• 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 / Can you see the Sony raw compression artifacts?

Can you see the Sony raw compression artifacts?

February 17, 2014 JimK 1 Comment

In the previous few days’ posts, I’ve established that:

  • The Sony raw compression algorithm generates artifacts that can be made visible by subtracting an uncompressed image chosen to stress the algorithm from one that has been compressed and decompressed and subjecting the result to amplification by a factor of 20 or 30.
  • If the delta modulation component of the algorithm, which changes the data from 11 bits/pixel to, on average, 8 bits/pixel, is omitted, the errors are substantially smaller.
  • The photon noise from the camera, even with the ISO set to 100, can eliminate virtually all patterning from the difference image with the delta modulation component omitted, but not from the difference image using the entire algorithm.

This is all very well, but it is not illustrative of actual camera usage. In the real world, the uncompressed image is not available. What the user of the a7 and a7R cares about is, after likely editing, are the artifacts of compressed/decompressed (companded) image visible.

I set out to answer that question, using my stress image. I chose some extreme editing, in the form of a Photoshop curve:

curve for sony compand w noise

Here’s what happens when you subject a companded image with no noise to those curves:

sony compand w noise ISO 100 and curve

 

Want a real close look?

sony compression up clase

Note that, in this case, the artifacts don’t look like the bar codes that have been reported elsewhere. I think that’s because the gradient that I used in the test image is two-dimensional. Of course, you’d never see an image like this in a real photograph, because this one has no photon noise.

Considering the extreme nature of the curve I used, I think that the possibility of visible artifacts in a7 and a7R images due to Sony’s raw compression is remote, but not nonexistent. I don’t plan on worrying about it myself. In my mind it’s nowhere near as likely to damage images in an objectionable way as the a7R shutter shock.

The Last Word

← Speculating on Sony’s raw compression Testing the Sony a7, part 1 →

Comments

  1. Iliah Borg says

    February 17, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    In current RawDigger version, in Preferences, Data Processing, Sony ARW2 processing options, Delta relative to zero will show the regions where artifacts are to be expected.

    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.