• 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 a7RII FW 4.0 star-eating

Sony a7RII FW 4.0 star-eating

June 12, 2017 JimK 28 Comments

I interrupt the a9 experiments to bring you a special report on the new firmware release for the a7RII: 4.0. There have been several rumors floating around in cyber-space:

  • The star-eating at exposures of 4 seconds and longer is fixed.
  • The star eating is not fixed
  • The star-eating is worse.
  • The star-eating is now a function of which raw chanel you  look at.
  • The star-eating is fake news

I loaded the firmware into an a7RII yesterday. I will spare you my usual rant about the terrible Sony firmware updating process, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve made my peace with it. I made a series of dark-field exposures with shutter speeds from 1/1000 to 30 seconds, and added a 40-second bulb exposure. Shutter was set to EFCS, single shot, LENR off. The raw file format was uncompressed. I brought the raw files into RawDigger and looked at the statistics of each raw plane in a central square 400×400 pixels in extent — that’s 200×200 in each raw plane.

I averaged the rms noise and plotted the result:

Except for that little glitch at the transition from 0.8 to 1 second, it looks like FW version 3.30. This is not encouraging. 

I looked at the frequency response of each raw plane at 3.2 seconds:

The red channel looks flat indicating that there is no low-pass star-eating filtering taking place.

The first green channel — the one in the same rows as the red one, also looks fine. The green channel in the rows with the blue pixels looks just like this, so I’m not going to show it to you.

The blue channel has a little bit of low-pass filtering. I didn’t look at this with FW 3.30. I think it is probably the camera’s inteerpolating over the phase-detect pixels that are in the blue channel.

Now, at 4 seconds:

Yes, indeed. fairly heavy low-pas filtering. This looks the same as with FE 3.30.

The first green channel looks similar.

I’lll include the second one because there have been statements about the 4-second-and-up noise varying by channel:

Very similar.

The blue channel looks different. The filtering is slightly stronger and it’s anisotropic. Is this just the same PDAF pixel interpolation, or is there something else going on? In any event, the differences don’t look they are significant.

 

The Last Word

← Worst-case Sony a9 self heating Sony a9 write speed →

Comments

  1. David García Pérez says

    June 12, 2017 at 10:19 am

    Hi Jim,

    You don’t mention it in the article, have you enabled the new feature LENR off in the menus?

    Regards,

    David

    Reply
    • JimK says

      June 12, 2017 at 10:25 am

      LENR was off. That was an option in the old menus, too. I’m not sure what new feature you’re referring to.

      Reply
      • David García Pérez says

        June 12, 2017 at 10:30 am

        Just curious, since Sony mentions in the changelog for FW 4.0: “Improves image quality when Long Exposure NR setting is OFF”

        Reply
        • JimK says

          June 12, 2017 at 10:32 am

          Could that be that kink at 1 second?

          Reply
          • David García Pérez says

            June 12, 2017 at 10:38 am

            Umm… maybe…

            Reply
  2. N/A says

    June 12, 2017 at 10:34 am

    did you see any traces on Fancy Bear in metadata ?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      June 12, 2017 at 11:26 am

      Nope.

      Reply
  3. Mark Shelley says

    June 12, 2017 at 11:28 am

    Hi Jim,

    I was one of those who suggested that Sony has changed the behaviour in the green channel in FW version 4.00. I’m still 100% certain of this. However, it’s most interesting that it doesn’t show up in your frequency plots. I’ll do some further analysis and get back to you – I think there may be an explanation.

    Mark

    Reply
    • JimK says

      June 12, 2017 at 11:39 am

      In which green channel did you see the change?

      Reply
      • Mark Shelley says

        June 12, 2017 at 12:13 pm

        Both – I believe the 2 green channels are now interacting with each other. Previously each green channel was filtered independently.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          June 12, 2017 at 12:43 pm

          So if I looked at the two green channels I’d see a high covariance? I get this matrix between the two green channels:

          2.4991 0.0028
          0.0028 2.4407

          And this correlation matrix:

          1.0000 0.0011
          0.0011 1.0000

          Reply
          • Mark Shelley says

            June 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm

            So it doesn’t look like a high covariance then? To be honest, I don’t know what to expect for the covariance.

            I’ve just run a test of what I believe FW 3.30 and FW 4.00 are doing with the green channel. Interestingly, the power spectrum is more or less identical in each case. In other words, the power spectrum does not appear to be a good discriminator between the old and new algorithm. I’ll write up the results on the DPReview forum.

            Reply
            • Mark Shelley says

              June 12, 2017 at 4:28 pm

              I’ve written up the details of my test here:
              https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59693566

              Regards,

              Mark

              Reply
  4. Mike C says

    June 13, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    Off topic. Jim: Have you noticed any downsides to using the a7rii’s IBIS feature while handheld (other than maybe draining the battery faster, which I don’t care about)? Is there a hit to IQ? Thanks!

    Reply
    • JimK says

      June 13, 2017 at 1:31 pm

      If you’re careful about the way you shoot, it’s a help. Don’t use it at faster than 1/(10*FL). Don’t use it on a tripod. Give the camera time to settle; don’t just stab the release.

      Reply
      • Surlezi says

        June 15, 2017 at 1:42 am

        Hi Jim,
        Thank you for your work and your blog.
        I’m not sure I understand your sentence about IBIS: “Don’t use it at faster than 1/(10*FL).”.
        Do you mean:
        – don’t use speeds SLOWER than 1/(10*Focal Length), handheld and with IBIS, because IBIS is not efficient enough ?
        – switch off IBIS if you take picture faster than 1/(10*Focal Length) ?
        Most people would let IBIS on, even when shooting at 1/8000 s …

        Reply
        • JimK says

          June 15, 2017 at 7:54 am

          How about an example. Let’s say you have a 100mm lens. I’m saying turn off IBIS at shutter speeds above 1/1000 second. You don’t need it there, and why take the chance that it will screw up the shot if you don’t give it time to settle? If turning off IBIS there seems like too much trouble, you can ignore this advice and you’ll nearly always suffer no penalty.

          Reply
          • Less Confuse says

            July 25, 2017 at 10:37 am

            Don’t we refer to 1/10 shutter speed as “above” 1/1000 shutter speed, since 0.1 > 0.001?

            Maybe that is where the other poster’s confusion came from.

            Reply
            • JimK says

              July 25, 2017 at 11:45 am

              That makes a certain kind of sense, but it is not the convention among photographers that I know. 1/1000 is a faster, or higher shutter speed than 1/10. That’s because we’re talking about “speed” and it makes sense for higher speed to mean shorter exposures. If we were talking about “shutter duration” then it would be the other way around.

              Reply
  5. Geoff Sharpe says

    June 19, 2017 at 1:13 am

    Do you know if the star eater issue effects the Sony a99ii camera?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      June 19, 2017 at 7:58 am

      I do not.

      Reply
  6. Barry says

    June 20, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    I would really like to see a comparison using higher ISO to see how much star eating effects is visible. I typically shoot at 12800 for 15 to 20 seconds at f2.2 or 2.8.

    Has anyone looked at the effect with these exposure times & higher ISO settings?

    Reply
  7. Gary says

    July 31, 2017 at 9:19 am

    Please sign the petition to get Sony to fix this https://www.change.org/p/sony-remove-the-star-eater-on-sony-a7s-r-mk-i-ii-and-a9-cameras

    Reply
  8. Michael Flinn says

    February 20, 2018 at 1:53 am

    Which version of RawDigger is required to perform this analysis?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      February 20, 2018 at 7:09 am

      Any version of RawDigger will export the individual raw planes as TIFFs. No version will perform the spatial frequency analyses. For that I wrote Matlab code.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Sony and the star-eater algorithm | John Leathwick says:
    June 12, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    […] from a spectral analysis of images shot with an A7RII updated to f/w version 4.0 – his results confirm the conclusion above, i.e., that Sony have still not addressed the star-eating behaviour […]

    Reply
  2. The Sony a7RIII eats stars says:
    November 20, 2017 at 11:15 am

    […] wrote a report on the spatial filtering in FW 4.0. It’s here. It turns out that the spatial filtering, which is called the “star eater” algorithm […]

    Reply
  3. Star Eater: Astrophotography with the a7s, a7RII, a7SII, a9 and a7RIII – An Open Letter to Sony – Lonely Speck says:
    November 27, 2017 at 11:45 am

    […] the a7RII and 3.00 for the a7SII) do not change the behavior of the cameras in any significant way. Jim Kasson did a great technical analysis of the issue with the latest firmware. So basically, this update was a false alarm. I received help from several of you to come to this […]

    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.