Seeing any Posterization issues with A7r ll?

[tashley]

There's no way a poorly calibrated monitor or restricted gamut is going to fix the posterization he is showing. If anything, they would make it worse. I'm not going to assume he's keeping the RAW from folks just to continue getting clicks. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's worried about bandwidth or just can't be bothered. But unless he shares it, I consider his findings to lack credibility.

We'll have to agree to disagree. People with low gamut and or poorly calibrated monitors have no idea what a good file looks like because their low gamut monitors posterize everything anyway. Lloyd is an absolute stickler. He is very, very likely to be right about this.

 

[Jim DE]

I want to see your shots you took after that last post, Guy! Hope a model wasn't involved

 

[tashley]

I've now seen the file and looked at it in both LR and C1 and though it initially looks better in C1 it still looks pretty horrid and is clearly very posterized. I have agreed not to share the file itself. I'm not at my desktop at the moment and so will have to look in more detail tomorrow but there is no doubt in my mind that, while it is certainly a tough subject matter and while this is highly likely to be a very rare problem, it is a problem though it may be that if the shot had been bracketed (not always possible) or had the camera a RAW histogram, then the entire exposure might have shifted to the right and more bits of data been captured in the water.

One factor I can't quantify is the effect of the polariser, used to take shine off the face. Lloyd is not sure how close to 'full on' it was so we don't know how many stops of relative under exposure it caused for the water, but I would expect a pro level camera to handle it.

But he exposed the shot pretty much as I would have done myself, to protect highlights on the face, and so I count this as a real-world kind of thing that could happen to me.

Or you.....

 

[jrp]

It would be good if you could look at the file with just default (including sharpening) settings.

 

[Vivek]

Tim, i would love to see an example where it happens to you. i am willing to wait.

PS: ihave all sorts of monitors tolook at the images.

 

[slickster]

I've now seen the file and looked at it in both LR and C1 and though it initially looks better in C1 it still looks pretty horrid and is clearly very posterized. I have agreed not to share the file itself. I'm not at my desktop at the moment and so will have to look in more detail tomorrow but there is no doubt in my mind that, while it is certainly a tough subject matter and while this is highly likely to be a very rare problem, it is a problem though it may be that if the shot had been bracketed (not always possible) or had the camera a RAW histogram, then the entire exposure might have shifted to the right and more bits of data been captured in the water.

One factor I can't quantify is the effect of the polariser, used to take shine off the face. Lloyd is not sure how close to 'full on' it was so we don't know how many stops of relative under exposure it caused for the water, but I would expect a pro level camera to handle it.

But he exposed the shot pretty much as I would have done myself, to protect highlights on the face, and so I count this as a real-world kind of thing that could happen to me.

Or you.....

Hi Tim

Are you saying that you downloaded the raw file and processed it yourself with both lr and c1?

Cheers, Monty

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I want to see your shots you took after that last post, Guy! Hope a model wasn't involved

Hummingbirds. Okay AF was a nightmare . Lol
Well the dang things are about a 1.5 inch big. I got them though.


Just having a little fun earlier but it's always nice to know I am one stupid *** 40 year photography veteran that buys **** cameras. I'm really that stupid. I'm serious I'm going to crave 8 into that S than I won't feel so stupid anymore

I said 5 things within the first two days. All are true and no one listened.

Better DR 1/2 stop
Noise 2 stop advantage
Film like looking files , much smoother in look.
Much better AF
Absolutely buries he A7r

One more C1 is much better on this camera. Actually extremely good. And yet I said that every issue that has come up has been outside C1. Folks Adobe screwed up the A7RII I'm convinced by it.

 

[Amin]

Iliah Borg has also had a look at Lloyd's file and said the following:


"The raw data is posterized OK (partially because the exposure could be 1 stop higher), but also a lot of damage is done in conversion from ProPhoto RGB to output space... It is not a problem with the new camera, it is the result of several things, not in the least that all the cameras from whatever maker, not just SONY, lack proper exposure feedback, and that straightforward colour management is prone to issues. And of course SONY may want to look into revising their output raw format."


When I asked him if a similar problem could be seen with D810 files subjected to the same color management issues, he replied "Yes, that can cause posterization on any camera (actually, it is not posterization, it is clipping red channel values to zero)."

I asked him if it was purely a color management issue, he said "No, it is a mix of three things, exposure, raw format, and colour management; with colour management adding the most to the perceived damage."


mdcromer asked, "So he did a RAW conversion into ProPhoto, and then converted color space again, presumably to sRGB?"

Iliah responded, "Adobe RGB, if I remember correctly. At least converting to Adobe RGB shows exact same issues, while in ProPhoto red channel is much smoother and cleaner"


When I thanked him, he added this, which I found also very interesting:

"You are welcome. What I do is I watch not just overall exposure, but per channel exposure. If in doubt, bracket. If high contrast daylight scene, I use a CC40M magenta filter, that helps to bring blue and red channels in balance with green channel.

With a microscope invented, our view of what clean water is changed dramatically. Same with modern low noise high resolution cameras and sharp lenses - we can now see quite a lot of imperfections we missed before. I can hardly see it as something unexpected. Add a little noise, and that clipping is gone."


Subsequently, Iliah was asked, "The getdpi thread now mentions that Lloyd used a polarizer on this photo. Can you describe if/how that might affect the troubled tonal regions of the image?"

Iliah: "Polarizer on blue water and blue sky may cause very deep blues, exceeding Adobe RGB gamut."


Source: A7RII posterization?: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


For those who aren't familiar with Iliah, this exchange further down in the thread may be of interest: Re: Iliah: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[fmueller]

One factor I can't quantify is the effect of the polariser, used to take shine off the face. Lloyd is not sure how close to 'full on' it was so we don't know how many stops of relative under exposure it caused for the water, but I would expect a pro level camera to handle it.

Are you kidding me? And the you I'm referring to is not you but Lloyd Chambers...

All this high drama over posterization and we now find out about a significant variable directly related to the area of glare from the lake which produced the posterization??

 

[Amin]

All this high drama over posterization and we now find out about a significant variable directly related to the area of glare from the lake which produced the posterization??

Yes, odd that Lloyd left that out, but the main issue here seems to be color management.

 

[Vivek]

This is supposed to be an "expert" ?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

this is supposed to be an "expert" ?

rotflmao.

 

[slickster]

Man oh man, this whole thing is one huge overblown misrepresentation perpetrated by one who has probably profited handsomely by "yelling Fire in the theater". My mom would have said he ought to be ashamed of himself, posing all this time as such an expert yet wouldn't acknowledge it was a color manage type problem that could have affected any camera maker. I bet he knew but didn't care that it would be taken as a slam at Sony.

If I was Sony I would be royally pissed.

Monty :angry:

 

[spence]

Okay then! Let's get back to discussing more serious problems, including unnecessary drops to 12-bit precision, the lack of a lossless RAW option, overheating, and the overabundance of thermal noise in long exposures.

Poor/no AF with older Canon lenses, I can't hold Sony accountable for. I don't think they made any solid promises in that regard, and it's all, AFAIAC, a bonus

But as to the quality of the RAW file itself--why shouldn't we expect at least what the D810 can offer, and maybe a little bit more? Why do we have to make all these compromises with a world class sensor in the camera, at $3200, due, it would seem, primarily to Sony's intransigence?

I kid. But not really.

 

[Slingers]

This non issue makes me appreciate some of the brilliant people involved in the Sony Internet community that can dispel the myths. Like Iliah Borg, Horshack, Bill Claff, Jim Kasson etc

 

[Amin]

More excerpts:


Question: "Which type of correction would that be to eliminate posterization [during conversion from ProPhoto RGB to output space], outside of maybe adding some noise?"

Iliah: "Selective control over saturation and brightness, first of all. Photoshop allows to select out-of-gamut colours, and then one needs to decide what to do about it."


Question: "The getdpi thread now mentions that Lloyd used a polarizer on this photo. Can you describe if/how that might affect the troubled tonal regions of the image?"

Iliah: "Polarizer on blue water and blue sky may cause very deep blues, exceeding Adobe RGB gamut."

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Amin. I don't think Sony is out of the woods yet. Sony still needs to support 14 bit lossless compression to further improve robustness of their files.

 

[Jim DE]

Spence can a 810 apply 5 axis stabilization to every oem lens mounted? Can a 810 apply stabilization to nearly every lens from every manufacturer with adapters? Does the 810 have silent shutter? Does the 810 have a EVF? Does the 810 have 42.4mp? Does the 810 offer 4k video even as clips? Did not Sony show in the manual that it would drop back to 12bit under certain criteria ( I don't know where we get it is unnessasary because I have never seen a company do anything that wasn't necsessary for some reason)? Did Sony state they were going to offer lossless compression?

The answer to all the above is no. The 810 could be better at one thing and the a7rII better at another. My bet is someone could post or print images from both the 810 and rII and not .02 percent of those viewing them could actually see a difference between them or for that matter most all other high end cameras images. What we are seeing is hair splitting and it would be great IF it had this or that and not actual manufacturing defects associated with the a7rII body specifically or items found outside the design intent normal usage parameters. Just putting these so called issues in perspective and calling them as any manufacturer would call them. If it meets the engineering specs and design intent it is not a product defect. Issues outside this criterial are items that would be viewed as customer product improvements for present or future product engineering consideration. Improvements or upgrades are not viewed as current product defects. Warranty repair information is a products report card for manufacturing defects and issues addressed as priorities. Customer wish items go to product engineering for a through review and cost/effect analysis for future consideration.

I am not against improvements but can't classify these as issues or defects. Maybe the long exposure hot pixel issue might be but that depends on the spec/ supplied LENR software, and what is normal expected results. Which I know none of these...

 

[spence]

Again, I ask:

As to the quality of the RAW file itself--why shouldn't we expect at least what the D810 can offer, and maybe a little bit more? Why do we have to make all these compromises with a world class sensor in the camera, at $3200, due, it would seem, primarily to Sony's intransigence?

"Good enough" is not a winning formula for a $3200 FF 35mm equivalent camera, which is bettered in quality by its VERY OWN, previous generation, lower-MP sensor. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, why?

Why must it be thus?

 

[Jim DE]

Spence you can actually see a difference in web pics or prints from both camera's? I can't ...

If you are waving the Internet red flags and the overblown importance of one type RAW format over another then the differences would have to be blatantly obvious to the observer. To my eyes all the images from today's current levels of digital cameras all look great and I can't pic a 810 image from a a900 or d5s or a6000 or even a 750.

Look I am not against improvements of any kind but to call the lack of a certain feature as a product issue that was never offered for a body implied or stated is just unfair. Would I like lossless compression? Sure why not but I assure you in finished product I will most likely never see the difference. The ridiculous artifact issue if you raise the shadows 5 stops to me is just a absurd and ridiculous example of what Sony's current raw format produces. The day I have to bring shadows up 5 stops to save a pic is the day I will no longer call myself a photographer