the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Nikon D5 — first pass modeling

Nikon D5 — first pass modeling

March 30, 2016 JimK Leave a Comment

This is part of a series of posts about the Nikon D5. The series starts here.

I completed my first pass at modeling the Nikon D5.There’s a lot more to come, I’m sure. For this first run, I modeled the camera at each tested ISO independent of all the others, and ignored any suspicions that I might have about what’s going on under the hood that’s different from the standard model.

For those of you who are not regular readers, here’s an overview of the protocol.

Jack Hogan and I wrote some Matlab code to analyze pixel response non-uniformity (PRNU), to plot complete photon response curves, and to model sensor behavior. At present, the suite of programs does not analyze dark frame-to-frame persistent patterning, although I have done some of that in the past.

For all the testing except the PRNU, captures are made in pairs. By subtracting a pair of images, a image with 1.414 times the frame-independent noise, unpolluted by static noise, can be obtained, Earlier work did the captures of flat fields; one pair of images was needed for each point of the photon transfer curve (PTC). A PTC plots standard deviation versus mean value, usually using a log scale for both. While using a pair for every data point promoted accuracy, it was truly labor intensive; one set of exposures for each ISO setting for a given camera could  number in the mid- thousands.

In order to reduce the number of necessary captures, I created a two-dimensional target. Here is the one that I’m currently using:

Photon Xfr target 2

You will note the absence of patches in the target. The patches are created by the software sampling the target, and they can be any convenient shape, size, and number. For the results I’m posting here, I used 12 columns and 8 rows of 200×200 pixels. The fact that the target is a gradient is not important for any single patch, since subtracting the two samples takes that out of the picture. It is important to keep the sample extents small enough that most of the sampled values are close together. That must be balanced against wanting many pixels in each sample for the purpose of having solid statistics. As it turns out, with today’s high-resolution cameras, that is no problem.

The capture protocol that I have selected is to make a set of pairs at each camera ISO setting of interest using aperture priority, exposure compensation to get the upper left corner near full scale,  and varying the ISO setting. That gets the upper end of the photon transfer curves for each ISO.

I also need a set of exposures nearer, but not at, the black point, which I can use to model the read noise of the camera. To get rid of quantizing artifacts, I have the program throw away samples with SNRs of less than 2, so very dark values are automatically eliminated. If the camera under test were completely ISOless, the same exposure would suffice for each dark capture, no matter what the ISO setting. My hope was that the target would have enough dynamic range so that one exposure setting would suffice even in cameras that significantly depart fro ISOless behavior. So far that has worked out.

I made two sets of dark images, one with a factor of ten (a little over three stops) less exposure than the base ISO aperture priority series, independent of ISO, and one another factor of ten below that.

Here are the D5 measured and modeled values at selected ISOs:

D5 photon Xfr meas model

The fit is good.

Here’s what the model has to say about read noise:

D5 RN in electrons cs ISO

Pretty similar to what we saw before just looking at the dark-field images, but know we know the input referred RN in electrons.

Here is the modeled full well capacity (FWC) versus ISO setting:

D5 FWC cs ISO

There’s a little sawtooth effect, but it’s well down. We see different values for each class of raw plane, though. Both green planes yield essentially the same numbers, and those are roughly 30% higher than those for the red and blue planes. We’ve seen this before with other Nikon cameras; it appears to have something to do with the white balance prescaling.

I’m going to call the FWC of the D5 130,000 electrons, give or take.

 

The Last Word

← Nikon D5 — self heating Nikon D5 — first pass overall modeling →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

February 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Shutter shock and the Nikon Z7
  • John Vickers on Shutter shock and the Nikon Z7
  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.