Raw vs sraw hot pixel issue question

From tests I've come to realize that lightroom processes raw and sraw files differently in Lightroom 3. Hot pixels are automatically removed in standard raw files, but sraw files are not corrected the same way.
It seems odd that they would not add this as I can't think of any other reason to shoot timelapses in such a large format besides this one serious issue. Sraw is more than large enough, for even a 2k format.
My question is whether LR4 remedies this issue, or if I need to take a different route?
Thank you,

sRaw is no longer a true raw file - it's already been demosaiced. You could call it 'half-baked'. So Lightroom doesn't have as much control over things like hot pixels. Lightroom 4 doesn't change that, sorry.
An alternative you could consider for timelapse would be to shoot full raw and then convert them to a lower resolution lossy DNG format, at a similar res to the sRaw file. You'd need extra cards at the time of shooting, but you'd end up with smaller files in the end, and your hot pixels should be removed in the process as LR would have all the data to work with.

Similar Messages

Aperture 3 RAW conversion and hot pixel problem

I've used every version of Aperture since release, but I'm not very happy with the RAW conversion in Aperture3.
My images from earlier versions have no hot pixel problems but if I update to the new processing I can see them.
Single red or green pixel in the 100% crop image, that didn't show up before and also don't show up in LR.
The images I'm importing are NEF files from a Nikon D2x.
Is this a bug in the new RAW conversion for this camera?
It makes all of my images now unusable through Aperture if I reprocess them?

I haven't noticed the pixel issues that you mention, but I wasn't looking for that yet. Instead, my images from my Nikon D300 have been stressing A3 out as follows....
I have been having new issues with A3 now. I bought A3 when it was 1st available and had all of the same issues that plagued some users, I worked through it and until recently have loved A3.
While editing I noticed that A3 had a large number of my photos, about 30% of 34,000 images, labeled as being processed under an earlier version (A2). I decided to go ahead and re-reprocess the images, even though this step took a couple of weeks and countless crashes when I first purchased A3. Again, just over a week later, the images are now re-reprocessed within A3. And a new problem cropped up.
My Macbook is...
[img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470326_QzaME-M.png[/img]
and when I open A3 and begin looking at my images, the program is slow to respond and when it opens an image I get a very unprocessed version of lines for up to 5 seconds before the image finally loads. The image and all edits do load, but the workflow is significantly effected and I would like to know why this is happening now, and how to fix it. Below is an example of what happens with each image.
[img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470341_Q2WUZ-M.png[/img]

How do I disable automatic hot pixel correction in ACR?

OK - I'm really conused here...
I just got a Nikon D800E and on my first day of shooting I noticed a hot pixel spot in my images in Bridge. The when I opened the files in ACR, the hot pixel spot was gone. Apparently this is a "feature" of ACR: it automatically replaces hot pixels with RGB values from neighbring pixels. (So those of you who think you have no hot pixels, think again - you might be shielded from the truth! I find this fact very disconcerting, but that's a separate issue...).
The problem is that I can't tell how many hot pixels there are. Based on the image in Bridge, it would have to be spot of 20 - 30 pixels (maybe even more). That's unacceptable to me, especially on a $3300 camera. Sure, maybe a few hot pixels spread around the image, but 20-30 bunched in that one spot, that's unacceptable.
However, I can't figure out how to disable the automatic hot pixel correction in ACR, so I don't know if the issue really is 20 - 30 hot pixels or if Bridge is just doing some type of sub-sampling that makes the problem look a lot worse than it is. Furthermore, this concerns me greatly because I've been using a D200 for many years and have never seen a single hot pixel issue. So that says to me that the sensor on my D800E has a bigger hot pixel issue than it should (I realize all sensors have some hot/dead pixels).
So, any help on how to go about figuring this out? The simplest solution is to disable the automatic hot pixel correction in ACR, but I can't figure out how to do that. I'm guessing it's not possible.
Thanks,
rgames

MikeKPhoto wrote:
…I was not aware and I have searched the ACR documentation and cannot find a reference, maybe you can point me to where this "well known for years" information is located…
Sorry, I' wouldn't presume to embark on a Google search for you, as I'm sure you can do that yourself, MikeKPhoto..
What I can tell you, without a question, is that it was discussed at length in these forums during the earliest versions of ACR eight or nine years ago or so, and I remember participating in a discussion of the feature myself with other Pentax users in the Pentax SLR Talk forum on DPReview around 2003 or 2004.
I found one such message from 2006 (see below) but I'm sure I was involved in earlier discussions a few years earlier:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19247067
Forum
Pentax SLR Talk
Subject
Re: As my istD gets older... [SIMILAR]
Posted by
Zaldidun
Date/Time
2:09:06 PM, Tuesday, July 18, 2006 (GMT)
Interesting. It's possible that my camera does have a few bad pixels, but I'd never see them because I shoot RAW exclusively and Adobe Camera Raw maps them out on the fly.
One of these days, when I'm feeling masochistic, I guess, I'll try the Pentax software to convert a test image. Or maybe not.
(emphasis added)

Is Hot Pixel Reduction Still Happening in Camera Raw?

Seems to me that in past versions of Camera Raw I was seeing pretty effective hot pixel removal. Is that still in the converter?
I was just processing some high ISO night shots and it sure seems to me that I see more hot pixels in the dark places than I used to in conversions. But it could just be these images and the settings I am using bringing them out.
-Noel

Thanks, guys. I think all is well. The egregious hot pixels are being handled.
I just did some very careful comparitive conversions going all the way back to Photoshop CS3.
In the change between Photoshop CS3 and CS4 (ACR 4.6 and 5.7) there is a definite difference in the hot pixel handling, with more hot pixels showing in conversions from the latter. Notably the detail level in conversions seemed to go up markedly at that time as well.
However, it became clear to me that the reason I was seeing more hot pixels than I thought I should was that I was actually pushing the exposure up on high ISO night shots already, bringing out more noise than would be seen at default exposure levels. In fact, without such enhancement the remaining hot pixels are essentially invisible.
Here's a small portion of the same "boat parade" raw file converted with all these different versions, noise reduction completely off, and enhanced in brightness well beyond the levels I normally do just for illustrative purposes.
-Noel

Hot Pixels Show in Aperture, Not ACR3.3

I have a 11.75 month old Canon 20D and while working in Aperture this week just noticed some bright red pixels and some less bright green pixels in every single frame shot at exposures longer than 1/2 second. This was a complete surprise since I had never seen these before, but I was using Photoshop CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 to process most images from the 20D.
Further to my surprise, I noticed that when I first open a file in ACR, the initial preview image shows those hot pixels-- but when the ACR-processed preview renders and displays (about 1.5 seconds), those hot pixels disappear! And, when those files are opened in CS2 the hot pixels are not to be found. That's why I've never seen these until now.
I've searched this forum and several others out there and have some understanding about hot/dead pixel mapping, but this auto-removal thing by ACR3.3 is unexplained.
So that leads to the question- could Aperture perform the same mapping to remove these bad pixels? (I plan to submit that via the feedback path in Aperture)
Has anyone else experienced this?
I now have only 1 week left to get my camera into Canon to have them "map-out" those hot pixels but having an alternative in Aperture when new hot pixels develop would be nice.

Smoothing is what's going on. Believe me, if Adobe had something like "automatic dead pixel removal" the would be marketing it heavily. I did some experiments recently with an original high ISO, wide dynamic range image from a Nikon D200. Looking very closely at the real, actual noise in the shadow areas, Aperture showed what I would consider a normal amount of noise and it was very random and well distributed and looked a lot like film grain. I brought the same image into ACR3.4 with the same "non-processing", and when I looked at the area at the same level of magnification, I saw that ACR was doing a LOT of noise suppression, and the area looked very "globby", and areas next to it that were lighter looked "plasticy". Now this was pixel peeping at it's worst, at 200%, but it brought out a significant point. Aperture's default processing is doing less sharpening, and less noise suppression than ACR.
I suggest the reason you haven't been seeing the hot pixels in ACR is because they are being smoothed or averaged out.

Lightroom not fix hot pixels from my Nikon D7100

Hi there.
I have a problem with my cam D7100: there are tons of hot/dead pixels on the sensor.
I am going to bring this cam to the service center.
But I have a lot of images captured with this cam, and need to remove hot pixels from them.
One my friend say about auto-removing in Lightroom.
So I try Lightroom 4.4, 5.0, 5.2. No one can remove hot pixels.
(sample images are here:
http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274705
http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274765
http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274845
http://www.ex.ua/get/327247286713/74274919
iso 100-200-400-800, shutter 1/250)
Is this operation going automatically, or I need to chose some tools or options in Lightroom?
Please, help me somebody, cause thouthands of images are flaking!!!
Thanks a lot!

Nikon-User-D7100 wrote:
I understand, that I have camera's sensor issue, but I can't understand why Lightroom not "repair" that images?
LR actually does more than find and repair 100% level "stuck pixels," it also finds and corrects low-level hot pixels and higher-level "random" hot pixels. The problem is that you have "many" higher level hot pixels and LR's processing algorithm thinks they're image data. A different raw processor may work better or worse. Feel free to "trial" any of them and report back here what you find. Even with my 600D set +2EV higher in exposure (ISO 100, 1/30 sec. versus ISO 200, 1/250) your noise levels are much higher. IMHO you've got a defective camera!
(Click on image to see full-size)
Nikon D7100 ISO 200, 1/250 sec. Canon 600D ISO 100, 1/30 sec.

Canon sRAW to DNG Size Question

Hi,
I shot some images with my Canon 40D set to sRAW. A sample image size is 6.1 MB. In Lightroom 1.3.1, I convert the RAW (.CR2) file to DNG. The resulting DNG file is 6.7MB in size. The DNG Creation settings I used in the conversion were:
JPEG preview: None
Image Conversion Method: Preserve Raw Image
Options: Compressed - ON / Embed Original Raw File - OFF
I was under the impression that DNG format would be smaller than the RAW format.
Is this larger DNG file because my original RAW file was a compressed RAW file (sRAW) and, as a result, the RAW image needs to be uncompressed before it is converted into a DNG file? If the original RAW image was NOT compressed, would I be seeing a reduction if file size after the DNG conversion.
I guess the heart of my questions is this: Will conversion from RAW to DNG only provide a file size reduction if the original RAW file is uncompressed? Is it normal for me to see an increase in size when converting from sRAW to DNG, due to the fact that the original RAW file is a compressed RAW format?
Thanks in advance for your clarification.
Steve

The reason for the larger DNG file is quite complicated, one needs to know some JPEG details. In short, the original sRaw file contains four 15 bit pixel values for two pixels, while the DNG file contains three values per pixel.
The size difference would be much larger if the CR2 file did not contain a 050 KB large thumbnail, which is in the DNG file only between 100 KB abd 200 KB large (approximation).
Plus, the DNG converter fine-tunes the compression; this is not affordable in-camera.

LR 3.4.1 does not filter hot pixels from Nikon D7000

Lightroom has so far been able to filter hot/stuck pixels from my old D70s raws quite well. For some reason however, it doesn't seem to recognize them in raw files from my D7000 and noise reduction leaves them completely untouched.
The camera doesn't really support mapping (except through potentially multiple multi-week customer support roundtrips), and the built-in noise reduction for long exposures effectively doubles the time per picture. It'd be really useful to have mapping from a static black frame in LR, or a despeckling/denoising method that picks up the "new and improved" stuck subpixels.

There were reports of "hot pixels" when shooting videos:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/22/nikon-d7000-firmware-update-released-cools-down-hot-pix els/
....and with still images:
http://www.photosig.com/go/forums/read;jsessionid=awkf4asZE9kc0r15__?id=245003
http://www.microstockgroup.com/cameras-lenses/nikon-d7000-sensor-problem/
There is a firmware update to fix or minimize the issue with videos, but that won't help your RAW still images. I downloaded your image file and most of the hot pixels are actually groups of 3-5 pixels at 150-180 level (out of 255) viewed in PS. I'd return it if you can, or take it in for repair under Nikon warranty. I am sure Nikon is well aware of this "quality control issue" (i.e. bad sensor chips).....Not acceptable! I tested my less expensive Canon 600D at 30 sec. and ISO 1600 and found no hot pixels above 35, all of which clean up nicely in LR with minimal luminance NR.

Could I have some help identifying and fixing dead/stuck/hot pixel?

Hello, yesterday whilst watching a movie on my Macbook Pro I noticed something on my screen, at first I thought it was just something stuck on the screen but it seems to be an issue with a pixel. I would appreciate help regarding identifying if it's a dead, stuck or hot pixel and any ways of fixing it. It seems to be smaller than what I had previously experienced (on other machines) dead/hot/stuck pixels to be and I can't really tell if it's white or a light blue. It doesn't show up on any colour other than greys and blacks.
Also, is it likely that taking it to an apple store will yield results if it's still in warranty and I explain that as a photographer it's a very annoying thing to have on almost the centre of the screen.
I hope you guys can provide me with some help, it will be much appreciated.
Stefano.

Welcome to the Apple Support Communities
That's a dead pixel or it may be dust, too. In both cases, as your computer is in warranty, take it to an Apple Store or reseller and you should get the display replaced for free, even if it's only one pixel.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's dust. I have seen a lot of cases related to dust in this forum, but it has got the same solution as the dead pixel

Video Pixelation Issue - New HP Pavilion 15-P008TX Notebook - Windows 8.1

Ahoy,
I've seen topics regarding this issue - i.e. first day running a new HP Pavilion 15-P008TX, using Windows 8.1...
However the video quality on videos being played from the DVD Drive, HDD, and streamed videos (e.g YouTube) are extremely low quality.
Unfortunately I can't screenshot the issue - the best way to describe it would be to say that the videos look like YouTube videos being viewed on 144p
DVDs, and even 1080p videos are low quality and pixelated...
So far I've tried the following to no avail:
- Uninstalling and Reinstalling intergrated video drivers (Intel HD 4400) and Nvidia 3D drivers (Geforce 830M)
- Switching scaled views in the display section
- Installing VLC (with the latest codecs) to test if it was a codec issue
- Running a windows update
- Changing Graphic settings that may intefere with issues in quality (both Intel HD settings app and Nvidia 3D settings)
Windows Apps and programs aren't affected, only video playback.
First day of using my new HP Notebook, and i'm hoping to resolve this issue promptly.
Cheers.

Hello Whoissyntax,
Welcome to the HP Forums!
In terms of the video pixel issue, it seems like there might be a hardware failure. You have also done the majority of the troubleshooting. The only other steps I can suggest are here: Display Quality Issues
If you are not satisfied, I would contact HP phone support, or return the product if possible. You can utilize this website to learn how to contact HP appropriately, based on your region: Contact HP Worldwide
Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks for bringing this issue to the HP Forums. Have a great day!
Mario
I worked on behalf of HP.

My new iphone-5 isight camera has 2 or 3 red hot pixels. Is that a normal?

I bought (iPhone 5) 2 days ago and now I found out there's two or three Red color hot pixels on isight camera esp on rear camera in the dark. I just want to know other iphone5 has the same problem like mine or not.
Please help me out.
SamuelMei

I suppose you could say I have/had the same problem.
My battery life on my 11" MBA is similar to your situation. I fully expected that the technician would find nothing wrong, as battery life varies. A perfectly functionaing battery can yeild quite different run-time expectancy, depending on the nature of the use of the device.
Some of the reposnders here have been using their experience with a 13" MBA, which has a much longer run-time, due to its higher battery capacity versus load ratio. "The 11-inch MacBook Air has a battery that lasts up to 5 hours, and the 13-inch model lasts up to 7 hours", according to Apple's battery testing protocol. The operative words in that description is "up to".
Maybe I am coming on a bit strong here, but this is what I have found after owning 3 MPP's and one MBA, is that battery charge longevity is wholly dependednt on how much load you put on the components by the nature of the use of that computer. By saying your manner of use is "Safari only", doesn't tell much. Safari itself doesn't use much in the way of resources, but the plug-ins and support applications it may use can easily add to the overall amperage draw by a factor of many times Safari alone. That in itself can mean the diffrence between 5 hours, and 3. The manner in which you use Safari, the way users here use Safari,and the manner in which Apple tests Safari for baatery longevity, is probably qite different. I doubt Apple even tests Safari with Flash, seeing how they dont't even include it anymore.
But hey, if Apple is willing to swap out the unit to give you peace of mind, and if it please you, then good for you! I hope that I am wrong about your situation, and all goes well.
BTW, I am greatly pleased with all my Macs, especially my MBA, which gets 5 hours battery when I use it lightly, and 3 hours quite often.

Nokia Lumia 1020 with three hot pixels on the CCD....

Okay, i have a two weeks old brand new Lumia 1020 and noticed that whenever i took a photo or record a video, i get an L-shape of three hot/bright pixels somewhere in the middle of the photos or videos themselves, which could mean these hot pixels are burned on the camera's CCD directly. I can also see them live on the Lumia's screen, though if i zoom in on the live view passed a certain level towards the maximum zoom, they vanish. But, on most zoom levels and of course when no zoom is used, i can see them clearly, unfortunately...
The attached image shows these three L-positioned bright pixels...
Also, check the video below for better understanding; i'm just shooting the black plastic frames in-between my two monitors, to get a dark area for easily spotting the three bright pixels. When i zoom in and out, you can see that passed a certain zoom point, they dissapear and reappear. Also, when i move the camera around, they follow along the movement. The video is a cropped-down version of the 1:1 1920x1080 original version, just to get a smaller file size: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g9zfcy3vivb1nku/HotPixels.mov
So, i'm wondering...
Is this serious hardware mulfanction problem valid for a phone replacement, or this is something that warranty may not cover ?!
Thanks...
Greg
Attachments:
HotPixels.png ‏6 KB

It's hardly deep hacking. The repair facility opens the phone, takes out the camera module and puts a new one in.
Your warranty does not entitle you to a full replacement unless the phone is not repairable (in genral) and this should be a painless and easy fix.
While in some countries you would be entitled to a new phone if a fault is detected shortly after buying the device you said you bought it a week ago which would generally be too much time gone by for that so I anm pretty sure it's a repair.
Click on the blue Star Icon below if my advice has helped you or press the 'Accept As Solution' link if I solved your problem..

AS2 noScale and pixelation issue

We are doing a number of banners for a client in AS2 using Flash 8 Pro. The version was their specification.
Now I've generated a series of PNGs in photoshop at precisely the same dimensions an imported them directly into the Flash Library.The problem is, when we epublish this to HTML it scales up about 120% and pixelates badly. I've already explored a few workarounds to varying success. Allow me to explain:
In the swf preview (Ctrl+Enter) I get no scale or pixelation issues. The render is clean and sized correctly. The scale problem is only happening in the HTML publishing.
-I double checked the code on the HTML and the size specifications are the same as those in my FLA and PSD. Identical.
-In the publishing settings I discovered that the noScale option prevented the issue, but only for the machine I was working on. None the other test machines saw any improvement in the published banner(we have 4).
-I tried embedding a noScale Actionscript directly into the FLA. Same issues as above. Only the work PC displayed the correct size, the other machines did not.
-I tried manually setting the HTML publish size specifications. Again, same problem.
What's strange to me is that the noScale only corrects the problem for the machine the project was done on. Makes me think some caching is to blame for the misrepresentation. And the HTML Publish seems to be ignoring my size specifications for the SWF altogether. Can someone tell me why this is happening?

Well it looks like I may have resolved this issue, sort of. John (owner of the tapes) let me borrow his camera for the experiment (Thanks). This is what I did with the theory that if I captured using a sony dcr-vx2000 pixelation would be reduced.
The other night (late), I pulled some hurricane Katrina footage that I had not captured yet and capture it with the canon xl2. on playback of the capture NO PIXELATION was observed at all(I watched it three times). I took the originalvtapes that I worked with last week on the wedding and recaptured on the caon xl2. Resulted in occasional pixelation. I then took the same tape and re captured it from the sony camera. Resulted in NO pixelation when playback observed on a tv and on pc screen.
Conclusion:
even though ths is not scientifically provef true or fals, I observed that to capture from a mini dv tape if shot on sony camera, you need to use a sony camera for capture. Same thingapplies with canon.
Note: Canon and Sony, please address these issues as a professional courtesy to the rest of your customers. Thank you.

ExpressCard (PCIe) hot-swapping issue only happened in MacBook Pro 6.1

ExpressCard (PCIe devices) with hot-swapping issue only happened in MacBook Pro 6.1. But there is no this issue at all in MacBook Pro 3.1 and MacBook Pro 5.2.
I had tried ExpressCard to SATA2 Adapter (Silicon Image 3132 ASIC), ExpressCard to 1394 Adapter (TI XIO 2200 ASIC), ExpressCard to USB3.0 Adapter (NEC D720200 ASIC) and ExpressCard to SDXC/UHS-I Adapter (JMicron JMB389 ASIC). I had got Kernel Panic (Sytem Crashed) for ExpressCard to SATA2 Adapter, Other three devices can not be detected when we process hot-plug / hot-removal these ExpressCard (PCIe devices).
We expect Apple can solve ExpressCard (PCIe) issue by updating EFI / OS Software. Awaiting for your kind reply~ Thanks in advance!

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2665060&start=0&tstart=0

ACR isn't fixing hot pixels

I use CS3 ACR to develop my .nef files. I have a new 1x3 red hot pixel, with a bloom around it. A line of reduced luminance extends across 1/2 the picture, from the hot spot to the edge.
I can't tell if the spot is reduced, but it is not removed.
Any ideas?

I don't think that ACR will automaticly fix hot pixels if that is what your asking. But from your discription I would be worried about my camera if I was you. that sound a lot worse the a stuck pixel.
John Passaneau

Raw vs sraw hot pixel issue question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for