• 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 a7S dark-field images — ISO 100

Sony a7S dark-field images — ISO 100

October 29, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

In the previous post, I showed plots of data derived from a series of Sony a7S images of the back of a lens cap at various ISO settings. Now I’d like to show some of the filtered images themselves. Since there are 540 images represented in the plots (10 ISOs, 18 kernel sizes, and 3 kernel shapes), I’ll have to be selective. All the images you’ll see in this post have been scaled into the range [0,1],  have had a gamma curve of 2.2 applied (imageGamma = imageLinear^0.45), been res’d down to 640×480, and JPEG’d.

First, the ISO 100 unfiltered image:

a7SISO100-1

What looked pretty awful on the graph doesn’t look bad at all in the flesh.

Here is the ISO 100 image with an 11×1, 1×11, and 11×11 averaging kernel applied:

11 pixel horizontal averaging kernel
11 pixel horizontal averaging kernel
11 pixel vertical averaging kernel
11 pixel vertical averaging kernel
11 pixel square averaging kernel
11 pixel square averaging kernel

Both horizontal and vertical low-frequency variations are visible.

Let’s make the kernel bigger and see what we can see:

107 pixel horixontal averaging kernel
107 pixel horixontal averaging kernel
107 pixel vertical averaging kernel
107 pixel vertical averaging kernel
107 pixel square averaging kernel
107 pixel square averaging kernel

Now let’s look with a really big set of kernels, like those that produced the rise in standard deviations shown in the previous post.

871 pixel horizontal averaging kernel
871 pixel horizontal averaging kernel
871 pixel vertical averaging kernel
871 pixel vertical averaging kernel
871 pixel square averaging kernel
871 pixel square averaging kernel

It’s unusual in modern Sony sensor designs that the vertically-oriented read noise features are visibly more objectionable than the horizontal ones, but we see it here.

The Last Word

← Sony a7S read noise analysis Sony a7S dark-field images — ISO 3200 →

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Your email address will not be published.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 How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.