• 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 / Quantifying Sony IE pixel-shift oversharpening

Quantifying Sony IE pixel-shift oversharpening

July 11, 2018 JimK 4 Comments

This is the 51st in 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; just look for “a7RIII”.

I have reported in the past (here, here, here, and here) that Sony’s Imaging Edge software oversharpens when flattening ARQ files. It does that even when sharpening is explicitly turned off in the app. Up to now, I haven’t quantified the oversharpening, but have simply pointed out that there is a workaround: flatten the ARQ stacks that Imaging Edge produces with another editor. Raw Therapee works fine. There is also a program quite descriptively called SonyPixelShift2DNG that works right on the ARW files and allows you to skip Imaging Edge entirely.

I set up a Sony a7RIII with a Batis 135/2.8 lens set to f/4 on a set of RRS carbon fiber legs and an Arca Swiss C1 head. I aimed the camera at a slanted edge target, focused, and made a set of pixel-shifted exposures. Then I did that again, three more times.

Here’s what one of the images looks like:

I ran Imatest’s sharpest image finder over the set and found the best set of four images. They were all about the same, with there being about as much variation within a set than among the sets. Still, I picked the sharpest set and ran it through Imaging Edge to produce an ARQ stack. While I was at it, I made sure that sharpening was turned off and exported a flattened version as a TIFF.

Here is an MTF analysis of the sharpest image in the set as demosaiced by dcraw with the Imatest default option string:

And here is that same image demosaiced by Lightroom with default settings:

The aggressive Lr default sharpening is evident. Here’s what happens when you turn Lr’s sharpening to zero:

The edge isn’t quite as pristine as with dcraw, but it’s not bad.

Now we’ll look at what we get with three different ways to flatten the four-shot stack.

First, Imaging Edge:

That’s pretty yucky. It makes Lr’s default sharpening look restrained. Note the MTF at Nyquist: 0.872!

Raw Therapee:

That looks great.

And finally, SonyPixelShift2DNG working right on the ARW files, not the ARQ file like Raw Therapee.

That also looks fine.

It’s much better to add sharpening to taste in image processing than to try to undo baked-in sharpening.

 

a7RIII

← D850 shadow noise — ISOs 320 & 400, 4 stop push D850 exposure strategy — manual settings →

Comments

  1. Frank says

    September 21, 2018 at 4:38 am

    A7RIII Pixel Shift – I can’t see benefit
    Why am I not seeing any difference between a regular Raw file and Pixel Shift (combination of 4 files)which is supposed to have more detail? Here is my workflow:
    1. camera on very sturdy tripod, 55m/1.8, aperture f7.1 to avoid diffraction. 100 iso.
    2 Using ir remote
    3. shoot a plain raw file (uncompressed) and follow that with the Pixel shift version
    4. process the 4 files in SonyPixelShift2DNG (much simpler & quicker than Sony’s app) and open the resulting .dng and the .arw file in ACR (adobe camera raw)
    4. Viewed at 100% on a 27in iMac retina, apply same sharpening and corrections to match the two
    They look about the same. Not much difference.

    Then process the same 4 files with Sony’s imaging edge>Viewer and they look much better even though I select convert not adjust and convert. And I just looked at the Edit component, even though I didn’t use it, to be sure that there is 0 sharpening

    Maybe I’m overlooking something obvious?
    I bought the A7R3 for this feature but I’m not seeing the benefit

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 21, 2018 at 6:33 am

      Have you tried it with a Siemens Star?

      https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-pixel-shift/

      IMO, the main benefits relate to reduced aliasing, not to sharper images.

      Reply
  2. Cody says

    April 26, 2019 at 2:31 pm

    Strange, I’m experiencing the same thing as Frank. I can only see the difference in Sony’s Viewer, not in LR. I’ve saved to ARQ using Sony’s software as well as to DNG using SonyPixelShift2DNG.

    The difference I’m seeing in Sony’s Viewer is pretty dramatic.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 26, 2019 at 2:33 pm

      Have you tried it with a Siemens Star?

      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

  • 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
  • Ivo de Man 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.