• 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 / A visual look at a7RIII star-eating

A visual look at a7RIII star-eating

November 21, 2017 JimK 9 Comments

This is the second 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.

Several people have said that they aren’t getting much out of the graphs that I posted yesterday showing that the Sony a7RIII still exhibits uncontrollable spatial filtering (aka star-eating) at shutter speeds of 4 seconds and longer. I realize that observing phenomena in the spatial frequency domain is not something that comes easy to many, so I thought I’d show you a couple of images today.

These are dark-field images that Rishi Sanyal sent me. They are the same images that I used for the graphs I posted yesterday. They were made with an a7RIII with a body cap attached, at ISO 1000, in single-shot mode, with LENR off. The files were written in uncompressed raw.

Here is a somewhat-larger-than-300% look at the 3.2 second raw-red-channel image, equalized with the Photoshop “Equalize ” tool.

See all those single-pixel light spots? Those are indicative of sensor pixels that have greater leakage current than most. The leakage current is also known as “dark current”, and its effect on the image is approximately proportional to exposure time, so these “hot pixels” get to be more and more of a problem as the shutter stays open longer and longer.

Here’s the equivalent image from the 4-second exposure, which enjoys, or suffers from, the “star-eater” algorithm:

Most of the hot pixels have been removed by the spatial filtering. That’s why Sony put it there. I personally would like to see this kind of thing done in postproduction rather than before the raw file is written to the SD card, but nobody at Sony has asked my opinion. If you’re a connoisseur of noise, you might call the 4-second exposure “mushy”. I sure would.

Not that the hot pixels in the 3.2 second image could have been stars, and the camera would have happily removed them. It can’t tell the difference between dark current and real signal.

Now we’re going to take some baby steps into the frequency domain. I will show you the magnitude portion of the Fourier transform of the two captures.

First, 3.2 seconds:

 This image and the one immediately below has been equalized in Photoshop. The Fourier transform of white Gaussian noise is white Gaussian noise, so this doesn’t look all that different from the image before it was transformed into the frequency domain.

But things are different in the 4-second image:

See that hot spot in the middle? What that’s about will become apparent after I give you a little tour of the spatial frequency domain. The center of the image is zero frequency, also known for arcane reasons — that go back at least as far as Thomas Edison — as dc. As you most away from the center, the spatial frequencies get higher. More energy is shown as lighter pixels. So that hot spot means that there is more energy at lower frequency than at higher frequency, which is the smoking gun for detecting star munching. 

 

 

a7RIII

← The Sony a7RIII eats stars Sony a7RII and a7RIII star-eating under the microscope →

Comments

  1. DrewG says

    November 21, 2017 at 9:49 am

    The data is definitely there and it’s apparent that spatial filtering is still active to a degree, but how about an actual star test? You can test the back of a body cap for days, but shooting the real thing is a whole different story.

    Also, judging your graphs from the A7RII vs RIII, they seem to have quite a difference in freq/db levels when compared to each other (the RIII in favor of a cleaner image, albeit with spatial filtering turned on).

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 21, 2017 at 9:55 am

      You can test the back of a body cap for days, but shooting the real thing is a whole different story.

      Shooting real stars is indeed entirely different, and not in a good way. You need a tracker, clear air, and good technique for real stars. And experiments are never precisely repeatable. Artificial atars are better, but I don’t have the requisite equipment.

      And there’s one thing that is very important that doesn’t seem to have sunk in. I don’t have access to an a7RIII at this point. I got the dark-field files from Rishi.

      Reply
    • JimK says

      November 21, 2017 at 10:13 am

      “Also, judging your graphs from the A7RII vs RIII, they seem to have quite a difference in freq/db levels when compared to each other (the RIII in favor of a cleaner image, albeit with spatial filtering turned on).”

      Here’s an apples-to-apples comparison:

      http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7rii-and-a7riii-star-eating-under-the-microscope/

      Reply
  2. Victor Trasvina says

    November 21, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    Thanks for all you hard work Jim!

    Reply
  3. Lynn Allan says

    November 21, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    >> don’t have access to a7Riii

    Good point … eager? (assuming you put in pre-order or trade-in)

    Would you anticipate that use of sensor-shift ultra-resolution would make a difference in star-eat’ing?

    Semi-related: Is there a reason that ISO 1000 was used rather than what would seem to be preferred ISO 640 with the a7Riii being essentially ISO-less (from ISO 100 thru 500, and then above 640), and the Aptina dual gain electronics?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 21, 2017 at 8:34 pm

      The choice of ISO 1000 was to generate white noise for a stimulus. Choosing ISO 640 would have generated less noise, and probably would have had nor fixed pattern read noise, which isn’t what I wanted, since FPRN tends to have a strong low-frequency component.

      Reply
    • JimK says

      November 22, 2017 at 9:15 am

      Good point … eager? (assuming you put in pre-order or trade-in)

      There are so many fantastic cameras now — a7RII, now the III, D810, now the D850, GFX, a9 — that I am becoming a bit jaded. It’s getting to the point that the cameras and lenses aren’t even close to what’s limiting my photography.

      Reply
    • JimK says

      November 22, 2017 at 9:16 am

      Would you anticipate that use of sensor-shift ultra-resolution would make a difference in star-eating?

      No. I think Sony probably does the same processing on each of the 4 captures.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. New A7rIII tests by Jim Kasson (Star eating), Photorec, Matt Granger, Dan Watson, Marc Alhadeff... - sonyalpharumors sonyalpharumors says:
    November 21, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    […] Jim Kasson wrote a new Star Eating post. It’s clear the new A7rIII has the same issues as the A7rII (SAR note: Sony fix this!!!). Dpreview writes about this: […]

    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.