• 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 / More on Sony a7RIII pixel shift

More on Sony a7RIII pixel shift

December 14, 2017 JimK 4 Comments

This is a continuation of a series of posts on the Sony a7RIII.  You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series. You can also click on the “a7RIII” link in the “You are here” line at the top of this post.

I’ve already written two posts on the Sony a7RIII pixel shift feature. They are here and here. This post talks about how the feature does with various ways of demosaicing. For the purpose of this post, we’ll consider the reconstruction of an image from the four shifted captures to be just another way of demosaicing.

Here’s our test scene:

There is now a beta of Raw Therapee that will decode ARQ files. It’s a bit tricky to make that work. First, you have to add the ARQ extension to the browser in preferences. Then you pick a profile. I picked “Neutral”. Then you go into the raw tab, and change the demosaicing method to “pixel shift”. And last, but very importantly, you turn off motion compensation. If you don’t, you’re likely to get some strange results — at least I did.

I’ll show you some crops of just the star using Raw Therapee and some different demosaicing methods.

Raw Therapee AHD

AHD has its usual intense yellow and blue false colors.

Raw Therapee IGV

IGV is a lot better, but still has a lot of false coloration.

Raw Therapee AMaZE

AMaZE is the best for this target.

Raw Therapee Pixel Shift

Pixel shift has no false coloration at all, as you’d expect if the camera and the subject did not move.

For comparison, here’s the ARQ file exported as a TIFF from RawDigger:

RawDigger ARQ export

In all cases, I’ve approximately corrected for white balance and tone curve differences. 

Now we’ll go through the same set of images at greater magnification so we can focus on sharpness.

Raw Therapee AHD

 

Raw Therapee IGV

 

Raw Therapee AMaZE

 

Raw Therapee Pixel Shift

 

RawDigger ARQ export

As you can see, when compared to AMaZE, the improvements in pixel shifting are mostly in the elimination of false color, and only slightly in improved sharpness. As we saw earlier, this is not the case with strongly chromatic blue and red subjects; there pixel shifting makes considerable sharpness strides.

a7RIII

← Sony a7RIII pixel shift red sharpness Sony a7RIII pixel shift real world false colors and dynamic range →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    December 16, 2017 at 1:37 am

    Jim, FYI when evaluating pixel shift on the K-1, the RT demosaicer that came closest to the shifted image was DCB with ‘enhancements’ checked.

    Reply
  2. Wilson Coudon says

    December 25, 2017 at 7:49 am

    When I shoot my Sony in pixel shift, the first two shots briefly show the word “cancel” as if something is not right. I still get the four pictures and when processed do reveal a picture with better detail and color rendition.

    Am I doing something wrong?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 25, 2017 at 8:53 am

      Sorry, I don’t know. I’ve never seen that.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Quantifying Sony IE pixel-shift oversharpening says:
    July 11, 2018 at 10:21 am

    […] have reported in the past (here, here, here, and here) that Sony’s Imaging Edge software oversharpens when flattening ARQ files. It does […]

    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.