re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops

Started Sep 24, 2012 | Discussions
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
Sep 24, 2012

Considering the problem with the original thread I repost them here.

jpeg 3200 iso
idc raw without sharpening and noise reduction
idc raw 16bit output processed in lr as raw

Looks good. But not really low light (1/400s, f7.1) and low contrast picture.

Sony SLT-A99
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Dustinash
Contributing MemberPosts: 592
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 25, 2012

What do you mean it looks good. It looks like crap. This is not even on par with the d800 at 25600.

There is not just excessive noise in these photos there are major artifacts which distort and corrupt the image. I have noticed the same artifacts in all video I have seen shot on the a99 and yet when I looked at the rx1 video it looked awesome.

I want to get sonys new camera so bad but I fear this is a natural consequence of the SLT. If so I may have to leave the tech and go back to nikon. I know every wedding I shoot I dread because of the a77s woefully inadequate low light capabilities. If this same tragic flaw is being expressed in the full frame - Im out.

I pray that this camera has even 80% of the low light capabilities of the d600 and if so I will buy it. My fear however is that the SLT does more then loses half a stop of light.. I just cant get over how much artifacting there is. For me this ruins the photo/video. I am looking to achieve nice creamy bokeh with 2000$ zeiss glass.. The day I invest in a tech that takes all that fine glass and renders chaotic crap will be the day I hang up my strap and no longer call myself a photographer.

I would give up the awesome auto focus before I give up IQ.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Insulted
Regular MemberPosts: 161
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

This ^

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

With "looks good" I mean much less chroma noise than the a900.

The sony IDC raw convertor is not the best. Raw conversions from Sony raw files are much better with more detail, finer grain and no artefacts wit C1 or Lightroom. The lichtroom version is a processed 16 bit output from the IDC convertor, with some adjustment for the white balance and chroma noise reduction.

The results are saved in jpeg, and posted on the dpreview galleries.

It is only an indication. Better raw files and better raw support is needed to take conclusions.

The sony jpegs are not great, to much smearing and loss of detail.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,409
Like?
Absolutely.
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

Dustinash wrote:

What do you mean it looks good. It looks like crap. This is not even on par with the d800 at 25600 .

There is not just excessive noise in these photos there are major artifacts which distort and corrupt the image. I have noticed the same artifacts in all video I have seen shot on the a99 and yet when I looked at the rx1 video it looked awesome.

I want to get sonys new camera so bad but I fear this is a natural consequence of the SLT.

Absolutely, the SLT design compromises output by at least 3 stops. I'd say closer to 4.

Seems like you'd be better off with those 3 extra stops at Nikon.

/ sarcasm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rtrski
Contributing MemberPosts: 779
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 25, 2012

Personally, I think you cropped the wrong part.

The originals are a pic of some sort of glossy brochure or info card, held with one edge along a glass counter (handheld), with multiple incoming light directions and reflections, right? I can't easily tell what in that texture (in the dark areas) is "noise in the image" vs. the printed pixels, surface smear on the coatings, etc.

I mean, the ISO250 image is clear that there are scratches and even fingerprint oil visible in the printing. And frankly that thumb is flaky enough that I know for a fact I'm not the only one who chews his own cuticles. (I know, ick). That particular region of the image looks kind of smeary to me even on the ISO250. So unless Sony's taken about 10 stop-steps backward in JPG processing...I tend to think its a bit more of the subject...

I guess when I looked at those shots I tended to focus more on the thumb details and on the sharpness of the line at the card (brochure?) and glass reflection interface, carpet fuzz pieces or stray paper fibers or hair (ick) on the brochure paper, etc.

Regardless, thanks for posting.
--
budding (translation: currently incompetent) underwater photographer wannabe
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rtrski

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to rtrski, Sep 25, 2012

Agree,

but the chroma noise is most visible in the darker area's. Chroma noise was the main problem of the A900, together with blotchy noise in de deep shadows. Noise and detail were much better in the midtones and highlights.

However, the texture of the paper and the printing raster increases the impression of noise and artefacts.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to rtrski, Sep 25, 2012

Upper right corner, no sharpening or noise reduction.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kappels
Contributing MemberPosts: 796Gear list
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 25, 2012

I have pre-ordered the A99, but I have to say...your images are not good marketing FOR the camera. The noise is IMHO really bad and the smearing and loss of detail is horrendeous! I really hope that the A99 can do better than that or I will regret my buy.
Stef.
--
http://stefaniekappel.tumblr.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/

 Kappels's gear list:Kappels's gear list
Canon PowerShot G10 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A99 +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JohnBee
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,931
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to Kappels, Sep 25, 2012

Kappels wrote:

I have pre-ordered the A99, but I have to say...your images are not good marketing FOR the camera. The noise is IMHO really bad and the smearing and loss of detail is horrendeous! I really hope that the A99 can do better than that or I will regret my buy.

Don't worry.
It can only work in our favor

If the A99 doesn't sell, then Sony will lower the price and then people like me could buy two of them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VirtualMirage
Senior MemberPosts: 2,232Gear list
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 25, 2012

What were the sizes of your RAW files?
--
Paul

 VirtualMirage's gear list:VirtualMirage's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony a77 II Sony 50mm F1.4 Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to VirtualMirage, Sep 25, 2012

24,256 kb 24,320 kb and 24,384 kb

Strange that there are different sizes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to Kappels, Sep 25, 2012

Smearing and loss of detail is bad in the jpeg's.

But I suspect also bad focusing in the pictures.

Comparing the raw files with some 3200 raw files from a Nikon D700 the a99 chroma noise looks better in de darker area's and there is more luminance noise in the lighter zones. But the a99 pictures are under exposed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: with rawdigger 1600 and 3200
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 25, 2012

Opened with rawdigger. Conversion looks better.

nr off in exif info

3200 iso

1600 iso

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dustinash
Contributing MemberPosts: 592
Like?
Re: Absolutely.
In reply to TrojMacReady, Sep 25, 2012

TrojMacReady wrote:

Dustinash wrote:

What do you mean it looks good. It looks like crap. This is not even on par with the d800 at 25600 .

There is not just excessive noise in these photos there are major artifacts which distort and corrupt the image. I have noticed the same artifacts in all video I have seen shot on the a99 and yet when I looked at the rx1 video it looked awesome.

I want to get sonys new camera so bad but I fear this is a natural consequence of the SLT.

Absolutely, the SLT design compromises output by at least 3 stops. I'd say closer to 4.

Seems like you'd be better off with those 3 extra stops at Nikon.

/ sarcasm.

Do you read or just bleet? baaahhh.. Im a sony sheep... baaaaahhh.

/ disdain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dustinash
Contributing MemberPosts: 592
Like?
Re: Absolutely.
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

End of the day what do you want me to say. It looks bad. Still polluted with chroma and luminescent noise and the video has lots of artifacting.

Here look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlSihpdJpTA

Look past the god awful singing and realize that since they put the camera on video kit this was probably filmed with HDMI out. SO the best quality. Now some of the problems may be due to youtube compression but check out the areas that are out of focus, jagged chaotic artifacts all over. It looks awful to me. Looking at these photos I have my concerns even at the relatively low iso shot here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
remylebeau
Regular MemberPosts: 293Gear list
Like?
Re: Absolutely.
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

First off, check out SAR for actual ISO comparisons Jpeg and RAW from 800-6400+ at Photokina.

Second, how would you know the video is "probably" filmed HDMI out? Especially if the quality is so bad what are you basing that assumption on?

FYI, just because the camera's "feed" is uncompressed does not mean the external recorded is not encoding the video with an intermediate codec like prores.

Dustinash wrote:

End of the day what do you want me to say. It looks bad. Still polluted with chroma and luminescent noise and the video has lots of artifacting.

Here look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlSihpdJpTA

Look past the god awful singing and realize that since they put the camera on video kit this was probably filmed with HDMI out. SO the best quality. Now some of the problems may be due to youtube compression but check out the areas that are out of focus, jagged chaotic artifacts all over. It looks awful to me. Looking at these photos I have my concerns even at the relatively low iso shot here.

 remylebeau's gear list:remylebeau's gear list
Nikon D3 Sony SLT-A99 Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Tokina AT-X 17-35mm f/4 Pro FX +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dustinash
Contributing MemberPosts: 592
Like?
Re: Absolutely.
In reply to remylebeau, Sep 25, 2012

I'm basing it on the fact that the beginning of the set up shows a full DSLR video rig set up and the video is highly produced with properly done audio by Sony to demonstrate the capabilities of their new video camera. Why would Sony put all that work in and then not utilize HDMI out to provide the best quality footage from the product?

Answer - They wouldn't. Only an amateur would do that.

Its called deductive reasoning, and its your friend.

Now that we have cleared that up for you I should mention I checked out SAR, I have been anticipating this camera since i sold my GH2 and bought an a55. I have read every rumor about this camera on that site and all the comments.

The samples there suck as well. Noisy, blotchy, smeary. Even the 5D samples I have seen are a lot better. What really breaks my heart is that the d600 is getting rave sensor reviews, hence why I am thinking the SLT is causing more then a half stop of light fall off, it is obscuring in some other fashion. Or such. The RX1 video is brilliant. the a99 is depressing. The d600 photos are impressive. the a99 is depressing.

but. It is light years better then my a77, so i guess that is a small glimmer of hope

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
remylebeau
Regular MemberPosts: 293Gear list
Like?
Re: Absolutely.
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

There's deductive reasoning and then there's assumption, you are the latter. That you describe yourself that you saw a fully set up rig, and made no mention of noticing an external recorder, did that observation not make you question your own conclusion?

And no, deductive reasoning leads me to think that would "not" be the best way to show the a99's capabilities. The best way is the show the footage recorded in camera that most people "would" do, using their in camera compression codecs and showing that output in the video. That would make more sense in terms of marketing and displaying a products abilities, otherwise how do you differentiate footage from an uncompressed d800 feed from a uncompressed a99 feed?

What you think about the noise is your entitlement I happen to disagree, but it's subjective. I also have the a77 and comparing that to the a99 I'm very impressed, but until DXO does their analysis I won't go around stating matter-of-fact like, that the a99 is better or worse than a d600.

That's called informed opinion. It is your friend.

Dustinash wrote:

I'm basing it on the fact that the beginning of the set up shows a full DSLR video rig set up and the video is highly produced with properly done audio by Sony to demonstrate the capabilities of their new video camera. Why would Sony put all that work in and then not utilize HDMI out to provide the best quality footage from the product?

Answer - They wouldn't. Only an amateur would do that.

Its called deductive reasoning, and its your friend.

Now that we have cleared that up for you I should mention I checked out SAR, I have been anticipating this camera since i sold my GH2 and bought an a55. I have read every rumor about this camera on that site and all the comments.

The samples there suck as well. Noisy, blotchy, smeary. Even the 5D samples I have seen are a lot better. What really breaks my heart is that the d600 is getting rave sensor reviews, hence why I am thinking the SLT is causing more then a half stop of light fall off, it is obscuring in some other fashion. Or such. The RX1 video is brilliant. the a99 is depressing. The d600 photos are impressive. the a99 is depressing.

but. It is light years better then my a77, so i guess that is a small glimmer of hope

 remylebeau's gear list:remylebeau's gear list
Nikon D3 Sony SLT-A99 Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Tokina AT-X 17-35mm f/4 Pro FX +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thubleau7
Contributing MemberPosts: 516
Like?
re: A99 Fast iso test: raw and jpeg crops
In reply to Dustinash, Sep 25, 2012

I agree with Dustin these samples are just awful and I doubt they are accurate.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads