• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / a7RIII / Testing for a7RIII star-eating by direct search

Testing for a7RIII star-eating by direct search

November 25, 2017 JimK 3 Comments

This is the seventh in a series of posts on the Sony a7RIII (and a7RII, for comparison) spatial processing that is invoked when you use a shutter speed of longer than 3.2 seconds. The series starts here.

Up to now, my tests for the presence or absence of the “star-eating” Sony spatial filtering algorithm have been indirect, either using Fourier analysis or histogram plotting of dark-frame read noise to detect the presence or absence of the spatial filtering. I decided to try something more direct.

I reasoned that there are probably hot pixels in the dark-frame images that, by virtue of their great intensity and their lack of nearby bright pixels, could be considered to be virtually the same thing as one-pixel stars in actual night sky photographs. I wrote some code to analyze dark frame images, looking for pixels that were simultaneously 

  • a certain number of standard deviations above the mean
  • having either no similarly-bright pixels as neighbors or being a certain amount over the mean of the eight neighboring pixels

As criteria for that last test, I set a parameter called starNeighborThreshold, and said that the bright pixel needed to be starNeighborTheshold times its brightest neighbor or starNeighborTheshold times the average of its neighbors. I called the number of standard deviations above the mean that were necessary for stardom (sorry, I couldn’t resist) outlierThreshold.

I ran the code against the three raw channels of the 3.2 second and 4-second exposures from the a7RII and a7RIII. Here’s how many stars I got:

You can see that, on the whole, both the a7RII and a7RIII at 4 seconds have a ravenous appetite for what I defined to be stars. However, as was predicted by Mark in a comment to an earlier post on this subject, in the green channel, the a7RIII is not quite as hungry. 

Is this a fluke? I dunno. More to come.

a7RIII

← a7RIII star-eater green channel histograms a7RII hot pixel frame-to-frame consistency →

Comments

  1. John Leathwick says

    November 26, 2017 at 11:20 am

    Jim, your analysis is very similar to the approach applied in the star stacking freeware, DeepSkyStacker. I’ve used it to test two sets of ten images of the Milky Way shot a few minutes apart at a NZ site with minimal light pollution with a ZM distagon 35 on my A7RII at ISO 6400 . I shot one set at 3.2 secs and the second at 4 seconds, i.e., where star-eating first kicks in. DSS detected an average of 21,264 stars in the 3.2 second set, but only 12,061 in the 4 second set, a reduction of 43% despite the longer exposure. You’re very welcome to access those images if you want to extend your testing to real world images.

    Reply
  2. hugh crawford says

    November 27, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    I have not yet seen any test of the A7rIII star eating behavior ( can’t really call it a feature ) in combination with the sensor / pixel shifting feature of the A7rIII.
    If I were the engineer designing a feature like that I would be tempted to move hot pixel elimination to the software that combines the 4 exposures.

    Have you made any experiments with sensor / pixel shifting ?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 27, 2017 at 1:19 pm

      I don’t have an a7RIII. Yet.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.