• 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 / Sony a6300 — read noise modeling

Sony a6300 — read noise modeling

March 15, 2016 JimK 4 Comments

This is part of a long series of posts about the Sony a6300. The series starts here.

Warning. This is going to be a nerdy post, even by the standards of this blog. If digital camera design and computer simulation is of no interest to you, step away from the computer; there’s nothing to see here. Seriously, go find something else to read. Come back tomorrow.

OK, who’s still here? Jack, I knew I could count on you. Here we go.

I took some sample images with the a6300 for Bill Claff, using his protocol. He crunched them and got back to me with the full well capacity (FWC): 45000 electrons. With that and my read noise measurements from earlier, I was ready to try to model the read noise of the camera.

Why do you need FWC to model read noise? You don’t, really, but to get the units to what make sense to most people looking at the model, you want to be able to refer to pre ADC read noise in units of electrons. In order to do that from the measurements that I have, you need the gain in electrons per count, of all the amplification before the ADC. That gain is fullscale/FWC, or, for the a6300, 0.361. It doesn’t have to be very accurate, as it just scales the two model parameters that are measured in electrons.

The parameters of my model are:

pixelNoiseElectrons, the noise in the signal to the amplifier with the conversion gain set to the low value. Measured in e-, or electrons.

preAmpNoiseElectrons, the input-referred noise of the gain stages after the conversion gain switching apparatus. Measured in e-. This is kind of a weird parameter, because measuring it in electrons directly is only appropriate up to the ISO where the conversion gain changes. After that, if you want to be precise, to get to electrons you have to divide by the conversionGainMultiplier (see below).

postAmpNoiseCounts, the noise of the ADC and the post-amp noise of the amplifier. Measured in ADC counts, input-referred LSBs, or DN.

conversionGainMultiplier, the gain realized by changing the capacitance associated with the sensor pixel.  A unitless number.

There is reason to believe that, since the change in conversion gain first takes effect at ISO 400, and the base ISO is 100, that the conversionGainMultiplier is 4.

I ran a Nelder-Mead simplex search fixing the conversionGainMultiplier at that number, and using sum of squared error of log differences as the function to me minimized. I limited the top ISO under consideration  to 3200:

mm simplex

The vertical axis is read noise measured in counts, or LSBs, or (ugh) DNs. Measured data is in blue, and modeled data is in orange. The fit is pretty good up to 3200, but the camera produces better than expected read noise above there. This is below ISO 12800 where I caught the camera doing digital low pass filtering. I think that Sony is cooking the data, but I don’t know how.

Assuming a conversionGainMultiplier of 4 means that the modeled point at ISO 400 is low.

Searching instead with the genetic algorithm, which is not as good at finding the local minimum, but is more tolerant of polymodality than Nelder-Mead simplex, we get this:

mm ga

The conversionGainMultiplier for that run turned out to be 3.63. That’s probably closer to right for my camera. The absolute error turned out to be slightly higher than the simplex run with conversionGainMultiplier = 4.  I started another simplex run where the genetic optimization run above ended did a lttle better, and got these values for the model:

opt values

It’s pretty clear that there’s Aptina technology doing the magic with the read noise at ISO 400 and just above. I’t clear that theree’s digital filtering at ISO 12800 and above. What’s not clear is what’s going on just below ISO 10000.

If you want to see just how must the Sony trickery is doing at high ISOs, take a look at what happens with I plot the modeled vs measured all the way up to ISO 50K:

mm final all iso

 

 

 

The Last Word

← Sony a6300 — silent shutter speed Sony a6300 — PRNU →

Comments

  1. dasar says

    March 16, 2016 at 3:10 am

    so what ?
    Please at least compare the figures with something else (NEX-6, A6000, …).
    Thank you

    Reply
    • Jim says

      March 16, 2016 at 6:31 am

      I warned you, but you kept on reading, didn’t you? Neither the NEX-6 nor the a6000 change conversion gain as a function of ISO, so they fit the standard model, and don’t need all this sleuthing.

      The take home for the non-technical is that the conversion gain switching works great and lets the a6300 punch above its weight at ISO 400 to about 6400. Above that, the departures from modeled behavior indicate raw cooking.

      Jim

      Reply
      • dasar says

        March 17, 2016 at 4:26 am

        clear.
        thanks

        Reply
      • Jack Hogan says

        March 24, 2016 at 1:34 am

        I am thinking aloud and giving Sony the benefit of the doubt: how could the pixel be slightly reconfigured at ISO6400 to show that small improvement?

        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.