проникающего теплового шума, камера слишком горячая в этот момент, и проблемы исчезают после того, как камера остывает.

Есть также различные способы справиться с этим. Для, казалось бы, постоянно застрявших пикселей, запустите камеру на некоторое время, чтобы она прогрелась, а затем используйте опцию меню для выполнения пиксельного отображения, это позволяет программному обеспечению узнать, где находятся плохие места, чтобы с ними можно было справиться, так сказать. Для теплового шума, если вы снимаете неподвижные изображения, то время от времени надевайте крышку объектива или закрывайте объектив и снимайте темный кадр. В вашем программном обеспечении для редактирования поместите этот соответствующий темный кадр как слой поверх вашего слоя изображения. Установите режим смешивания темного кадра на вычитание, затем объедините два слоя. Яркие или шумные пиксели исчезнут, но обратите внимание, что в объединенном слое место, где были пиксели, будет темнее, вам может потребоваться внести некоторые незначительные изменения там.

Если вы снимаете видео, идея похожая, но порядок действий зависит от используемого вами программного обеспечения для редактирования видео.

Hi Jerry! Thank you for the detailed answer to my question! I only take photos. I don't have constantly burning or dark "stuck" pixels, I only get them during work in dark areas. Apparently, it really is from the matrix heating. Do I understand correctly that this is a common problem with this model? Have manufacturers somehow dealt with this in new models? Fuji service offered me to perform remapping on their equipment (which is used to adjust matrices at the factory), but I don't quite understand whether they will be able to see those that appear when heated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no, it is not limited to the model you have, the issue is common to ALL digital cameras, so common that most modern digital cameras now have the re-mapping as part of the available menu options. In a sensor chip, there are millions of the little pixel critters, and sooner or later, some of them break. These are teeny tiny electronic gizmos that can wear out after a while, assuming they worked right from the start.

If you are coming from a film background, it would be like some of the silver halide crystals in the film stock do not properly catch the light (the analogy is weak because these two are not really all that comparable).

If Fuji's service is offering to take a look at your camera, they can turn it on so that the sensor warms up and then the mapping can take place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09.12.2024 at 21:01, jerryy said:

Ну нет, это не ограничивается вашей моделью, проблема характерна для ВСЕХ цифровых камер, настолько распространена, что большинство современных цифровых камер теперь имеют переназначение как часть доступных опций меню. В чипе сенсора есть миллионы маленьких пиксельных тварей, и рано или поздно некоторые из них ломаются. Это крошечные электронные штуковины, которые могут изнашиваться со временем, если они работали с самого начала.

Если вы имеете дело с пленочным фоном, то это будет выглядеть так, как будто некоторые кристаллы галогенида серебра в пленке не улавливают свет должным образом (аналогия слабая, поскольку эти два явления на самом деле не так уж и сопоставимы).

Если сервис Fuji предлагает осмотреть вашу камеру, они могут включить ее, чтобы датчик прогрелся, а затем можно будет выполнить картографирование.

Hi! I am confused by the fact that these bright pixels and even groups of pixels appear and then disappear completely literally on adjacent frames taken in a row with a difference of a fraction of a second. And so throughout the entire shooting. On two frames everything is there, and then on three everything is clean, then again strewn. This looks more like some kind of software failure

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does your editing software embed the EXIF data into exported images? If so, can you post some examples along with the camera settings as best as you can remember for the time you got the images?

It is possible your camera has a software problem, but it would be unusual because problems like that would be widely reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
    • First post here but long time fuji shorter. I use the XT2 with the 23mm f2 / 35mm 1.4 / 16-80mm f4 I'm considering the 23mm f1.4 r (Non-WR) About me: - I shoot black and white only. - I like macro details to wide open landscapes and everything in-between. - I shoot mostly for art, intrigue and creativity of the image. My question - is the 23mm f1.4 going to offer me any meaningful difference over the f2 for the above scenarios Thanks and sorry for bringing it up again...
    • I discovered this unmarked government installation today.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

×
×
  • Create New...