the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / a7RIV / PDAF striping in the Sony a7RIV

PDAF striping in the Sony a7RIV

September 23, 2019 JimK 8 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Sony alpha 7 R Mark IV (aka a7RIV). 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 “A7RIV”.

PDAF striping is a type of artifact that appears on some mirrorless cameras with on-sensor phase-detect autofocus (OS PDAF, or, for the duration of this post, just PDAF). It occurs in conjunction with lens flare, is caused by reflections off the PDAF pixels on the camera’s sensor, and manifests itself as horizontal (assuming the camera is in landscape orientation) light stripes. It often is invisible until the files are push a bit in post. I’ve seen it on the Sony a7RIII, a7III, and a9. I think of it as a minor issue. Some manufacturers of PDAF MILCs add firmware to mitigate the PDAF striping. I believe this to be a mistake. Although the striping is controlled, the downside is dark bands on the image in many more situation than there was striping in the first place.

The Sony a7RIV doesn’t appear to have PDAF banding, so I expected it to have PDAF striping. I went looking. This is a not-particularly-stringent test that I run when I’m looking for PDAF striping and some kinds on lens flare. I start out with this scene, which is exposed to the right for the outdoor elements.

Normal Exposure

For this test, I shot the scene with the Zeiss 55 mm f/1.4 Otus on an a7RIV, underesposed from the shot abouve by five stips, and pushed five stops in Exposure in Lightroom. Here’s a crop of the Macbeth chart at 1:1 magnification

 

ISO 100, Mechanical shutter, Five stops underexposed, Five stops pushed in post

There is minimal striping.

I then performed a tougher test:

Normal development

The above is a shot of a Aputure 120d II with a 12-inch parabolic reflector and a shower cap diffuser.  I tortured the image to get this:

Clarity + 100, Contrast + 100, Shadows -15

Then I cropped to 1:1:

There is a bit of striping. It is far less than I saw with the a9 in this test. That is not totally dispositive, since striping tends to be a fugitive phenominom, but I have high hopes.

I took off the shower cap to make the flare worse:

Here are some 1:1 crops of various exposure times — aperture was f/2.8 for all — together with the processing.

Clarity + 100, Contrast + 100, Exposure + 2 Stops

 

 

Clarity + 100, Contrast + 100, Shadows – 37

 

 

Clarity + 100, Contrast + 100

 

 

Clarity + 100, Contrast + 100, Exposure + 1 Stop

 

Good job, Sony!

 

 

a7RIV

← Drive mode vs precision of the Sony a7RIV Pixel shift in the Sony a7RIV →

Comments

  1. Michael Klein says

    September 23, 2019 at 9:41 pm

    Jim, thanks for the effort. Will you also look at whether Sony has finally addressed the Color Polygon issue with the a7R4?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 24, 2019 at 5:54 am

      What’s that?

      Reply
      • Michael Klein says

        September 26, 2019 at 12:21 am

        You can read about it here. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62199570

        Won’t show often but does under certain conditions (and if a RAW is pushed a bit, either because it is underexosed or deliberately exposed to protect highlights. It is caused by a mandatory in-camera correction written to the RAW file. Just wondering if Sony has finally fixed it.

        Reply
        • Michael Klein says

          November 4, 2019 at 10:09 pm

          Did you have a chance to look into this?

          Reply
          • JimK says

            November 5, 2019 at 6:08 am

            I’ve seen it on other Sony cameras. It’s highly lens dependent. Doesn’t happen with dumb adapters. Why don’t you ask Horshack? I’ll try to get to it, but I’ve got a show coming up, and the a9II to test.

            Reply
  2. Holger says

    January 2, 2020 at 8:01 am

    Nice!

    Did you check whether there is an improvement on the a9ii compered to the a9, too?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      January 2, 2020 at 8:07 am

      Sorry, no. It appears the sensor is the same.

      Reply
      • Holger says

        January 2, 2020 at 8:14 am

        Thank you!

        A healthy and happy new year!

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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 Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality
  • JimK on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • Darrel Crilley on Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX, Nikon 70-200/@2.8E, Apo-Sonnar 135 on Z7, revisited

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.