Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: RAW Digger - Sony a7R IV RAW file - anyone checked the actual number color bits?  (Read 1087 times)

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com

Jim,

Just read the link - decent study BUT I must say that I see a difference in:
1.  Ever so slight of an "apparent" sharpness increase with the 16 bit over the 14 bit.  Could be what the little bit extra of data provides in each colors ramp.
2.  Again, to my eye I see a slight "glow" to the 16 bit file that the 14 does not.  This is similar to what I would see on occasion back decades ago when I was working in the development of the Eikonic camera (which Kodak killed in hopes of stalling the digital photography transition.) - we finally attributed it to the ever so slight current changes coming out of the wall. 

Jack
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2292
    • The Last Word

Jim,

Just read the link - decent study BUT I must say that I see a difference in:
1.  Ever so slight of an "apparent" sharpness increase with the 16 bit over the 14 bit.  Could be what the little bit extra of data provides in each colors ramp.
2.  Again, to my eye I see a slight "glow" to the 16 bit file that the 14 does not.  This is similar to what I would see on occasion back decades ago when I was working in the development of the Eikonic camera (which Kodak killed in hopes of stalling the digital photography transition.) - we finally attributed it to the ever so slight current changes coming out of the wall. 

Jack

The reason that I post pictures in tests like this is to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
    • http://www.shadowsdancing.com

Come on now, do you see what I am describing - very slight but there in my view.

To my eye, like the slight difference in "warmth" between a Sony a7R III and the Hassie 4D WiFi 50MP I had.
Logged
Jack

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2292
    • The Last Word

Come on now, do you see what I am describing - very slight but there in my view.

To my eye, like the slight difference in "warmth" between a Sony a7R III and the Hassie 4D WiFi 50MP I had.

The long pole in the tent is that neither push is usable without extensive post-production because of the PDAF banding, and whatever differences there are due to precision remain unimportant because of that.

Jim

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6638
    • My gallery on Instagram

The long pole in the tent is that neither push is usable without extensive post-production because of the PDAF banding, and whatever differences there are due to precision remain unimportant because of that.

Jim

Some people might say this is irrelevant because the non-pdaf pixels are what gets measured so the camera meets its specs :)

Others might say that what counts is the practical ability of the camera which appears as you say to be severley constrained by the PDAF banding; interestingly, if the firmware were to fix the banding we would then need some other measuring procedure to detect and quantify the quality of this information synthesis :)

If I were cynical I would say that the messy PDAF pixels are there because someone used existing software to declare the design met  its specs.
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2292
    • The Last Word

Some people might say this is irrelevant because the non-pdaf pixels are what gets measured so the camera meets its specs :)

Others might say that what counts is the practical ability of the camera which appears as you say to be severley constrained by the PDAF banding; interestingly, if the firmware were to fix the banding we would then need some other measuring procedure to detect and quantify the quality of this information synthesis :)

If I were cynical I would say that the messy PDAF pixels are there because someone used existing software to declare the design met  its specs.

I think the banding is there because the firmware is trying to correct for PDAF striping. Look at the a7RIII: striping, but no banding. I think that banding is a self-inflicted injury.

Jim

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8561

I think the banding is there because the firmware is trying to correct for PDAF striping. Look at the a7RIII: striping, but no banding. I think that banding is a self-inflicted injury.

Not that it would affect the Raw data itself (assuming it's a firmware issue), but if the PDAF 'adjustment' is consistent, the Capture One's LCC correction functionality should allow much cleaner Conversions which can be pushed further without (many of) the visually striking artifacts.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up