Sony a900 ads leaked

[Jorgen Udvang]

David, I hear what you're saying. Problem is that sometimes, resolution is the only thing that counts, and if that is what my clients want, that is what I have to deliver.

The S5 is decided anyway, but I'm on my way out of town again, so it's still on wait

 

[ddk]

David, I hear what you're saying. Problem is that sometimes, resolution is the only thing that counts, and if that is what my clients want, that is what I have to deliver.
(

I understand, I was in that industry for most of my life and am very familiar with the characters in there, the kodak slr/n is really great for that. It has fantastic color and great resolution and you can get them for a song these days.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Are these raws or jpegs

 

[Terry]

What is bothersome on the resized images is the color bleeding. The yellow paintbrush and the red diamond on the labels both "extend beyond their borders"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29256050

From this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29263876

 

[asabet]

I've played a bit now with the Sony RAW files from Imaging Resource. They open with Raw Photo Processor, which is free/donation-supported (Mac only).

The thing about comparing Sony RAW (ARW) to Nikon RAW (NEF) is that we have very limited choices for converting the ARW files (just Raw Therapee for Windows or RPP for Mac since there is nowhere to download Sony's app), whereas we have tons of options for Nikon. Capture NX2 does a remarkable job of eliminating chroma noise during RAW conversion. I don't think anyone is doing justice to the Sony sensor in these preliminary comparisons.

Sony hasn't done themselves any favors by using lousy in-camera high ISO JPEG conversions in this camera.

Here is an Imaging Resource ISO 6400 A900 in-camera JPEG that looks awful. I took the corresponding RAW (ARW) file, processed it using Raw Photo Developer (Mac only), used Noise Ninja (sacrificing much of the detail especially in the red fabrics), and then did a quick levels/curves adjustment to try to roughly match the in-camera JPEG brightness. This is the result. With a RAW processor that I've actually used more than once, I'm sure I could do much better.

 

[Jack]

Amin:

It is amazing to me how similar your processed version of the 6400 shot looks to drum-scanned color negative emulsions, and it doesn't look digital at all...

This could be way cool!

 

[asabet]

Hi Jack,

Can't say that I've ever seen a drum-scanned anything, but I agree that the processed RAW looks pretty natural when viewed from a reasonable distance.

I think we'll be seeing plenty of good high ISO work from the A900. That said, I'm sure the Canon 5D replacement will offer much better JPEG processing than this. If the Canon is 21 megapixels and $3K or less, the A900 will have stiff competition.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Here are some results from someone using Therappe (never heard about it, but it apparently works):

It's Raw Therapee
http://www.rawtherapee.com/

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Are these raws or jpegs

The Sony image was converted from RAW. Sony apparently has a major problem with their in-camera jpeg-converter. Strange, since they do have some experience in this area, more than anyone else probably.

All the debacle around the conversions (and there's a lot going on across the forums), and all the different versions of this particular image, indicates to me that the sensor is actually ok. It's a question of finding a work-flow that optimizes the final results.