What firmware necessary for Kodak DCS-1c? ISO other than 80?

Discuss older Nikon-based Kodak digital SLRs, including DCS 100, DCS 200, NC2000, DCS 400/600/700-series, etc. Ask questions, post general comments, anecdotes, reviews and user tips.
Post Reply
canonfantom
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: Germany

What firmware necessary for Kodak DCS-1c? ISO other than 80?

Post by canonfantom » Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:18 pm

Hello,
is there anybody who can help me with information about the right firmware version for my Kodak DCS-1c? The DCS-1c normally has an ISO/ASA value of 80. But the body I have got has an ASA value from 200 to 1600 (just as the DCS-3). The DCS-1 Camera has the firmware version 051998 inside as one can see in the IPTC-Data within the TIF-pictures.

By chance I found old files taken with this body three years ago and they say, it worked then with ASA 80 and Firmware version 032597.

I presume, someone put a new firmware in the camera that perhaps changed the ASA value and unfortunately the picture quality too, because the pictures taken with ASA 200 (80 ASA does not exist anymore)are much noisier than the old 80 ASA pictures.

Does anybody Know: Which is the right firmware for the DCS1c and the Twain Driver 5.9.3.1. I am using? (A man from Kodak told me yesterday, I should use TWAIN Driver 5.6.5. for this body. He also said the DCS1c never used anything else than 80 ASA).

Does anybody ever notice an effect on image quality when using ASA 200 instead of 80? Has there ever been a firmware update to exceed the ASA range? or is the firmware inside the wrong one and I need a different version?On the Kodak download page there is only one older firmware left for the dcs1 (and 3) its Firmware version 5.0.1 from 1999.

What combination of Firmware and Driver is necessary to get the best picture quality out of the DCS-1?

Thank you very much for your help.

Kind regards,

Thomas[/b]

Stan Disbrow
Posts: 579
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Post by Stan Disbrow » Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:01 pm

hi,

The EOS-DCS1c is the same digitally as the Nikon F90x based 460c. There was never a firmware update to the 460c that boosted the ISO up from 80. The sensor is noisy enough (esp in the blue channel) at 80 as it is! :p

However, there was a Monochrome variant of both the Canon and Nikon versions. That one had a base ISO of 200. It's entirely possible that someone loaded the Mono firmware into a Color camera. Other than the sensor itself, I don't think there were any significant differences between the C and the M variants......

Of course, the Mono sensor is missing the Color Filter Array layer. So, with no light-sapping color filters in the way, each photosite (pixel) will have significantly greater light sensitivity. This would necessitate altering the equivalent base ISO of the sensor upwards in the firmware.

With a mono setting for a colro imager, then you'd be grossly underexposing every shot, which would give you lousy images. A simple test to try is to just set the exposure compensation on the camera to give you an ISO 80 exposure with it set at ISO 200. If things improve, then you have a workaround. :)

Also, with a mono sensor, the post-processing needs to skip the de-mosaic step. This is where it makes up the missing two colors for each pixel by integrating the values from neighboring pixels. A mono image will have only a Green value, and post processing simply needs to use that and skip all the eyeballing of the neighbors.

If you also have Mono post-processing with an image from a Color sensor, then you're going to have a strangely tinted image since the de-mosaic step is skipped.

What I don't know, is if the Kodak plug-in for PS that crunches the raw file from these cameras looks for some file header data that tells it if the image is color or mono, or it's a different module for color vs. mono.

If it uses a header, then that will be written by the firmware into the file, and so you could well have the skipped de-mosaic issue I described in addition to underexposing......

Stan
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

Post Reply