

Make Your Own Digital Camera ISO Test Target 139
dpnow writes I run a digital photography site and came across what I thought might be an interesting story. It's about a Cornell university researcher that has reverse-engineered the design of the ISO 12233 resolution test target, used by all the best digital camera testers. These usually cost over $100 but a free pdf download of the target is available. Print it out on a good quality printer and you have your own ISO-spec test target so you can find out how good (or bad) your camera really is! "
Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: I have produced the replica target... (Score:1)
Re: I have produced the replica target... (Score:1)
Or... (Score:4, Informative)
Dpreview carries digital camera reviews dating back to 1996. They are usually very detailed.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The intro's are just rehashes of the press releases, and all the test shots are done in bright light, out doors.
For a camera to suck under those conditions, it'd have to ship from the factory with grease on the lens.
digital camera reviews are nearly worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does his "the best cameras" aka "pick of the litter" page have 10 (ten) cameras listed for each of the 12 categories? He says the "cameras are not listed in order of preference":
http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html [steves-digicams.com]
I can see 2-4 choices per, but 10?
Digital camera reviews are no where near as technical and detailed as they need to be to be useful, compare this:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/exs3_
with this:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?att
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?att
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?att
Note the "pre-printed form letter" the one guy gets back from his warranty servicing with the check mark beside the following paragraph:
"Your camera is operating according to factory specification in all modes. The phenomenon you have experienced (an orange halo visible in the bckground after taking some pictures) is not a defect in operation of your camera. It is a function of the geometry of the lens optics. Under certain lighting conditions this effect may be noticeable. Darker backgrounds will minimize or eliminate this effect."
You can no longer find the S3 or anything like it on the market, Casio has probably quietly removed it due to huge numbers of returns and warranty servicing costs. You can only find a few on eBay, and ALL are "open return" or "used return, not tested". NONE sold by happy users.
AFAIAC, digital camera reviews are nearly worthless, no matter who is doing the review.
.
Re:digital camera reviews are nearly worthless (Score:2)
Wow, that's a strong statement from someone who's never googled for "digital camera review". The first hit is dpreview.com. They have fewer reviews for different camaras (ie, they don't test every single camera out there), but their tests are lot more thorough, with measurements on lens resolution, distortion, white balance, fringing, etc. Sure, their focus is more higher end cameras, but they do cover point-and-shoot
Re:digital camera reviews are nearly worthless (Score:4, Interesting)
[goes away, comes back 15 minutes latter]
Hmmm, ok, I like their "buying guide" that allows you to choose features you want then list all camera's side by side. However - the table is missing a few things (like start-up-time, inter-picture delay, shutter-lag, etc), and the camera I had pointed out is given 4 stars out of 5 despite the massively poor picture quality of this camera, in fact ALL the 10 cameras have 4 stars out of 5 - the star rating is user driven. ONLY 2 of the 10 cameras have in-depth reviews by the dpreview site staff themselves.
They do have a page where they rank cameras by their own review rankings, but it's all mixed together, it'd be a huge pain in the ass to figure out which are the ones I'm interested in and which are on the market, price differences, etc etc. They need to review a larger fraction of the cameras on the market, and add this data to the comparison table.
One thing that is impressive is the last two rows in the comparison table, where they show a resolution chart snapshot and color chart snapshot. The color chart snapshot clearly shows the horrific quality of the camera I was talking about. Unfortunately like the reviews, they are only there for some of the listed cameras.
I give dpreview.com 6 stars out of 10. Steve's digicams gets 4 stars out of 10.
What I want to see is 8-10 stars out of 10 for a rewview site. Isn't this the information age? Where the FUCK ins the information? It's supposed to SAVE me time, not consume my time, and it's supposed to DECREASE the odds of crappy products thriving.
.
Your post... (Score:1)
Cost over $100 ??? (Score:4, Informative)
Somebody can't read! It said over 100 pounds ($180).
Insert comment here about people of a certain nationality making too many assumptions about units of various things...
-- Steve
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:1)
Pwned. (Score:2, Informative)
Photography - Electronic still-picture cameras - Resolution measurements
ISO 12233:2000 paper version (en) CHF 116,00
116.00 CHF Switzerland Francs = 94.2233 USD United States Dollars
Re:Pwned. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2, Informative)
The ISO standard for measuring resolution of "electronic still imaging"" cameras is 12233, available only from the International Standards Organization for only 116 Swiss Francs (about $US93 as of this writing)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2)
Way to go Steve-o
~Dan
photos [pbase.com]
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:1)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:5, Funny)
It cost over 45.35 kilograms
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:1)
I'm tossing it in your direction with a force of 27 slugs. Oh no, was it imperial slugs or metric slugs?
Seriously, like the slug, imperial units are slimy. This is one instance where europeans (especially engineers) can be justifiably smug.
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:1)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2, Informative)
Answer? They wouldn't... if you had read the real article [cornell.edu] (you know... the one that dpnow.com links to) you would have seen the following:
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:4, Informative)
Insert comment here about people of certain other nationalities applying rude, unfounded stereotypes to people of my nationality.
Jeremy
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:2)
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:1)
Somebody can't math so good. 180 USD > 100 USD. So yes, more than $100.
-moitz-
Re:Cost over $100 ??? (Score:1, Informative)
No, the *text description of the target* is available from the ISO for $100. Actual constructed targets are only available from third parties and are more expensive.
misdirection (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/res-chart
Site (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Site (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks though, this is informative.
Re:Site (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like you'd need a pretty expensive printer to print these out. Some of the images are 80 cm wide.
Re:Site (Score:2)
And hell, find a good lazer like above and youve definately got something good enough to test out webcams, phone cams, and cheaper digital cameras.
Re:Site (Score:2)
Re:Site (Score:2)
Bacground information (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.gpsinformation.org/jack/photo-test/pi cs/lens-tests.html
hope you are able to find to find the site a help
Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or so you can find out how good (or bad) your "good quality" printer is.
-S
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:4, Informative)
These test sheets are fine for low-end cameras, but once you start dealing with professional lenses and high resolution CCDs you really need something printed by a professional printer, not some cheesy home unit (even if the home unit has the same resolution as the camera, it may not be capable of reproducing the image on paper with enough fidelity to test the camera.
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course a colour or general quality target wouldnt be possible with that method, but plain resolution is... (given the fact that a laser printer can do REAL 1200dpi, which resolts to a shitload more pixels per frame then even a Canon 1Ds can resolve.
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:1)
I'm suprised that someone with such an expensive camera doesn't know the model number of it. The Canon Digital Rebel (Kiss in Japan) is called the 300D in the US, not the E300. (The latter, I believe, is a model of Mercedes-Benz.) Likewise, the "professional grade" camera is the 20D, not the E20.
</nitpick>
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:1)
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:1)
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:2)
And the "E20" doesnt exist (well it does, but its a toner cartridge and also a battery). Perhaps you mean the 20D?
Re:Tied to the quality of your printer? (Score:2)
Another excellent source (Score:5, Informative)
Or.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a fun toy to play with, but I'd trust professional reviews.
Re:Or.... (Score:1)
Re:Or.... (Score:1)
Re:Or.... (Score:3, Insightful)
My printer can't do 12lpmm (Score:2)
I guess I should junk my 1000$ Lexmark and find something better.
Re:Or.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mostly I think this is a question of the resolution of the printer. At 800x zoom on my 100 dpi monitor I can see all the small features clearly, so I expect a 1200dpi laser would render this image just fine. At 600dpi you might miss some of the fine details.
"Professional" reviews (Score:1)
Coralized link to pdf (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Coralized link to pdf (Score:2)
new excuse! (Score:5, Funny)
Someone should sell t-shirts with this thing on them.
For Sale (Score:4, Funny)
$50.
Paypal only, please.
Copyright... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, there's interesting:
Westin explains that the ISO specifications can be used without restriction for projects like his, though the copying of a commercially reproduced target is, of course, illegal.
(see, I _did_ rtfa!) So, it's illegal to reproduce the image, but creating a new image from an exact description of the image is legal. Yet that _is_ what 'reproducing the image' is!
The reason for this situation is that the image in question is very unusual, in that it has a freely-usable exact description in existance. But what if an exact (text) description of Mickey Mouse were made? You certainly wouldn't be allowed to create new images from it, and yet it's hard to see how Disney would own the rights to that description... hmm...
Re:Copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sorta like the Bible. The actual scriptures are public domain, but the various translations--NKJV, NIV, etc--are copyrighted. I can go get the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts and translate them myself and get a result that is very close to an existing translation, and it is not illegal.
Nathan
Re:Copyright... (Score:2)
Back when I was helping write the mIRC script 'c-script' we used to ship it with NIV. However, we received a cease-and-desist from Zondervan and were forced to remove it. Oh the irony of using copyright to stop the spread of the bible...
I understand they need to pay the translators and
Re:Copyright... (Score:1)
Re:Copyright... (Score:3, Informative)
NKJV is NOT copyrighted. You can copy it as you please.
The NKJV is copyrighted, though the copyright holder's (Thomas Nelson) policies [thomasnelson.com] on the use of its material are fairly liberal. You can't print full copies, but you can quote lots of it.
Perhaps you're thinking of the KJV, which is actually copyrighted as well, but the copyright has no legal force outside of the UK and isn't, I don't believe, enforced there, either. See the Wikepedia article [wikipedia.org] for more information.
Re:Copyright... (Score:3, Insightful)
My eyes (Score:1, Funny)
Re:My eyes (Score:2, Funny)
How *real* photographers test a new lens/camera (Score:5, Informative)
Needless to say, I've never touched a test chart, or any facsimilie thereof, since then. The *only* chart that I do have is a Gretag Macbeth colour chart (it's a grid of 24 coloured squares) to get colour balance correct. I also have a couple of Kodak Grey cards for setting white balance if you want to nit pick and call one of those a "chart".
Re:How *real* photographers test a new lens/camera (Score:1)
Subjective measurement will get you so far, but the eye is easily tricked by things like sharpening algorithms.
For those who do wish to quantify the many dimensions of image quality, my company produces a piece of software called Imatest that analyzes these charts.
www.imatest.com [imatest.com]
It also analyzes y
Re:How *real* photographers test a new lens/camera (Score:2)
We're not talking about the image being completely out of focus here. That you can obviously notice by looking through the viewfinder. As the OP said, he's talking about the focus being off by 2mm. Most of the time (especially with small apertures [large depth of field] or long focusing
Re:How *real* photographers test a new lens/camera (Score:2)
Its very difficult to tell if say, someones nose is out of focus, when shooting on the fly.
Most 'backfocus' issues you read about though are problems behind the camera. They focus very close, wide open and then move their heads an inch or two (or the subject does) and the nose goes out. Of course they blame the camera for this. Universally though, ive noticed most complaints come from people not using contin
Viewfinders. (Score:2)
A-men!
I had (well, was borrowing) a Nikon FE-2 that's currently in the shop due to a munged shutter. Manual focus, but the (I don't know the words for any of these things) focusing screen with the split circle in the middle, where if it was in-focus the two halves would line up, and the ring around the central circle would be
absolutely usable, even in low light.
I recently got a Canon EOS Rebel GII. The autofoc
It's not reverse-engineered (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't anyone write anything tech without feeling the need to throw in a highly-charged buzzword?
If you read the chart's creator's web page, he didn't reverse-engineer anything. He created the chart from the published international specification. That's pretty much the opposite of reverse-engineering: engineering. That is, taking a set of specifications and producing a design that meets them.
But I guess that's not as interesting-sounding.
Re:It's not reverse-engineered (Score:2)
I can't remember the last [current] article that I've actually been able to read. Few and far it seems.
Of course with ID# 605,395 it will feel like waiting in line at Jewel.
Slashdotted.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdotted.... (Score:2)
Re:Slashdotted.... (Score:2)
this helps me a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
thanks poster
I worked for Kodak (Score:2)
Seriously tho, this target is worthless unless you print it on a LARGE piece of paper with an ultra high quality laserjet printer. Ideally you'd want a real laser, not the cheap LED ones, and furthermore you'd need at least 1200 DPI.
Inkjet? Forget it. Dot placement is poor quality- your lines will get fuzzy. So is that aliasing or is that bad printer alignment.
Save Me From My Inferior Camera (Score:5, Funny)
Now I have to find an accurate camera and retake all those photos.
Re:Save Me From My Inferior Camera (Score:2)
Poor guy, I hope he doesn't pay is hosting service (Score:2)
Best Test Ever (Score:2)
Testing a digital camera is not that complicated:
1. Take a picture of a red object against white background.
2. Take a picture of a green object against white background.
3. Find a person with zits/razor cuts on his/her face and take a picture of that person.
Compare these pics to what you see in real life. Chances are that your reds will be off and the person will have a skin with more orange in it. If so, throw your camera away, unless you do not care about these things. If your camera is close to th
Re:Best Test Ever (Score:2)
Do-It-Yourself Lens Test (Score:2)
Tape a newspaper to the wall. Shoot it square-on. Check for flatness of field, distortions, and vignetting at the edges. Shoot it at an angle, at different aperatures, to test for depth of field. Easy!
Take it to a professional printer... (Score:4, Informative)
Can't we do this with cheapie printers? (Score:1)
My question is, how big would the output have to be, to cleanly show everything on the target, with something like an Epson C82?
Why that one? (Score:1)
Calibration on both ends, dear. (Score:1)
Which it probably isn't.
This is what that money is paying for - a printout of the target that's guaranteed to be within a certain range of variability from the Right Colors. And to have the Right Aspect Ratio. And the Known Reflective Characteristics.
What you print out on your Epson or HP or whatever, probably using typing paper instead of photo paper, probably with color management off, is not going to work for prec
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:2)
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:1)
This link [mambo.net] has instructions on how to do this.
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:2)
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:2)
I am. It takes no electrical power; runs manually. But the pixel sizes are inconsistent and probably too large for good quality work (unless tantric). You also don't get any color except white. Also, it generally needs a good snapshot of Natalie Portman in hot grits to prime the pump.
It's probably best to not to take family portraits and act as a Polaroid instamatic. That's just wrong.
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are going to comment at least look at it first... oh wait.. this is
News for nerds... stuff people talk about without reading.
Re:Color Fidelity (Score:2)
How do you calibrate for black and white (not grayscale) ?
Dot gain (Score:1)
my calibration consists of putting regular black toner in my laser printer and printing on white paper.
Then you seem to ignore dot gain [tintas.com], caused by the mechanical spread of ink or toner across the page and the optical spread of light inside paper.