• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Nikon D5 — FPRN

Nikon D5 — FPRN

April 1, 2016 JimK Leave a Comment

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

I have not looked at fixed pattern read noise (FPRN), sometimes known as fix pattern noise (FPN), but it occured to me that I hed most of the tools to do do with my PRNU analysis program, so I added a few more methods, and I was good to go.

The basic idea is the same as for PRNU. Take 128 identical exposures, average them, and look at what results. In the case of FPRN, the exposures are all dark-field exposures. I made a set with the D5, with the shutter set to 1/8000 second. I used ISO 100 to ge an idea of what the post-amp read noise looked like, and ISO 10000 to see what the pre-amp read noise characteristics were.

Here’s the output from the ISO 100 image set.

D5 FPN ISO 100 600x600

I’ve made the vertical axis a log scale, measured in stops below full scale. The horizontal axis is, as before, the number of exposures in the average, and it, too, is a log scale. If there were no FPN at all, the curve would drop one stop for every quadrupling of the number of exposures. You can see that that’s pretty much what it does. That doesn’t mean that there is no FPN at all at ISO 100, just that it’s at least 4 stops down from the variable read noise, and that it would take a lot more than 128 exposures to find out what it is.

Here’s the graph for a set of ISO 10000 images:

D5 FPN ISO 10000 600x600

Now you can see that the curves are starting to flatten, indicating that there is measurable FPN at ISO 10000. 128 exposures isn’t enough to nail it down, but it looks like it might be about three and a half stops below the variable read noise.

As with PRNU, it’s useful to see what the pattern looks like. Here’s the patter, such as it is, for the 600×600 sample of the  ISO 100 image in the four  raw channels.

AvdSBP1

AvdSBP2

AvdSBP3

AvdSBP4

A word about how the images above were processed. After the averaging, the black point was subtracted off, and then the images were scaled into the region [0,1]. So somewhere in each image, there’s a full scale pixel.

You can see the pattern better by performing a histogram equalization on the floating point versions of the above images.

AvdEqBP4

AvdEqBP2

AvdEqBP3

I seem to have lost one of the raw channel images. Oh well, you get the idea. I want to emphasize that the variations that you’re looking at here are way, way, down in the mud, buried under the variable components of the read noise.

The first reason I see to look at these is to see if there’s some really ugly pattern that could come through the variable read noise. There is not. The second is to see if there’s any clue to the internal construction of the D5 that might explain why the read noise measurements vary with ISO the way they do. I don’t see it yet, but I’m keeping an open mind.

I’ll close with the equalized FPN  images for ISO 10000:

AvdEqBP4

AvdEqBP1

AvdEqBP2

AvdEqBP3

 

What’s this all mean> At this point, I don’t know anything more than that I wouldn’t worry about FPN with the D5.

 

The Last Word

← Sloof Lirpa iPad accessories Sony a7RII — FPRN →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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 How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.