• 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 / GFX 100 / GFX 100 PDAF banding is fixed

GFX 100 PDAF banding is fixed

March 18, 2021 JimK 9 Comments

When I tested the GFX 100, I found an effect called PDAF banding, in which Fuji, in a misguided attempt to mitigate PDAF striping — caused by reflections from mettalic bits in on-sensor PDAF pixels — created a far worse problem: dark bands in boosted deep shadows.

When I tested the GFX 100s for PDAF banding, it was nowhere to be found. Hallelujah! Then I started to read that Fuji had fixed the GFX 100 PDAF banding in a firmware release. I upgraded the camera to today’s latest-and-greatest FW 3.1, and made exposures of a 6-stop underexposed scene under the following conditions:

  • ES
  • ISO 100
  • Manual focusing
  • Manual exposure
  • 30 mm f/3.5 lens
  • f/5.6
  • C1 head
  • RRS carbon fiber legs
  • 14 and 16-bit precision
  • Developed in Lr 10.2
  • +5 stop Exposure boost
  • 100% shadow boost
  • White balanced in 14-bit, settings copied to 16-bit

The results:

GFX 100, 14 bit precision

 

GFX 100, 16-bit precision

No PDAF banding!

But the raw black points of the two images appear to be different. I white-balanced each individually to the grey spine on the left, above the I.

GFX 100, 14 bit precision, WB to grey book

 

GFX 100, 16-bit precision, WB to gray book

 

The 14-bit shadows are bluish, and the 16-bit ones are closer to what’s desired.

I think that 16-bit precision on the GFX 100 is no longer just for specmanship. In extreme circumstances, it is worth turning on.

 

 

GFX 100

← GFX 100S 16-bit dark-field histograms Fuji 80 mm f/1.7 on GFX 100S, Siemens star analysis →

Comments

  1. Barry Goyette says

    March 18, 2021 at 4:57 pm

    Curious, Jim. My GFX100 has several significant bands at the bottom of the frame. while the rest of the frame looks mostly like yours… are you seeing anything like that near the bottom of the frame?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 18, 2021 at 5:33 pm

      I’ll check.

      Reply
    • Rico Pfirstinger says

      March 20, 2021 at 2:32 am

      Try FW 3.01 for an undocumented horizontal lines fix.

      Reply
      • Christopher LaFleur says

        March 21, 2021 at 2:44 am

        PDAF banding may have been fixed for this use case, but may I suggest a test also outdoors of landscapes including sky and clouds? I tested this on my 100s and found that the PDAF striping was improved over the 100 but still visible with fairly typical (Silver Fx) conversions for black and white. I’m hoping either my methodology is flawed or there’s an approach to processing which mitigates this.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          March 21, 2021 at 6:28 am

          The effect that you can see in blue skies is different than what I’m calling PDAF banding. I’m not clear on the cause of that effect, and have no reason to believe that it is caused by the firmware.

          Reply
          • Joe Freeman says

            July 5, 2021 at 9:24 am

            Do you have any insight into the cause of the lines in skies yet?
            For what it’s worth, I’m just getting back from a trip to some dunes under an overcast sky where I was exposing to the far right (no clipping though) and now when pulling back exposure in post I’m noticing them.
            They’re completely unacceptable. My D850, exposed identically, doesn’t exhibit this effect.

            Reply
            • Joe Freeman says

              July 5, 2021 at 9:31 am

              I was using a 100s at iso 100 with electronic shutter for some and electronic first curtain for others

              Reply
            • JimK says

              July 5, 2021 at 9:34 am

              I’ve not seen the effect. I haven’t looked hard for it, though.

              Reply
    • Dimitri says

      January 6, 2024 at 1:56 pm

      Hi! I have GFX 100 and I too have the bands/stripes PDAF at the bottom (camera held horizontally) and if I hold vertically these bands will be at the far right near the border of the sensor. It’s crazy , we are in 2024 , 5 years later and PDAF banding wasn’t fixed !!!

      It happens when I underexpose and shoot shadowy area at the bottom of the sensor if camera is held horizontally , or at the right side near sensor border if holding verticaly. These bandings are more severe if I use CH ( around 12+ with equal distance between then , like fine lines).

      However these lines disappear when I use ES. Only ES removes them . Why? stripes/lines appear with MS, EF-F , EF, M-E.

      Could be it a failing shutter ? Firmware 5.10.

      I posted here : https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67428648

      But no one helped. Contacted FUJI they say send camera but I refuse (repair sometimes is worse ) so I contacted Fuji Japan. It’s crazy that Fuji abandoned Gfx 100 despite this camera being a flagship. Even GFX 100S has newer updates right now.

      Could anyone confirm if those are PDAF banding ? Or what are those ? I see the very first comment made by Barry Goyette and he described my exact situation.

      Thanks !

      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.