• 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 / a9 / Sony a9 FPN

Sony a9 FPN

May 29, 2017 JimK 1 Comment

This is the seventh in a series of posts on the Sony a9. The series starts here.

In the last post, we looked at the pixel response non-uniformity (PRNU) of the Sony a9, and found that there were some periodic components, which are usually more visually disturbing than random ones. Now I’m going to show you the results of a similar analysis of the dark-field, or read, noise. We’re going to ignore the part that changes from exposure to exposure, and concentrate on the part that is invariant, which is called fixed pattern noise  (FPN). I averaged 32 exposures of the back of the body cap at 1/1000 second at ISO 100 and ISO 640, using the a9’s electronic shutter. Then I performed spectral analyses to look for periodicities. 

Here is a full frame dark field image of the red  raw channel of a ISO 100 exposure that has been histogram equalized to show the noise patterning.

You can see a broad vertical band on lighter pixels on the right side. That will show up as a low-frequency component on the spectral analysis. If  we enlarge a section to 200%, it looks like this:

The most prominent banding is horizontal.

Now we’ll look at the spectrum of that image:

Horizontal structure have vertical frequency components and vice versa. So that horizontal banding we saw shows up as the narrow spikes in the red line. There are periodicities in the other direction, too, but they aren’t as concentrated at particular frequencies, and therefore harder to see.

Here are frequency plots of two more channels at ISO 100:

In the blue channel, the vertical frequency plot is more complicated and the noise is greater in both directions (note the y-ais scale change — the scaling of the top of that axis is chosen programmatically to keep the dc component barely within range, although it’s not readily observable on the plot).

Here are similar plots for ISO 640:

 

 

The camera seems to behave pretty much the same way in its high-conversion gain setting, except that the patterning is diminished in strength. 

I want to emphasize that the absolute noise level is low in the a9, but the periodic nature of the read noise and the PRNU will cause visible noise to be more objectionable that it would be if it were random.

 

 

 

 

a9, The Last Word

← Sony a9 PRNU Sony a9 FWC, RN vs ISO →

Trackbacks

  1. Aga Tomaszek says "A9 autofocus hitrate destroys my D4s" - sonyalpharumors sonyalpharumors says:
    May 30, 2017 at 9:21 am

    […] Jim Kasson analyzed the Noise Behaviour: […]

    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.