• 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 / Sony a7RIII raw spatial processing

Sony a7RIII raw spatial processing

December 17, 2017 JimK 2 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 page.

You’ve had a break from graphs, but it’s over. Not a single qualitative visual in this post. Sorry. 

When I was working on analyzing the “star eater” image filtering of the a7RIII earlier in this series, I made a series of 16 3.2-second dark-field uncompressed exposures at ISO 1000, and another at 4 seconds, which is where the stars start to be munched. I did that with the a7RIII and, for comparison, the a7RII. Today I went back to those images, averaged each of the sets, cropped out 1200×1200 central sections of each raw plane, and looked at the frequency response, hoping that I might see some differences between the way the 4-second exposures are processing with the two cameras. 

Here’s the red channel at 3.2 seconds with the old camera:

And the new one:

These graphs, and all the others you’ll see in this post, have the vertical axis auto-scaled. The upper limit is usually set by the very low-spatial-frequency value and is an indication of the amount of low-frequency pattern noise. The rightmost point on the horizontal axis is half the sampling frequency (fs) which is the Nyquist frequency. The filtering doesn’t appear to be much different, but there is more low-frequency noise in the a7RII image. Right about now, you’re probably wondering about the temperatures of the two cameras when these exposure sequences were made. 28 degrees C for the a7RIII, and 24 degrees for the a7RII.

Now the same channels at 4 seconds exposure:

 

These responses are essentially identical except for higher low-frequency noise in the a7RII shots. The star-eater processing is apparent.

Now the G1 channel, the green channel that is in the same row as the red one:

 

 

Now the a7RII has less low-frequency noise. Otherwise the responses are flat.

 

The a7RIII has slightly more LF noise. 

The G2 channels are similar to the G1 ones, so I’ll spare you the repitition.

 

The blue channel:

 

The a7RIII is missing the spike in the horizontal direction at 1/3 the sampling frequency that I think is caused by smoothing over the PDAF pixels. It is also missing the slightly different slope in the two directions that you see in the a7RII images.

 

Now we see the spike at 1/3 the sampling frequency in both cameras, but it’s more pronounced in the a7RII. The slope anisotropy continues. 

 

What does this all mean for star-eating? Not much, I’m afraid; I don’t think this is a good test to sort out the subtle differences that may exist between the two cameras.

a7RIII

← Sony a7RIII pixel shift real world false colors and dynamic range Sony a7RII star-eater workaround →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    December 17, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    FWIW the zero spatial frequency (DC) resulting from a Fast Fourier Transform is simply the average of all the values in the spatial image.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 18, 2017 at 7:12 am

      Yes. And that number is actually excluded from all the graphs. We are looking at just the ac components.

      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.