One of the first times I used the slow shutter function (frame accumulation), I noticed several pixels were out. There was even on area that seemed to be a grouping of dead pixels.

After going through several black balances (as recommended by Val at Sony) they were no longer apparent, but how can there be dead pixels in a brand new camera and how long can you mask them until there are too many to "fix"?

I had the same thing happen with my 330. The area got too big to mask and Sony had to replace the block. The first time the new block had a very strange bug and the camera began drawing so much power that my ac power suppy couldn't generate enough voltage to run the camera(although two stacked v-mount batteries would). They ended up replacing that block with a new one and the power supplies worked again.

I'm posting this for the benefit of you and anyone else who might run into similar issues so it might help you cut to the chase in getting repairs done quickly and without fuss.

The pixels are not normally "dead". What you are seeing is pixels that have a higher output for a given amount of light than perhaps they should. They show up more in frame accumulation mode because the the error is accentuated by time. In normal use you wouldn't see the difference. Almost all CCD blocks will have hot pixels. Leave a camera on for a few hours and turn up the gain and your almost sure to see some. Most manufacturers only regard a pixel to be a problem when it shows up at 0db gain at a standard frame rate/shutter speed.

It is thought that taking CCD's on aircraft flying on polar routes (transatlantic for examle) can lead to increased pixel failures due to the way the earths magnetic field concentrates solar radiation and other solar matter near the poles.

Most broadcast cameras have very good pixel masking circuits that can correct for hot pixels. This isn't a Sony specific problem and affects both video and stills cameras.

Alister, you always provide very accurate info. Thanks

Just to clarify, on my 330 the same problems as in shutter accumulate began showing up in normal images. Sony did have me try the black balance a number of times, and it wan't until they actually had the camera in their shop that they fully agreed there was a serious problem. I'm extremely happy it was under warrenty.

Being still on the learning curve with the F350, I'd be interested in knowing What exactly are the visual symptoms of dead pixels?

Thanks.

Michael Knight.

Being still on the learning curve with the F350, I'd be interested in knowing What exactly are the visual symptoms of dead pixels?

There are actually two kinds of defective pixels. One is a stuck, or HOT pixel where the pixel will not go dark. It would manifest itself as a colored single dot on the image somewhere. It will be one of the primary colors because it's a single pixel on one of the three ccds.

The other is a dead, or DARK pixel. This would be a spot on the image that would have one of the three primary colors missing and would show up as the wrong color.

All of this is due to the nature of CCDs which are charge coupled devices. If the charge won't drain between refreshes, you get a hot pixel. If it won't accumulate a charge between refreshes, it's a dark pixel.

-gb-

Just finished a shoot, 24p 1/48th shutter, my camera literally has 6 hrs on it.. practically brand new.

My client called, said it looks fantastic, however he thinks the camera has 4 "dead pixels" , seen of course in black/darks of the frame.

Can this be possible? He told me he tested 2 monitors and both of his monitors did the same.. and of course, I am away until late monday, so I unable to check the camera until then.

just thought I would throw up a post to get any ideas/opinions,

Thanks,

Ryan

You can always mask them in FCP with a colored overlay. I'll ask Paolo to respond to this.

To mask dead pixels in your camera, do three times black balance, the software of your camera will mask the affected pixels.

To save footage with black or white pixels use a FCP plug-in called DH_Reincarnation from www.digital-heaven.co.uk. It's a 40 dollar plug-in that replaces up to two dead pixel areas intelligently with new pixels at a time. It saved a lot footage for me. This option works only for FCP. Maybe there are simular options for other programs.

An other -not so nice but will do- option is to make an overlay in Photoshop with black dots on spot of your dead pixels. This works well on white pixels in dark areas. Yes, they show up as black dots in white areas, but are nearly noticed there.

I had a similar problem. The black balance is supposed to mask the pixels. For some reason, I guess I got the bad block in the batch - the number of dead pixels kept increasing on my 330, especially in the frame accumulate mode. Sony finally replaced the block under warrenty.

When the camera came back it would no longer run on any of my ac power supplies. It would run on two stacked v-mount batteries. It seemed the new block had a weird flaw that caused it to draw too much power. Sony didn't believe me at first but eventually I sent the camera back in, they found the same power issue, and replaced the block with another new one.

That was about six months ago. The camera has been perfectly reliable and stable since then, with no dead pixels or odd power issues or anything else.

I'm delighted with the camera and would (and may) buy another one (after I see what's coming out in the spring) and it was good that Sony (albeit with a little prompting) took care of this expensive problem.

I had a similar problem. The black balance is supposed to mask the pixels. For some reason, I guess I got the bad block in the batch - the number of dead pixels kept increasing on my 330, especially in the frame accumulate mode. Sony finally replaced the block under warrenty.

When the camera came back it would no longer run on any of my ac power supplies. It would run on two stacked v-mount batteries. It seemed the new block had a weird flaw that caused it to draw too much power. Sony didn't believe me at first but eventually I sent the camera back in, they found the same power issue, and replaced the block with another new one.

That was about six months ago. The camera has been perfectly reliable and stable since then, with no dead pixels or odd power issues or anything else.

I'm delighted with the camera and would (and may) buy another one (after I see what's coming out in the spring) and it was good that Sony (albeit with a little prompting) took care of this expensive problem.


Thanks for the reply.

Did you notice the dead pixels on a field monitor, or thru your view finder? in my situation.. I can't even recal any in my field monitor, nor in the viewfinder,, which is why it seems weird in my situation... I guess tomorrow I will be able to see for myself.

I have the 1.5" viewfinder and the dead pixels are just too hard to see on that. I saw them on what I was using for a field monitor, which is a
Toshiba 21 or so inch hdtv. They were very hard to see on my 8-9" sd sony field monitor until they got pretty far out of hand.

I have the 1.5" viewfinder and the dead pixels are just too hard to see on that. I saw them on what I was using for a field monitor, which is a
Toshiba 21 or so inch hdtv. They were very hard to see on my 8-9" sd sony field monitor until they got pretty far out of hand.


Thanks again, I guess I will investigate more tomorrow.

To mask dead pixels in your camera, do three times black balance, the software of your camera will mask the affected pixels.

Black balancing will adjust gain to each pixel in total darkness to help with chroma noise. But if a pixel is truly stuck (full on all the time) due to a defect in the ccd block, black balancing will do no good and the stuck pixel has to be masked out of the image electronically by a service menu procedure.

-gb-

btw, does anyone know this service menu procedure?
this masking procedure was rather simple with my previous JVC and Panasonic cameras.
My problem is that I travel by plane with my camera and I get one or two hot pixels each time I fly accross the Atlantic. When shooting on location I'm miles away from any Sony service facility so being able to mask a hot pixel is quite essential to me. I know there are a few efficient masking software such as Digital heaven, but I'm a bit afraid this could somehow alter the overwhole picture quality.

If you have problems with dead pixels, get Sony to replace the unit. I was told by one of the main Sony representatives that there is no reason at all why anyone should have to put up with a problem like this on a new unit and it should be taken care of by Silver Support etc. Black balancing is a bodge fix.

Black balancing 3 times in a row activates the pixel masking operation and will mask any dead pixels on a Sony Pro camcorder. There is a limit to the number of pixels that can be masked, not sure how many on the XDCAM's.

How does it come that there are so many dead pixels with these XDCAM HD's? Is this because of a bad production?

How does it come that there are so many dead pixels with these XDCAM HD's? Is this because of a bad production?

I was wondering the same thing. Doesn't inspire confidence.

How does it come that there are so many dead pixels with these XDCAM HD's? Is this because of a bad production?
This is a statistical problem. Many pixels = many problems. Quite simple.

Matthias

I'm a little bit worried. When I got my new camera three weeks ago, I immediatly noticed a hot pixel visible at 0db.
After a call to the local Sony dealer I did 3 black balances and the pixel disappeared. However, by putting the camera on the frame accumulation mode I could see the hot pixel was still there.
Pushing the accumulation to 64 frames, several pixels (8 hot pixels) were clearly visible.
2 days ago, while shooting the total moon eclipse I noticed a new star in the night sky, the hot pixel was again visible at 0db.
I tried the accumulation mode and was horrified to see more than 20 hot pixels at 64 frames.

I'm a little bit worried. When I got my new camera three weeks ago, I immediatly noticed a hot pixel visible at 0db.
After a call to the local Sony dealer I did 3 black balances and the pixel disappeared. However, by putting the camera on the frame accumulation mode I could see the hot pixel was still there.
Pushing the accumulation to 64 frames, several pixels (8 hot pixels) were clearly visible.
2 days ago, while shooting the total moon eclipse I noticed a new star in the night sky, the hot pixel was again visible at 0db.
I tried the accumulation mode and was horrified to see more than 20 hot pixels at 64 frames.

You are really scaring me! :-(

Do other HD cameras like DVCPRO HD and HDCAM also have these problems?

I'm a little bit worried. When I got my new camera three weeks ago, I immediatly noticed a hot pixel visible at 0db.
After a call to the local Sony dealer I did 3 black balances and the pixel disappeared. However, by putting the camera on the frame accumulation mode I could see the hot pixel was still there.
Pushing the accumulation to 64 frames, several pixels (8 hot pixels) were clearly visible.
2 days ago, while shooting the total moon eclipse I noticed a new star in the night sky, the hot pixel was again visible at 0db.
I tried the accumulation mode and was horrified to see more than 20 hot pixels at 64 frames.

Did you try black balancing while in frame accumulation mode? But yeah, if it came back at 0 db, you probably need to get the camera serviced or replaced.

-gb-

Did you try black balancing while in frame accumulation mode? But yeah, if it came back at 0 db, you probably need to get the camera serviced or replaced.

-gb-

No, I didn't. Actually, today I brought the camera to the local Sony service center.
I let you know as soon as I get the camera back.

Actually, today I brought the camera to the local Sony service center.

I think that was a wise decision on your part, Dean. And yes, please let us know what Sony determines.

I know it's no fun having your new baby in sick bay. Mine had to go in for a shutter issue, but Sony took care of it promptly.

Best of luck,

-gb-

I can't say 100% sure for dvcpro HD but I'm positive HDCAM has semilar issues, in fact I don't belive it's linked at all to the VTR device, I think that it's more linked to the Material used for ccu. I was once told CCU's are made by an organic material (I'm not really sure if that's true, or what it means even if it is) and that's why lit pixels pop up. I think though, 1920x1080x3 (chips) is something like 6 million pixels, for 20 to show up is awful but in the scheme of things it's an error rate of .00000322 to 1 which is I guess a pretty high tolerence.

I just purchased an XDCAM and used it for a few hours. Today I got a big monitor, and to my surprise, I found a white pixel in dark areas, not visible on the small screen monitor. Will they fix the camera? or replace it? I want this unit replaced, I don't want it back with more problems. Any suggestions? Thank you.

I had a hot pixel issue with my new F330 and Sony replaced the cam. However, when I switched the new cam on and tried it on a big full hd monitor, a red pixel was clearly visible.
I guess I'll have to live with it...

The pixels are not normally "dead". What you are seeing is pixels that have a higher output for a given amount of light than perhaps they should. They show up more in frame accumulation mode because the the error is accentuated by time. In normal use you wouldn't see the difference. Almost all CCD blocks will have hot pixels. Leave a camera on for a few hours and turn up the gain and your almost sure to see some. Most manufacturers only regard a pixel to be a problem when it shows up at 0db gain at a standard frame rate/shutter speed.

It is thought that taking CCD's on aircraft flying on polar routes (transatlantic for examle) can lead to increased pixel failures due to the way the earths magnetic field concentrates solar radiation and other solar matter near the poles.

Most broadcast cameras have very good pixel masking circuits that can correct for hot pixels. This isn't a Sony specific problem and affects both video and stills cameras.

I am an Engineer in Australia with large medical company that has just released a true HD (1920x 1080i) 3 CCD camera for endoscopic surgery. I have tested several heads, and have seen obvious hot pixels in approx 30% of heads. Some are so obvious that they are visible even from cold (room temp 24c). I reported this to US manufacturer who sent me production files/images for these heads. These show that all hot pixels had been masked successfully during manufacture. The correction was carried out at 50C.
Either radiation (gamma at 35000ft, or high level Xray used in Customs), or some ageing effect must be producing these hot pixels. Does anyone know mor about this serious problem?

Quite frankly I think what we are seeing here is the limitations of current technology. It'll be improved over time, but on existing equipment hot pixels remain pretty much an expected thing.

http://www.visuals.co.uk/pixelproblems.asp

I've taken cameras with no hot pixels on transatlantic flights and landed with 12 or more hot pixels. Cosmic rays are certainly a major cause. Watch almost any video footage shot on the Space shuttle or ISS and you'll see lots of pixel damage. It only takes a few days in space to write off a CCD camera. I've seen hot pixels on Panasonic, Canon, JVC and Sony cameras. I had a Sony 700 digibeta camcorder and I had to get the optical block replaced after 18 months of flying around the world filming various sporting events.

We've also experienced a hot pixel issue after the first weeks of filming with our F330. It was checked at the dealer's workshop and send to Sony UK.

Verywel fixed. Camera back in two weeks time. If you have Premium Support Sony supplies you with an exchange cam after 7 or 8 days.

I also use a DXC D30 wich recently showed it's first dead pixel after 8 years of maintenance free operation.

I guess that the smaller individual pixel size of HD CCD's also makes them more sensitive.

There does seem to be a tendency for the F350/F330's to develop a few hot/dead pixels during the first few weeks of use, however regular black balancing and masking should sort these out.

My F350 developed 3 or 4 hot pixels when I first got it nearly 2 years ago. Since then I have taken it on at least 20 trans-atlantic flights and many shorter flights with only a couple more showing up. Black balancing has masked them except when using frame accumulation where I get 2 bright pixels. I use the CHV repair plug-in for FCP to sort these out.

Greetings all,

I too have a 350 with a hot/dead pixel that I'm sending in for repair today. The camera is less than one year old. I've tried multiple times to mask it using the consecutive black balance method and it has not worked. It's going to Teaneck, New Jersey today and we'll see what happens.

JA

My F350 had hot pixels after less than three months of use.

Like other people here, I was very glad it was under warranty. I took to Sony here in Los Angeles and asked them to replace the pixel block. They didn't.

Sadly, I've been through this before. I had a DSR 300 which developed bad pixels as well. By the way, this is under normal working conditions. Normal corporate work.

Each of these cameras has been kept in pristine condition and used in mild temperatures here in Southern California. Never shipped anywhere.

Sony told me to keep black balancing to get rid of the bad pixels on the DSR 300, but they just got worse and worse and more and more visible.

Sony finally agreed the block on the DSR 300 had to be replaced. The rub? Unfortunately, by the time it HAD to be totally replaced, it was OUT of warranty by about a year, so it was a very expensive replacement repair. You can imagine how angry I was about the situation, but I remained a loyal Sony customer, mostly because all the rest of the gear I own is primarily Sony and I thought perhaps I just happened to get a "Dud" DSR 300 out of bad luck. Cut your losses sort of thing and move on, right?

Fast forward to this year. I purchased a brand new F350. Less than ninety days from purchasing the F350 brand new -- bad pixels! I explained all of the above to Sony which they verified, but even with my prior history, they did not replace the F350 pixel block.

After thorough testing, the repair dept. agreed that black balancing would not get rid of the hot pixels on the F350. However, the F350, unlike the DSR 300 apparently, can be programmed to use surrounding pixels around the bad ones to create a psuedo pixel from averaging the information of surrounding pixels. In essence, the pixel block remains defective, but they shut off the bad pixels and replace them with this "averaging" technology.

It's a workaround solution, but troubling. Because past experience tells me that this block is likely to only get worse, with new hot pixels developing over time.

After my experience with the DSR 300 pixel block which plainly only got worse over time, you can imagine that I'm not thrilled with the way Sony handled the new pixel problem I have with the F350. However, I have about 1 year and a half left on my F350 warranty, so I will monitor the pixel trouble carefully. I'm almost hoping it will get worse, simply so that I can get Sony to agree it should be replaced BEFORE the warranty runs out this time.

If I have to replace a bad pixel block at my own expense twice in a row, I am going to be one EXTREMELY unhappy customer.

I've never heard of other brands having this issue, but I've been a Sony customer for so long, I don't follow any other brand, so I can't say.

Nevertheless, I'd have to rate my situation as cautiously optimistic, but very disappointed that this has happened to me twice and that Sony essentially has given me a "band aid" solution.

I really DID expect Sony to go out of its way to provide me with a new pixel block on my F350 given my history with them and the past problem I had with the DSR 300 which became very costly.

To my fellow Sony owners, take this as fair warning, I guess, cross your fingers and hope for the best. At this point, unless I'm mistaken, I think that's about all I can do myself.

Best regards,
Michael Rissi

Incidentally, have you tried holding down the black balance switch for a few seconds as opposed to just switching it quickly? I think I remember seeing something once from Sony about this with Digibeta cameras. Could be wrong though as my memory is seemingly getting worse!

Hi Simon,

I couldn't tell if your last post was directed at me or someone else.

If you are asking me, yes, I held down the black balance switch for several seconds. Black balancing did NOT solve the problem.

Sometimes pixels on these cameras simply go bad. Period.

Sony's repair technicians determined that the block on my F350 had to be re-programmed in order to hide the defective pixels. The pixel block itself is no better than it was when I brought it in for repair.

My previous post explains in more detail.

Thanks,
Michael

Bad pixels isn't a Sony specific problem. I've seen large numbers of defective pixels on Panasonic Varicams, Ikegami and Canon cameras. It is a CCD fact of life. On HD cameras the problem is more pronounced simply because there's a lot more pixels to go wrong.

Hi Alister,

I believe you.

The ironic aspect of this to me is that I have only had defective pixels develop on the higher end video cameras I've owned.

I've had a Sony PD100 for years as well as several other Sony consumer level video cameras which have been all over the world on vacations and what not, and these cameras never developed any bad pixels.

I understand your point that the problem is more pronounced on cameras with a higher number of pixels. Higher probability of trouble from higher number of sensors.

But somehow when you spend upwards of $25000 on a camera, you expect it to behave better than your handheld consumer camera. Call me idealistic.

I grumble for good reason about Sony due to some frustrating experiences with their equipment, but you notice I haven't jumped ship to a different manufacturer. Not yet anyway. All in all, I still feel Sony trumps the competition for overall design and format longevity.

I've shared my experiences here in the hopes that it will shed some light on the subject for other forum members who will come to their own conclusions. My concern about the defective pixel problem stems from my experience that it can get worse over time. That's what happened with my DSR 300. As long as I'm under warranty, no worries. But unlike similarly priced Panasonic models which include five year warranties (last time I checked), Sony gives you two years. For the vast majority of HD professionals out there, if defective pixels turn out to be equally common on all cameras, this may turn out to be of some interest.

Best regards,
Michael Rissi

I sent our F350 in to Teaneck NJ for hot pixels that would not reset using the black balance method. The repair description states that "RPN management performed." So it looks like electronic management was used to mask/blend the offending pixels and no block replacement was performed.

I must give kudos to Sony for the turnaround time, though. I shipped on Tuesday and had it back on Friday. Can't complain too much about that.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that it is acceptable to have hot or dead pixels spoiling your pictures at 0db gain within the first year of ownership of an expensive piece of kit.

I wish I knew why this seems to be a problem that affects high end cameras more than cheap consumer cameras.

I don't have a problem with pixel masking or re-mapping as long as it is transparent in use, which in most cases it appears to be. RPM (residual pixel noise) masking improves all the time. Older digibetas could only mask about 32 pixels, newer cams many more. AFAIK Sony have 2 layers of RPN mapping. One that is done using the Black Balance method which has a limited amount of memory and then a second bank that can be programmed by the factory or repair center. When you send a camera in for RPN work they copy the data from the user memory to the hard memory so that the user memory can then mask a further batch of pixels. At some point however you run out of memory and then you may be looking at a new block.

I don't have a problem with pixel masking or re-mapping as long as it is transparent in use, which in most cases it appears to be. RPM (residual pixel noise) masking improves all the time. Older digibetas could only mask about 32 pixels, newer cams many more. AFAIK Sony have 2 layers of RPN mapping. One that is done using the Black Balance method which has a limited amount of memory and then a second bank that can be programmed by the factory or repair center. When you send a camera in for RPN work they copy the data from the user memory to the hard memory so that the user memory can then mask a further batch of pixels. At some point however you run out of memory and then you may be looking at a new block.

That's a bit different than the explanation I got while training at Sony last year.

Black balancing does nothing to mask stuck pixels. Black balancing observes the output from each pixel site in a total blackness scenario, and zeros the gain for any pixel still producing residual current. This will not resolve a pixel that is truly stuck on (defective). Black balancing gets rid of residual thermal noise where the pixel should be producing zero output current. Thermal noise would be incorrectly interpreted as image data.

RPN is done in the service menus and has both a normal memory and a separate memory for slow shutter RPN data. Pixel masking shuts off (or ignores) the stuck pixel site and uses nearest neighbor interpolation to approximate the disabled pixel's data. The interpolation will work fine up to a point. Too many approximations will start to noticeably degrade resolution. I like that it has a dedicated RPN routine for slow shutter since many of those pixels aren't really stuck on and will be just fine under normal operation and shouldn't be shut off unnecessarily. They just have a tendency to ramp up too much if allowed to accumulate a charge for too long. Almost like a thermal runaway condition.

-gb-