Hello -
I start with the positive news: overall I am very happy with my X1D. :-)
I just have a concern regarding "hot pixels" (dead pixels).
I just recently have been noticing that I have quite a few of these appearing in my pictures.
No matter if I am working in a dark environment or in a place where there is a lot of light, or if I am shooting a 2 seconds or 7 minutes pause these hot pixels are always present.
I know the obvious answer is to Photoshop them out but I can have as many as 50 of these in one image! This would be rather cumbersome. Moreover, I can have a mix of red, blue or white pixels appearing in one shot.
And you can see in shot "3B" seems to be more of an artefact rather than a dead pixel.
The following images were all taken with a XCD 21 lens and I zoomed in at 50%; image "3B" is zoomed at 200%.
NB. I probably miss some, but the most obvious one have been encircled in pink.
My question is now should I be worried?
Could it be that this is happening because the camera does not derawtize the images?
Should I sent back the X1D to Hasselblad?
Thank you.
- Dimitri
Pictures "3A and "3B":
Definitely send it to Sweden.
Thank you Thavis..
Anyone else, same advice?
Thank you...
I always thought that hot pixels occurred in the same place. FWIW, I had an issue with my 21. I was getting all kinds of artifacts on my shots and it was not the sensor, it was the back lens element. Not sure if this is your issue but just a thought.
Hello Dimitri,
I might be wrong, but I don't think they are sensor-caused hot pixels, I think they are software artefacts. Can I ask you which converter you use for your RAWs?
Best regards,
Vieri
I had a very similar problem with my old CFH-22 (CCD back). That was solved with a CCD recalibration which required a trip to Hasselblad. The best way forward is probably to send a raw file to Hasselblad for analysis.
/Henrik
Lots of possibilities, and you may need to do some experimentation to narrow it down a bit.
First, you mentioned this happens both with "lots of light" and in dark situations, but you also mentioned 2a to multi-minute exposures. I would hardly consider 2s exposures to be "lots of light". Do you see this in much shorter exposures as well? Like 1/60s? Even a 2s exposure is long enough for thermal noise to be relevant.
Next, is this with or without electronic shutter? I don't remember the details, but there are definitely some differences in noise patterns with the X1D depending on whether ES is enabled. Basically, don't use ES on the X1D unless you need it because of adapted lenses or because you want to minimize sound. The image quality—specifically the noise characteristics in shadows—are better with the mechanical shutter. There was a thread on this a couple years ago you could likely dig up.
Next, is this fixed pattern noise or not? Is it always the same pixels involved? And is it the same at all ISO's? No chips are perfect, and most camera manufacturers make a bad pixel map for each camera and interpolate values on those hot pixels automatically from surrounding pixels. This is normal. But chips do age. They gain additional bad pixels over time due to gamma ray strikes on the chip and other causes. It is possible that your chip has aged, that it has an incorrect bad pixel map loaded or that it has no bad pixel map loaded at all. If it's always the same pixel involved I would call Hasselblad and see if they would recalibrate the chip. If it's different pixels in different photos this isn't the cause, though.
Do you see this at all ISO's or only at higher ISO's? Shooting Raw or JPG? If shooting raw, what raw converter? Most raw converters try to identify and remove hot pixels if they aren't too numerous. How many pixels are involved in the typical photo? Ten? A hundred? A thousand or more?
Hello friends -
Thank you for your answers...
@ BillW -> OK, what should I do, send back the lens? Can I check that by myself?
@ Vieri -> I open the 3FR files in Phocus® with some settings I apply by default and directly after I open them (as DNG) with Adobe Camera Raw® (By the way, it's really sad that Phocus® doesn't not export the settings within the exported DNG file)
@ jwillson ->
• I always shot minimum 1s (required by my subjects).
• NO it's without the "electronic shutter" active (I rarely use it, only with none native lenses).
• My camera is 1year 1/2 old.
• All shots were taken at 100ISOs, except for a few of them at 400ISOs (and the hot pixels were there too).
• Hot pixels always at the same "place", hmmmm... I have to check.
• I exclusively shoot in "RAW" mode.
...
From what I understand, I should sent back the X1D to Sweden?
How many time will I be without camera?
Thank you, regards,
- Dimitri
Quote from: Dimitric on June 13, 2019, 07:25:03 PM
From what I understand, I should sent back the X1D to Sweden?
How many time will I be without camera?
Thank you, regards,
- Dimitri
Have you tried contacting Hasselblad support? What was their response?
They are pretty competent at solving problems with their own products and I usually get a response within a few hours.
Dimitri,
My lens only needed to have the back element cleaned by me. No need to go to Hasselblad.
Hello again...
@BillW -> Thank you for your answer :-)
I checked again some files selected on the fly, and it seems that when they are open with Phocus®
there is no "dead/hot pixels and/or artefacts", but since they are exported has DNG files and opened via Adobe® Camera Raw... well the hot pixels/artefacts appear :o :'(
Does anyone else has also noticed this?
Thank you.
- Dimitri
Quote from: Dimitric on June 14, 2019, 04:25:17 AM
Hello again...
@BillW -> Thank you for your answer :-)
I checked again some files selected on the fly, and it seems that when they are open with Phocus®
there is no "dead/hot pixels and/or artefacts", but since they are exported has DNG files and opened via Adobe® Camera Raw... well the hot pixels/artefacts appear :o :'(
Does anyone else has also noticed this?
Thank you.
- Dimitri
As I suspected :) At least, you won't probably need to send your X1D to Sweden. Try exporting as TIFF, not as DNG, and see if this helps. Best regards,
Vieri
Quote from: Dimitric on June 13, 2019, 07:25:03 PM
Hello friends -
Thank you for your answers...
@ BillW -> OK, what should I do, send back the lens? Can I check that by myself?
@ Vieri -> I open the 3FR files in Phocus® with some settings I apply by default and directly after I open them (as DNG) with Adobe Camera Raw® (By the way, it's really sad that Phocus® doesn't not export the settings within the exported DNG file)
<snip>
Why do you go via Phocus if you use it only for converting from 3FR to DNG (settings are not applied to DNG)?
I recommend either exporting from Phocus as TIFF
or using Adobe's DNG Converter to convert the image to DNG
or opening 3FR file directly with Adobe Camera Raw.
Hello -
OK, I finally found some time to make some experiments.
I opened again an exported DNG file (exported via Phocus®) with ACR (Camera Raw) -> left side of the below screenshot.
and I opened the 3FR file (of this picture) directly with ACR... —> right side of the below screenshot.
Well, the result is interesting, blue and red colourful "hot pixels" are not coloured anymore.
BUT if you look carefully, you may still see them (this time much less present and they are white!).
Is the result acceptable for you?
Or is that still abnormal, and I should send back the X1D?
Thank you,
- Dimitri
Quote from: Dimitric on June 17, 2019, 03:41:47 AM
Is the result acceptable for you?
Or is that still abnormal, and I should send back the X1D?
No it is not acceptable.
Once again, you should send a raw file to Hasselblad support and ask for their assistance. They are much more likely to diagnose the problem (and faster than asking for help on this forum). From what I see you will most likely have to deal with Hasselblad anyway.
I had a very similar problem in 2009 (see attached image) with a CFH-22 that required a CCD recalibration. I sent a raw file to Hasselblad and a few hours later they replied with a (correct) diagnosis.
/Henrik
Hi HVK -
Thank you (again) for your reply...
Hmmm... Do you know an "efficient" Hasselblad e-mail address?
- Dimitri
Last time I used customersupport@hasselblad.com (which is listed here: https://www.hasselblad.com/support/).
I don't think you have checked yet (or maybe just haven't said in the thread). Are the hot pixels always the exact same pixels? Or do they vary from one picture to the next? Since your exposures are all relatively long, it is certainly possible that this is thermal noise you are seeing. If that's the case, Hasselblad won't be able to fix it. This would be indicated by the hot pixels being different in different exposures. If it's always the same pixels—fixed pattern noise—Hasselblad may well be able to update the bad pixel map to account for this.
Quote from: jwillson on June 19, 2019, 05:45:02 PM
... Since your exposures are all relatively long, it is certainly possible that this is thermal noise you are seeing. If that's the case, Hasselblad won't be able to fix it. This would be indicated by the hot pixels being different in different exposures. ...
For what is worth, I think Wilson is right with what happened. I have seen the same behaviour (only much, much worse) with my Leica SL + long exposures + CameraRaw. With my X1D, using CmeraRaw I seldom see these coloured hot pixels but I still see them every now and then with very long exposures (10-12 minutes), but they are always in different places and they don't show up opening the same RAW in Phocus, so I think it's a combination of hot pixels and the way ACR deals with them (or doesn't deal with them), vs the way Phocus is able to make them go away. Or, perhaps they are simply generated by ACR when the file present some specific characteristics that ACR doesn't know how to deal with, while Phocus does (?). Either way, I don't think a trip to Sweden would change much. On the other hand, if they always show up in the same place, then definitely mapping can fix the problem and - in that case - a trip to Sweden would be worth trying.
Just my .02 of course.
Best regards,
Vieri
I have two bodies and I've done a bunch of exposures longer than 5 minutes to 30 minutes. I get very very few. Neither of my cameras shows hot pixels like yours does. I would contact HB and send them a couple of raw files. I think your sensor needs some pixel mapping.
Gordon
Hello Guys -
Thank you to each of you for your feedback.
Regards,
- Dimitri
Hello -
It would seem that the X1DII suffers from the same symptom as its predecessor.
I took a picture with a 15-minute exposure.
And once the 3FR was converted to DNG, the hot pixels appeared.
They appear for a fraction of a second in Phocus and then disappear.
But with the DNGs they're still there.
So I derawtized the 3FR with Camera Raw.
Everything works perfectly, except that for each 3FR file an external .XMP file is created.
Is there a way to avoid this?
I mean, is there a way to integrate the Camera Raw info directly into the 3FR file so that there is only one file?
Thank you, Happy New Year to each of you.
- Dimitri
In my 15 min exposure test with X1DII, only a few hot pixels appear (ISO 100). They are visible with RawDigger and not in LR. Either Hasselblad includes hot pixel information in the raw file or LR eliminates them by itself. I have observed similar behavior with Leica Q2 files.
Some cameras modify the raws in-camera to eliminate hot pixels (there is an option to detect hot/dead/stuck pixels), some cameras do it in the post. The catch is that you must use appropriate software to import X1D images.
Quote from: Dimitric on January 02, 2020, 07:22:54 AM
Hello -
It would seem that the X1DII suffers from the same symptom as its predecessor.
I took a picture with a 15-minute exposure.
And once the 3FR was converted to DNG, the hot pixels appeared.
They appear for a fraction of a second in Phocus and then disappear.
But with the DNGs they're still there.
So I derawtized the 3FR with Camera Raw.
Everything works perfectly, except that for each 3FR file an external .XMP file is created.
Is there a way to avoid this?
I mean, is there a way to integrate the Camera Raw info directly into the 3FR file so that there is only one file?
Thank you, Happy New Year to each of you.
- Dimitri
Quote from: SrMi on January 02, 2020, 07:56:40 AM
In my 15 min exposure test with X1DII, only a few hot pixels appear (ISO 100). They are visible with RawDigger and not in LR. Either Hasselblad includes hot pixel information in the raw file or LR eliminates them by itself. I have observed similar behavior with Leica Q2 files.
Some cameras modify the raws in-camera to eliminate hot pixels (there is an option to detect hot/dead/stuck pixels), some cameras do it in the post. The catch is that you must use appropriate software to import X1D images.
Gentlemen,
I regularly work with long exposures, in the order of minutes, and I use Camera Raw as my Raw developer. Whether both my X1D IIs are hot-pixel free, or CR is doing something to clear them, my files come out clean after Raw conversion. CR creates a .xmp file with 3FR files, but doesn't create them with DNG files where you have the option to include edits in the DNG itself instead. I never tried to do that, but perhaps if you converted 3FR files to DNG first, before doing any adjustments, and then worked with DNGs instead, you could avoid the .xpm sidecar file problem. Not sure if this will work, but perhaps worth a try. Hope this helps, best regards
Vieri
I have ~hot pixels with my now old CFV-50 CCD back; more and more over time! (more with heat / long exposure), and now with my X1D (had few even in my 1st test shot, short expo @ 100 iso!)
It looks like phocus, at export (tiff) removes those ~hot pixels (but somehow degrades the noise quality of the image, even with minimal/no-noise reduction), whereas if you directly use the .3fr raw (or the .fff from phocus import) with CR, they are present (but the noise structure is better)
It looks like hasselblad camera do not ~hot pixel elimination in camera, they are present in the raw, must be eliminated by software (phocus, others? in some conditions).
If in a hurry: I export to tiff from phocus then work on PS (no hot pixel), If I have time (and a picture I really like) I directly "develop" with CR (then remove hot pixels 1 by 1 with "Spot Healing Brush Tool" ;) , no noise reduction nor dust and scratches removal, to preserve the better noise structure)
Hello Vieri -
Hello Edouard -
Quote... .xmp file with 3FR files, but doesn't create them with DNG files where you have the option to include edits in the DNG itself instead.
I never tried to do that, but perhaps if you converted 3FR files to DNG first, before doing any adjustments, ...
Export the 3FR files to DNG files is what I do usually
(from Focus).
But then it is where I get the "hot pixels".
When I open directly the 3FR files with ACR, I have no hot pixels anymore but I get an extra ".XMP" file
(what I don't want).
I prefer to have only only file per photo
(Just me ;-)Thank you for your feedback and input guys.
- Dimitri
If (on macOS 10.15.2) I export to DNG from Phocus 3.4.8, I have the hot pixels (when I open the .dng with ACR), If I directly open the .3FR (or the .fff phocus import) into ACR v12.1.0.351 (inside photoshop 21.0.2 Creative Cloud), unlike you, I also have the hot pixels!
But if I remember correctly I didn't had this problem in the past! = with older version of ACR (before creative cloud??), so maybe in the past (or still in window version??) ACR was removing those hot pixels, but it's not the case anymore.
The hot pixels are in the generated raw files (not eliminated in camera) so exporting to another raw format like DNG won't remove them, they have to be removed by the used raw software. Anyway now with my X1D I have so few hot pixels it's not a problem (unlike with my 2012 CFV-50), but to me it looks like "recent" ACR regressed on the handling of those hasselblad raw files.
Exporting from phocus to tiff eliminates those pixels (but then, to me, the noise structure is less nice)
(and yes developing .3fr/3ff files with ACR generates .xmp files - with the used "development" setting - so that the raw files stay unmodified by the raw processing ... but if re-processed, the previously used parameter are pre-set via this .xmp ...with .dng it's the raw file itself that is modified after processing it!, 'havent' realized that before: the processing meta data is in the dng itself! but I prefer 2 files, conceptually they are different: one is the raw data, the other is the used processing parameters. Nothing forces you to store the .xmp unless you need to redevelop the file with exactly the same parameters)
Quote from: Dimitric on January 11, 2020, 09:53:47 PM
Hello Vieri -
Hello Edouard -
Quote... .xmp file with 3FR files, but doesn't create them with DNG files where you have the option to include edits in the DNG itself instead.
I never tried to do that, but perhaps if you converted 3FR files to DNG first, before doing any adjustments, ...
Export the 3FR files to DNG files is what I do usually (from Focus).
But then it is where I get the "hot pixels".
When I open directly the 3FR files with ACR, I have no hot pixels anymore but I get an extra ".XMP" file (what I don't want).
I prefer to have only only file per photo (Just me ;-)
Thank you for your feedback and input guys.
- Dimitri
Why are you exporting to DNG from Phocus? DNG export from Phocus loses everything that Phocus has applied to the raw file. In fact, like with hot-pixels, the created DNG is worse than the original raw file. I wish Hasselblad would remove the DNG export option or at least invoke Adobe's tool to convert.
Use the free "Adobe DNG Converter" program to convert 3FR files to DNG (make sure you have the latest version). Those DNG files are as good as 3FR files read directly by Lightroom.
If you want to have the Phocus handle your raw files, then you should export as TIFF.
I really don't understand why the X1D makes hot pixels or not ?
Last year, around June my X1D began to make a lot of hot pixels in dark image areas, even in bright light and low ISO.
After a while, starting in september, I never saw again these hot pixels, even at low light and high ISO.
All my file have ever been developped only in Phocus.
Hello...
@ SrMi, I downloaded "Adobe DNG Converter", seems to work. Thank you ;)
@ JCM-Photos, light coming from the viewfinder? Some Nikon have a system to close manually the viewfinder.
- Dimitri
Sorry light coming from viewfinder only affects SLR's with sealing problems, not mirrorless cameras like the X1D ;)
my problem was, some red pixels in the image.
Quote from: Dimitric on January 02, 2020, 07:22:54 AM
So I derawtized the 3FR with Camera Raw.
Everything works perfectly, except that for each 3FR file an external .XMP file is created.
Is there a way to avoid this?
I mean, is there a way to integrate the Camera Raw info directly into the 3FR file so that there is only one file?
About avoiding XMP-files: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/camera-raw-settings.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/camera-raw-settings.html)
Read the part "Specify where Camera Raw settings are stored".
Hello JCM -
Quote from: JCM-Photos on January 14, 2020, 09:37:45 PM
Sorry light coming from viewfinder only affects SLR's with sealing problems, not mirrorless cameras like the X1D ;)
my problem was, some red pixels in the image.
Ahh OK, Thank you for clarified... "youngster" answer
(I speak about myself ;-)
Hello -
Quote from: Miller on January 15, 2020, 06:19:37 PM
Quote from: Dimitric on January 02, 2020, 07:22:54 AM
So I derawtized the 3FR with Camera Raw.
Everything works perfectly, except that for each 3FR file an external .XMP file is created.
Is there a way to avoid this?
I mean, is there a way to integrate the Camera Raw info directly into the 3FR file so that there is only one file?
Thank you Miller
- Dimitri
About avoiding XMP-files: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/camera-raw-settings.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/camera-raw-settings.html)
Read the part "Specify where Camera Raw settings are stored".