Beginner Cameras with ability to produce uncorrected or unprocessed images

P

Pipchuk

Messages
4
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

Probably an unusual request. We have a scientific need to take images of some items, such that we can use the image to compare with items produced at a later date. The scientific instrumentation needed to do this quantitatively will run near to 10k, so we are looking more basic solutions.

The solution that we have in mind is a light box (to produce uniform and reproducible lighting), camera mount and suitable camera. The tricky part is that the camera needs to do the same thing everytime. We cannot afford for it to do automatic corrections which may potentially be different each time the shots are taken. We don't really care about image quality, it is reproducibility. As such, we don't need really high quality imaging equipment, but we do need to be able to precisely define how it is taking the picture and turn off any clever electronics which could trip us up.

That in mind, can anyone recommend a camera which can have said electronics disabled, or at the least locked such that it does not change?

Thanks
 
Pretty much any Manual capable camera...
 
Sound like pretty much every DSLR ever made will fit your needs.

If you can set the following, then you are fine.
  • Shutter speed
  • Aperture
  • ISO
  • File format
  • White balance
  • Sharpness
  • Saturation
  • (picture style)
Then you are golden. With all those set, the in camera jpegs will be consistent.

If the ixus allows you to set those, they are set. But usually they are not as flexible as a DSLR or mirrorless camera.
 
I've no idea about the Ixus, but any camera that has manual mode and being able to set ISO manually - and (a bit like 'what have the Romans done for us? :) ) manually setting white balance.
I think I've covered all the bases!
Even low end cameras like the Nikon D3000 series will do this. I don't know the equivalent Canon.

Basically you have to take them off of auto ISO and white balance and then set aperture and shutter speed to suit and then keep all the values the same. (presuming that the lighting stays the same between shots)
 
Ok, doing some scanning on the Web. The ideal scenario is a wifi compatible camera or something that can be tethered. But the low end cameras (Ixus 275 and similar), which have wifi, don't have manual modes or it is hard to ascertain if they do. Any cameras that I can see to be tetherable seem to be higher end options which would be a total waste when they will basically be doing nothing more than a bit of colour comparison work.

Can you make any suggestions?
 
Pipchuk said:
Ok, doing some scanning on the Web. The ideal scenario is a wifi compatible camera or something that can be tethered. But the low end cameras (Ixus 275 and similar), which have wifi, don't have manual modes or it is hard to ascertain if they do. Any cameras that I can see to be tetherable seem to be higher end options which would be a total waste when they will basically be doing nothing more than a bit of colour comparison work.

Can you make any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Don't use wifi :) Just take the memory card out.
 
Presumably shooting RAW too? (or at least RAW + jpeg)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I would have thought RAW is essential as jpeg format alters pictures according to preset camera manufacturer ideals even in manual mode.
 
Last edited:
Would it be useful to include a colour card in shot to be sure that lighting/WB is consistent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I also would have thought shooting RAW would be the way to go in terms of uncorrected and unprocessed, then using the same method to convert to JPEG or other format to view if needed.
 
I aquired my Nikon D200 via a pharmaceutical company who went bump. They specialised in scar tissue drugs. The camera I got via them had all its controls superglued down to the same settings across all their D200s
 
I would differ from the folks who say raw is the way to go.

Raw always needs to be processed on a computer, and to ensure consistent results you need to use the same parameters.

With a decent camera set up correctly the jpeg engine will always output the same. It gives consistency without having to worry about a computer being in the chain.
 
RichardtheSane said:
With a decent camera set up correctly the jpeg engine will always output the same. It gives consistency without having to worry about a computer being in the chain.
Click to expand...

You are throwing away a bit of data and introduce JPEGing noise so depending on the SNR this may or may not be desirable.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I would differ from the folks who say raw is the way to go.

Raw always needs to be processed on a computer, and to ensure consistent results you need to use the same parameters.

With a decent camera set up correctly the jpeg engine will always output the same. It gives consistency without having to worry about a computer being in the chain.
Click to expand...
You'd also be surprised how much processing goes on for even the standard JPEG output.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Would it be useful to include a colour card in shot to be sure that lighting/WB is consistent?
Click to expand...
Nope, that just makes sure you have the correct white balance. Consistent WB comes from having WB, exposure and lighting all set manually and consistent (as well as any in camera picture settings and file settings)
 
As I understand it (although I could be wrong), ambient light would also have to be the same. It's all well and good having a soft box but, all light would have to be the same, does the room have windows? If so I would think that you would have to blank these out.
 
odd jim said:
You'd also be surprised how much processing goes on for even the standard JPEG output.
Click to expand...
Oh I know there is a lot of processing, however I would expect it to be fairly consistent processing assuming that all the parameters are set.

I'll add, for Canon at least, disable auto lighting optimiser and highlight tone priority if they exist.
 
@Pipchuk

This sounds like you need either an industrial or scientific camera (not a hand held jobbie) that can be thethered to a computer, usually these days via a GigE interface. I work in industrial vision and this what I do all the time, using essentially dumb cameras (mono or colour depending on the application), connected via GigE to a PC which then usually has installed image processing software that is configured/programmed (by me) to meet the clients application, sometimes it's as simple as logging images, other times it's inspecting products for defects on production lines at high speed, I've done just about everything from counting fish (for the environment agency) to nuclear fuel pellet inspection!!

Systems like this vary in price depending on specification, but to to do the job properly isn't usually cheap. YIf you are doing this for a long time then you will also need to consider the uniformity of the lighting (though of course you can compensate with expsoure time, but this will not help if the lighting becomes uneven. There is specialist industrial LED lighting (not what you get down at Maplins!) that will help in this regard.

Fixed focal length manual lens are usually used (again for consistency), and these usually have locks on them to stop them being adjusted, when you are inspecting 150+ parts a minute you need everything lighting/optics/camera/etc to be the same.

If you give more detail about your application especially with regard to resolution (and more importantly your budget) then I can probably point you in the direction that you require. If it's not for an open forum, then feel free to PM me.
 
I asked someone who does stuff like this for a metallurgical application. He told me that they use RAW output, always include a known bar of metal for reference and expose in a dark box lit by two studio flash heads. As advised above, they always set to full manual and use the same settings every time. They then make the evidence prints on a dye sublimation printer that is regularly tested with a calibration file.

There's a reason why the off the shelf kit is so pricey.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You are throwing away a bit of data and introduce JPEGing noise so depending on the SNR this may or may not be desirable.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I would imagine the loss at low ISO would be minimal and once again quite consistent.
My understanding it the intent is for consistency rather than absolute quality
 
Sejanus Aelianus said:
There's a reason why the off the shelf kit is so pricey.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^

I've just done a project for a client determining the colour temperature of the LEDs in a populated board (typically 50 or so super bright LEDs in a board), trying doing that in JPG, or even in any camera that has a Bayer Filter or similar in front of the sensor. We had to use a 3 Chip Colour Camera with a prism beam splitter to send the R,G and B light to different sensors. The cost of the camera and optics would make some of you wince, and the hardware was only 50% of the project value.
 
If you do go with a DSLR, I would recommend documenting the exact steps to get the camera into the settings you require starting from a factory reset, so you can be comfortable with the consistency.
 
Pipchuk said:
The scientific instrumentation needed to do this quantitatively will run near to 10k, so we are looking more basic solutions.
Click to expand...
If absolute reproducibility to the nth degree isn't an absolute requirement, as the above statement would suggest, the suggestions of any camera in manual mode should be more than adequate.

But don't forget the other half of the equation, the light. If your project is over a matter of weeks you shouldn't have much of a problem with a basic lightbox. But if it stretches to months or years you also need to consider how you will account for any drift in the light output of the lamps.


If the precision method is £10k, don't expect exactly the same results for £500. You're not going to get £10k's worth of precision on the cheap.
 
But don't all cameras process images, raw or otherwise. They interpret the light that falls on the sensor dependent on the processing engine thats built into the camera. So in all fairness a Nikon may take a different looking image to, say, a canon. Or am I completely wrong on this? It wouldn't be the first time:)
 
jakeblu said:
But don't all cameras process images, raw or otherwise. They interpret the light that falls on the sensor dependent on the processing engine thats built into the camera. So in all fairness a Nikon may take a different looking image to, say, a canon. Or am I completely wrong on this? It wouldn't be the first time:)
Click to expand...

Yes that's true, but a Canon will always process it the same, a nikon will always process it the same. So long as you use the same camera each time then it will be consistent.

I will throw my vote in for using raw not jpeg. Yes it will normally need to be processed but I would trust a lightroom/cameraRAW preset over a cameras preset in terms of consistency.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I would differ from the folks who say raw is the way to go.

Raw always needs to be processed on a computer, and to ensure consistent results you need to use the same parameters.

With a decent camera set up correctly the jpeg engine will always output the same. It gives consistency without having to worry about a computer being in the chain.
Click to expand...

Agree. Suggestions as to why the OP would want to use raw for this are baffling, they've specifically said they don't want to edit and presumably won't have time for it or the desire. Jpegs will be fine here, and as long as the lighting setup, positioning and camera settings are consistent the images will be fine. Any DSLR will be ok
 
The only way to achieve consistency is to shoot in a perfectly controlled environment. That means a fixed lighting setup with enough power to defeat the ambient light, a light meter to ensure that the exposure is the same and a colour target like this:
http://spyder.datacolor.com/portfolio-view/spydercheckr-24/

The light meter and colour target will account for any variation in light output or colour temperature.

IMO the best way to make use of a target is to shoot in raw and use the spyder software to create a lightroom profile; it takes just a couple of minutes per shoot.

It'd also be worth creating a jig to mount the camera on and using a prime lens rather than a zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top