• 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 100S / GFX 100S shadow performance with 14 and 16 bit precision

GFX 100S shadow performance with 14 and 16 bit precision

March 15, 2021 JimK 15 Comments

This is the second in a series of posts about the Fujifilm GFX 100S. If you look on the right side of this page, scroll down to the Categories section, and select GFX 100S from the dropdown list, you can see all the reviews.

When I tested the GFX 100, I found the 16-bit mode to be useless, because the ugly PDAF banding that the camera’s firmware gratuitously generated rendered any improvement inconsequential. There have been rumors that the GFX 100S is free of this malady. Ever hopeful, I made checking this one of the first things I did with the camera.

I mounted a 30 mm f/3.5 lens, put the camera on a set of RRS carbon-fiber legs with an Arca Swiss C1 and a generic RRS adapter. I focused on my ever-cooperative bookcase. I set the camera to ISO 100 and electronic shutter. I underexposed by 6 stops, and made images using losslessly compressed 14 and 16 bit precision. Then I converted the RAF files to DNG with Adobe DNG Converter 13.2, since my Lightroom Classic hasn’t updated to the ACR 13.2 version. I pushed exposure by 5 stops, and raised the shadows to +100.

Here’s the full image:

Here’s a slightly enlarged version of a 601×465 crop of the a dark portion of the image.

14-bit precision

 

16-bit precision

Good news! There appears to be virtually no PDAF banding, and not much banding of any description. However, the 16-bit version doesn’t appear significantly better.

Here’s a same-sized crop of a region with more color:

14-bit precision

 

16-bit precision

I guess I can convince myself that the 16-bit version is a bit better, but not by enough to make a material difference in normal photography. The 14-bit version is greener in the blacks. Probably due to small differences in the black point of the files. Green shadows indicates too high a black point.

 

GFX 100S

← Fujifilm GFX 100S Review GFX 100S dark-field histograms →

Comments

  1. Kathryn Rohr says

    March 15, 2021 at 7:00 pm

    Having no particular expertise in this area, but after recent review of Leica Q2 vs Leica Q2 monochrome by “mathphotogapher” on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLPG1bvfZ6o) …. how much of the “color noise” in the above pictures is attributable to the demosaicing algorithm? I realize that is not the point of your 14 vs 16 bit analysis, but if the demosaicing is contributing to the color noise might it be hiding the benefit of the extra 2 bits?Recovery of a six stop underexposed image is still quite impressive.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 15, 2021 at 8:32 pm

      What demosaicing algorithm do you want me to use?

      Reply
      • Kathryn Rohr says

        March 17, 2021 at 6:24 am

        My apology that I was unclear. The Q2 vs Q2 monochrome demonstrates that the addition of the chrominance sensitive elements adds noise that is not present when the sensor is sensitive to luminance only (probably because of the noncontinuous sampling of the chrominance pigments in the frequency domain (i.e. the lower sensitivity in the regions between the peak sensitivities of each pigment)). Therefore “color” noise is introduced which cannot be completely removed regardless of how you interpolate the color information produced by the Bayer filter. I was therefore suggesting that the “color” noise inherent in the Bayer filter cannot be improved by a more precise sample (2 more bits). In other words, a more precise measure of an inaccurate sample doesn’t make it more accurate or increase the SNR in the frequency domain. Again, my apologies.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          March 17, 2021 at 9:04 am

          It is true that Bayer sensors, when demosaiced, are subject to chroma noise. However, it is not true that this is because of inferior color science. Even if the Bayer color filter array were selected to produce a camera that met the Luther-Ives conditions, which is perfect from a color science point of view, there would still be chroma noise. That’s because you have sensor pixels that are independently subject to noise combining to determine chrominance. That’s just the way a Bayer CFA works.

          It is true, but somewhat pointless, to note that mono sensors aren’t subject to chroma noise. Mono sensors don’t allow the determination of chroma at all, so they can’t screw it up.

          Chroma noise is not the result of an error in the construction of the demosaicing algorithm. If you had a monochrome sensor and used multiple exposures with an RGB filter wheel to create an RGB capture, you’d still have chroma noise.

          Reply
      • Kathryn Rohr says

        March 17, 2021 at 7:04 am

        In essence, I believe your analysis above suggests our images/cameras will be improved more by spending R&D money on improving the color science of the Bayer filter array, than just giving us more bits.

        Reply
  2. Clarence says

    March 16, 2021 at 5:01 pm

    Does this apply to the GFX100?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 16, 2021 at 8:29 pm

      It didn’t. If you follow the link in the post you can see how the GFX 100 performed. But there is a rumor that the GFX 100 PDAF banding was recently fixed in a firmware update. I will be checking.

      Reply
      • Clarence says

        March 17, 2021 at 4:28 am

        Ahhh I see. I really enjoyed your detailed explanation and testing method. Look forward to the update 🙂

        Reply
  3. Vladimir says

    April 1, 2021 at 1:36 am

    Jim,
    I think real benefit of 16 bit RAW mode could be fully utilized using multiple exposures method. Unfortunately unlike the Canon 1DX line of caneras which can do that internally producing final RAW file , with GFX it is only possible using continious burst shooting (preferably high speed) and then stacking resulting images in Photoshop or Affinity Photo. GFX multiple exposue mode is only for creating comosite images so far, may be they change it in future,. So burst mode is workaround to do this.
    As result it is possible to create final image fully utilizing 16 bits, significanly reducing noise in dark shadows (two LSBs will be fully utilized) so it is possible to get full 16 stops DR.
    Regards, Vladimir

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 1, 2021 at 5:54 am

      If you’re going to average, say 16 images and represent the result using uint16, I don’t think it makes any difference whether you start with 14 or 16 bit precision. You should do the intermediate calculations in uint32, int32, or floating point, though.

      Reply
      • Lars V says

        April 1, 2021 at 5:10 pm

        Jim, I’m guessing here that it won’t matter if the original capture is in 14 or 16 bits if there is little or no relevant data beyond 14 bits (as you tests to some degree suggest). Calculation should of course be performed in a higher precision space.

        Reply
  4. Daniel says

    December 11, 2021 at 10:54 am

    Why electronic shutter for a test like this? It generally has lower dynamic range which is something 16 bit is more capable of storing.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 11, 2021 at 10:58 am

      ES does not have lower DR on the GFX 100x cameras.

      Reply
      • Daniel says

        December 11, 2021 at 4:12 pm

        Sounds suspicious but I trust you did the work. My experience is with previous sensors. Of course it has been getting better but if it is there now, great.

        Reply
    • JimK says

      December 11, 2021 at 11:00 am

      https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/gfx100-edr/

      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.