File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
God fucking dammit, /p/.

SO MANY DOTS, I stopped counting at like, 15.

Only noticeable in long-exposure night shots. Problem is I love taking night shots.

Bought camera brand new less than a year ago, WTF.

How much will it cost me to get this fixed? If repairable at all.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:07 11:43:41RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time30 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length19.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height900
>> Anonymous
Those are STARS.
>> Anonymous
>>199792
lol blue/read stars...over the fucking GROUND.
>> Anonymous
>>199793
somebody didn't look at the photo long enough.
>> Anonymous
DAMN YOU STARS!! HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO ME AND RUIN MY NIGHT SHOTS?!?!? WHO HAS EVER HEARD OF STARS IN A NIGHT SKY?!??

I WILL SUE CANON TO TEACH THEM A LESSON FOR MAKING A CAMERA THAT CAN TAKE PICTURES OF THE STARS.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Just photoshop them out
..noise ninja may be able to remove them
>> Anonymous
those are stars rofl
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>199798
>>199801
see>>199796
>> Anonymous
zoom in on the goddamn photo retards

there are no stars on the ground, especially not blue and red ones
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>199793
>>199798
>>199801

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:07 12:05:53RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time30 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length19.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height501
>> Anonymous
Obviously you need to get a Nikon instead.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>199806
Recalib your monitor.
>> Anonymous
>>199805
>>199807

learn2humor
>> Anonymous
Hot pixels show up the most at high-iso and long exposures.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
If you have a tripod, (presumably) use the native ISO (200-100) to reduce hot pixels.

Other than that, buy better sensors (5D)
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
Just turn on long exposure noise reduction in the custom functions. Or shoot raw. When raw is processed, those guys dissapear.
>> Anonymous
>>199814
hot pixels are on every sensor ever made, ever. The only thing the 5D will do is give you more pixels, so a hot pixel will be much, much smaller.
>> Anonymous
SHOOT RAW MUTHERFUCKER AND GET THE FUCK OUT,

because, when you open raw in fe. camera raw hot pixels magically dissapears
>> Anonymous
>>199879
RAW has nothing to do with fucking anything. Hot pixels are a sensor issue, RAW is a file format. And file formats can't fix hardware issues you fucking moron.
>> Anonymous
>>How much will it cost me to get this fixed?
not much
>>If repairable at all.
no they will only map your ccd so in place of those hot pixels there will be pixels with color of neighbour pixels

just shoot raw and you will not see this again
>> Anonymous
>>199883
yes it can, camera raw will automaticlly map those pixels
who is moron now?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>199883
and btw. it's raw not "RAW"

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
>>199892
RAW doesn't map shit. Its a sensor issue stemming from individual pixel sensitivities, thats amplified by a number of factors including heat, iso, and exposure time.

RAW is just sensor data, its not a magical format that fixes all problems with image quality. And sensor data will include hot pixels if the conditions are right.
>> Anonymous
>>199899
you should let microsoft know

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/02/15/understanding-raw-image-support-in
-windows-vista.aspx
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>199901
Yes, raw still captures hot pixels, but if you stick the file into camera raw or lightroom, the hot pixels dissapear. It's a software thing, but it doesn't do it for jpgs.
>> Anonymous
>>199901
>>RAW doesn't map shit.

see>>199892
>> camera raw will automaticlly map
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>199899
Im pretty sure all file extentions are capitalized.
>> Anonymous
ITT: "holy fuck I just bought a DSLR and don't have a fucking clue what to do now"
>> Anonymous
>>199907
These images are often described as RAW image files (note capitalization) based on the erroneous belief that they represent a single file format, and thus deserve a common filename extension,
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>199911
oh look my D300 has it wrong

also: never said it was a single format?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.Camera ModelEX-V7Camera Software1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:02:17 15:18:32Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating64Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height480RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypePortraitGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>199875
You know the 5D has less/the same (cant remember) than a XT right?

Bigger sensor = less noise.

If you love night shots, go custom make a liquid cooled sensor to let you shoot forever.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
man nikon is just fucking up shit left and right lately

im sure this random internet dude knows what hes talking about though

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.Camera ModelEX-V7Camera Software1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:02:17 15:25:53Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>199907
No, you're a wrong idiot.
>> Blackadder !!Ch3ATVhRXik
>>199914

Interestingly enough you are right about the lengths people go to for these things. For really serious astrophotography I've seen people use cooled CCD systems to help reduce these problems. I shudder to think at what the cost of such a an array would be.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>199914
5D is 12.8 MP, XT is 8.0 (I think), XTi is 10.

But yeah, other than that you're right.
>> Anonymous
oh, I think I finally got what he was talking about

ACR apparently maps out pixels

none of this is done in camera, of couse

and if you have ACR, you have photoshop, and could zap them yourself no matter which format you shot in - jpg/tiff/etc. So its pretty pointless to be shooting 12mb files when jpgs will do.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>199922
>pointless to be shooting 12mb files when jpgs will do.
In ops case, yes
- But other than that, when shooting RAW you will have much more control with the image after.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>199921
So that gives the sameish pixel density as an XT, i was close enough.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>199959
yeah, the difference there is pretty negligeble.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>negligible
>> Anonymous
Shoot film faggot.
>> Anonymous
too much ISO thats called noise...
if your ISO goes to about 400 - 800 you start to see that shizz
there fore it is hard to take pictures of night scenes which turn out noise free...
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>200133
i dont belive there are people this stupid, troll...
>> Anonymous
>>200165
how isnt that true?
high iso does mean high noise
high iso at night does mean its hard to get noise free pictures
>> Anonymous
Use a camera that doesn't suck ass.
>> Anonymous
big penis.
>> Anonymous
This is the wrong message board to ask. Go to dpreview.com and ask the 20D/30D/40D group (not the 300D/350D/400D group, those are amateurs). They will give you good advice.

If you are under warranty, Canon will definitely fix it for you. Call Canon service and request repair. It is a painless process. Make an 8x10 print of this exact picture, and include it with your camera along with a letter explaining the issues.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>200341
No, we answered his question. Shoot raw or use custom function long exposure noise reduction.
>> Anonymous
On my current 300D and my current 5D, I never got stuck pixels like that, and I shoot a lot of 20 to 30 second exposures of architecture. Of course you are shooting against a black sky, so it is more obvioius with you.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
same problem I have with >20 second exposures. same camera as well. does the long exposure noise reduction C.Fn really help this? and fuck me I should be shooting raw more.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>200359
Yeah it , although it makes your expoures twice as long. After your camera takes the photo, it takes another exposure of the same length with the mirror down, then combines the two.
>> Anonymous
>>200359
And, to elaborate on the above image, it doesn't do anything against detail. It's harmless; the only drawback is the amount of time it takes, which, come on, if you're doing a twenty second exposure you can stand to a forty second.
>> Anonymous
>>200397
*explanation

No clue why I said "image."
>> Anonymous
Based on this discussion, my 4 megapixel tiny 1/2.5'' sensor on my powershot should have a ton of bad pixels. But on it's longest exposure (15 seconds), I've never noticed any.

But I will go check.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Protip: This is an image from one of Sony's finest scientific image sensors in my own "tinker-cam". One second exposure, low analog gain, sensor temperature about 40°C. I have converted the raw sensor data using only a nearest neighbor color interpolation and by linear mapping the 12 bit dynamic range to 8 bit. Images don't get much more raw than this.
Notice anything? Camera manufacturers do not care if a few hundred (!) of all the mega pixels are defective. They just take an image with the lens cap on, store the position of every pixel that differs from the rest in a built in flash memory and from then on interpolate their value from its neighbors. Easy as pie, and you wouldn't notice anything, if it weren't for some pixels that decide to go bad after some time. Some cameras have an option to repeat the calibration hidden somewhere in their menus.