• 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 / The Last Word / Camera resolution and 4K viewing — a7S, a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV, downsampled

Camera resolution and 4K viewing — a7S, a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV, downsampled

October 19, 2019 JimK 9 Comments

This is the eighth in a series of posts on the effect of camera resolution on the quality of downsampled images. The series starts here.

In the previous post, I looked at images from four cameras:

  • a7S, 12 MP
  • a7III, 24 MP
  • a7RIII, 42 MP
  • a7RIV, 61 MP

I tested them all with the Sony/Zeiss 35 mm f/1.4 Distagon FE. Here are the other particulars:

  • EFCS
  • f/4
  • A exposure mode, -1 EV exposure compensation
  • About 1/6 second, determined by camera
  • ISO 100
  • AF-S
  • Flexible spot
  • Focus priority
  • Medium spot size, on the Siemens Star
  • Three shots with each setup, with the best picked for this presentation
  • Developed in Lightroom, PV 5
  • Adobe Color profile
  • White balanced to third gray patch from left on Macbeth chart
  • Sharpening set to: amount 30, radius 1, detail 0

Using QImage Fusion, I downsampled all the images to 3240×2160 pixels, which is as large as they can be and still fit on a 4K (3840×2160) display without cropping.

I will show you crops from those images, magnified to a bit less than 200%. Be sure to look at these with your browser set to 100% magnification, or else you’ll be looking at the browser’s resampling in addition to what I’ve done. Better yet, download the files and put them into a Photoshop layer stack.

a7RIV

 

a7RIII

 

a7III

 

a7S

Here’s my analysis:

  1. The Siemens star shows the differences most clearly. As the resolutions go up, the false color decreases, and the star is resolved nearer the center.
  2. For the text, that is also true, but the resolution differences are much more subtle. Except for one paragraph with a lot of false color in the a7III shot, the false color is about the same as the a7RIV. So is sharpness. The a7S shows a lot of false color, and it is not limited to just one paragraph.
  3. There are three checkerboard patterns of varying fineness to the right of the Macbeth color checker. There is negligible false color in those, even with the a7S. At this resolution, none of the cameras can resolve the checkerboard immediately adjacent to the Macbeth chart, which is the finest. All of the cameras resolve the checkerboard on the right of the set, which is the coarsest, and it looks about as sharp in all four images.
  4. The focusing target between the checkerboards is slightly more poorly resolved with the a7S, but the other three cameras do about the same job with it.
  5. The rest of the image look the same with all the cameras, except for color differences due to a combination of the camera’s CFA spectra and the Adobe Color profiles for each camera.

 

 

The Last Word

← Camera resolution and 4K viewing — a7S, a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV Camera resolution and 4K viewing — summary →

Comments

  1. Kaz says

    October 23, 2019 at 7:31 am

    The A7III shot looks the same as the A7RIII one?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 23, 2019 at 7:48 am

      Fixed now. thanks for the heads-up.

      Reply
    • Claes N says

      October 23, 2019 at 7:56 am

      Because it is the same. Look at the file names. The author made a mistake.

      Reply
  2. Robert Enger says

    October 23, 2019 at 8:24 am

    When using a Bayer-pattern sensor camera, shouldn’t we use a sensor with 4x the quantity of single-color photosites (sensels) as the desired finished-product output resolution? Anything less and the image is being interpolated, due to insufficient Red and Blue photosites (impacting chroma resolution).
    (i.e. most of the 8k demos shown at CES used video created using FOUR RED ”8k” cameras in a 2×2 array. Thus, they used 16k of Bayer sensor to create 8k of legitimate (4:4:4) full chroma resolution output.)

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 23, 2019 at 8:26 am

      That is probably a good place to start for a sufficient condition, although it doesn’t deal with aliasing at capture. For most subject matter, it does not appear to be a necessary one.

      Reply
  3. Andy Dodd says

    October 25, 2019 at 8:41 am

    Just for the sake of completeness – are you saving as a linear TIFF on export from LR but prior to feeding to QImage Fusion?

    (I’m not a fan of the use of software that has an interpolation algorithm that is described purely with marketing mumbojumbo and no math…)

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 25, 2019 at 8:44 am

      Just for the sake of completeness – are you saving as a linear TIFF on export from LR but prior to feeding to QImage Fusion?

      No. Gamma is 2.2.

      Reply
  4. Anthony New says

    February 3, 2021 at 2:59 am

    Is the Chroma aliasing on the downsampled A7S images simply due to the fact that the Bayer arrangement halves the Chroma resolution, and in your case reduces it to somewhere near the 4k resolution?
    It would be interesting to see if this disappeared with more extreme downsampling.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      February 3, 2021 at 6:03 am

      The a7S chroma aliasing was present in the original capture.

      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.