The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

low light artefacts

torger

Active member
I think these backs have some line noise if pushed hard. Are the images underexposed, and pushed in lightroom a lot?
 

bradhusick

Active member
Nik DFine 2 (now from Google) has a "debanding" filter that should work very well on this type of noise. Be sure to choose "vertical" banding in the filter.

It also works wonders on high ISO underexposed files from the Leica M240.
 

ondebanks

Member
hello!

on CFV16 + 500cm:

I am experimenting these vertical lines in low light, they show when I raise shadows in Lightroom, anybody experimented this before ? is that a normal issue with CFV16 ?

thanks!

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...02eBWx3Dw/s993-no/2014_Mars+%287+of+74%29.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...H_VnB8Mx8/s993-no/2014_Mars+%288+of+74%29.jpg
Did you rotate the first image by a few degrees in Lightroom? I ask because the banding is not vertical, whereas it seems to be exactly vertical in the second image.

I have the same sensor in a different back, but I have never seen anything like that degree of banding. If I take what is effectively a bias frame (camera at fastest shutter speed, lens capped, smallest aperture or darkened room just to be sure no light gets in), shot at ISO 400, and push it to the equivalent of ISO 1600, only then do I start to see very subtle, broken wavey bands. I've seen this behaviour before in several CCDs, including highly tuned astronomical CCDs. It disappears though if I set the back to subtract a dark frame of equal time, which tells me that the subtle pattern is repeatable. That's the key thing - being repeatable means that it can be cancelled out.

Could you take a couple of bias frames, separated in time, and show them here? That would remove the variable of external light and we could see what the readout process alone is doing, and how repeatable the pattern is. Subtracting an internal dark frame would be another key test, but I don't believe your CFV16 back can do that?

Ray
 

Jeffg53

Member
Without wishing to flog a dead horse, it is my understanding that Phocus will always do a better job than LR with images like this.Why not use Phocus to get the basics right, or has hammering nails with spaghetti become fashionable?
 
Last edited:

mmbma

Active member
CFV16 is not designed for shots like this. you'll get much better results in doors from a any modern day prosumer camera.

safe the CFV16 for those outdoor shots
 
Top