A7RII posterization?

[billzilla2000]

He did post them. Most people don't subscribe to his site or don't care to visit. Lloyd's testing is always transparent and full of high resolution images. One can make up their own mind. His other shots are outstanding, but he saw something he didn't like and posted. He's a reviewer, not a cheer leader.
--
Dave Sanders

He's a clickbaiter shock jock looking to stir up sensational attention. Has been doing the 'OMG SONY SUCKS' thing for months, years maybe.

Lloyd's 'testing' has mostly been other people's samples and he emphasizes the bad and dumps (again) the analyses of others out in order to lend his grave assertions some credence without full context. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt, at minimum.

 

[Brad]

I am so far very happy with my A7RII but this discussion and Lloyd's picture did give me the incentive to review images I made with large bodies of water. This particular image was taken with the A7RII and an old but excellent condition Takumar 28mm 3.5 . I opened the raw file in PS and applied a small amount of distortion correction...nothing else...the OOC Jpg looks nearly identical...I'm not sure how to describe the effect in the lower left corner, is this posterization or something else?

100% crop

 

[mdcromer]

Red channel looks very weak

Not just weak. SONY are in need of a bit more transparency in their manuals to avoid this when a photographer needs a cleaner image:

--
http://www.libraw.org/

If I read that correctly, you're just showing that the Sony files are 13 bit which is common knowledge here on the Sony fora.

I'm not sure that matters although Sony sensors are just getting to the point now where a 14th bit might actually record a useful increase in signal and not just noise.

 

[billzilla2000]

It would be way easier to have an "adult conversation" about this, if the site you linked to and posted from would not throw around labels like "Sony Fanboys" and "Sony does not know how to make cameras".

As is, there is one guy who did whatever-we-don't-know-what to his files and managed to make it look as bad as possible. Not worth the discussion (adult or not) in my opinion.

Amen to that. Every time this guy's name is mentioned it's in connection to a big debate with the same usual suspects proclaiming Sony's Great Deception and Horrible RAW Issues.

You could fill a book with his Ken Rockwell-esque hyperbolic childish rants like those tidbits you cited.

 

[superchalupa]

I am so far very happy with my A7RII but this discussion and Lloyd's picture did give me the incentive to review images I made with large bodies of water. This particular image was taken with the A7RII and an old but excellent condition Takumar 28mm 3.5 . I opened the raw file in PS and applied a small amount of distortion correction...nothing else...the OOC Jpg looks nearly identical...I'm not sure how to describe the effect in the lower left corner, is this posterization or something else?

Personally, I would describe that as (and please bear with me for using the technical terms here)... waves.

--

Michael

 

[philip pj]

Ken does far better work in chronicling the mass of lens information and provides it for free. Anyone interested in 'legacy' lens specifications plus Ken's subjective views will find his site very useful indeed.

Like many I am philosophically opposed to anyone charging for their opinions on the web, because their business model then precludes a fair assessment of any matter whatsoever.

Chambers' business model is to spread click bait all over his very thin free content. He has a strong incentive to deal in headline sensationalism. All publicity is good for business, even at the cost of your reputation.

I try to stay balanced and occasionally visit his stuff. Largely because Zeiss unfortunately give him succour in the form of early releases and interviews etc. They - in other words - bolster his credibility.

He often comes across as the shock jock of photographic review rather than the doyen he perhaps would aspire to be regarded as. Everything is a headline with Lloyd, just 'trust him' on the facts. He may be useful to neophytes, less so to the more experienced user base - most of whim would not part with a red cent for his views.

His output is also oriented towards landscape imagery, so he lets readers down by neglecting deeper analyses - so he will shoot the Batis 85 for trees and rocks when it's a portrait lens.

But, like it or not, he is indeed part of the landscape. Probably the best course of action is to discount his credibility on matters like this present one, and seek verification from known experts who will know more than he. They are not charging for it either.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Red channel looks very weak

Not just weak. SONY are in need of a bit more transparency in their manuals to avoid this when a photographer needs a cleaner image:

If I read that correctly, you're just showing that the Sony files are 13 bit

No, that's not what the screenshot shows.

--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[Dave Sanders]

He did post them. Most people don't subscribe to his site or don't care to visit. Lloyd's testing is always transparent and full of high resolution images. One can make up their own mind. His other shots are outstanding, but he saw something he didn't like and posted. He's a reviewer, not a cheer leader.
--
Dave Sanders

He's a clickbaiter shock jock looking to stir up sensational attention. Has been doing the 'OMG SONY SUCKS' thing for months, years maybe.

Lloyd's 'testing' has mostly been other people's samples and he emphasizes the bad and dumps (again) the analyses of others out in order to lend his grave assertions some credence without full context. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt, at minimum.

I'm not a huge fan of his photography but your assertion that he uses what others do is patently false. Not a subscriber, I take it. He provides multiple scenes for every lens or camera, and within that scene, every aperture. He generally leaves the photos to speak for themselves and provides little analysis.
--
Dave Sanders

 

[Dave Sanders]

You analysis here, as usual, is full of unsubstantiated hyperbole. His reviews, far from being useful only for neophytes, are quite the opposite: useful for a photographer with enough experience and skills to analyze a photo and an aperture series and make their own conclusions. His test if the Batis 85 has a large number of portraits. Again, not a subscriber, I take it. Though your preference for Huff and Rockwell say all I need to know.

 

[BarnET]

While this is a known problem with Sony camera's it's not something you run into that often.

Same with the Nikon's that had the option to switch between 12 and 14 bit. Sometimes after editing 12-bit this problem pops up. and it will look terrible. But in most cases it's fine.

I just hope Sony will get into the larger Raw formats as an option in the menu. For one it will silence some some trolls. For the other it will help photographer that love pushing a single exposure with less colour information related issues.

 

[Keit ll]

While this is a known problem with Sony camera's it's not something you run into that often.

Same with the Nikon's that had the option to switch between 12 and 14 bit. Sometimes after editing 12-bit this problem pops up. and it will look terrible. But in most cases it's fine.

I just hope Sony will get into the larger Raw formats as an option in the menu. For one it will silence some some trolls. For the other it will help photographer that love pushing a single exposure with less colour information related issues.

Pardon me for pointing out the inconsistency in your comments. You say that Sony changing the raw format will be welcomed but at the same time you call those who raise the issue of compromised raws 'Trolls' ?

The term 'TROLL' is not intended to describe those who just have different opinions & naturally wish to express them here.

 

[tn1krr]

Red channel looks very weak

Not just weak. SONY are in need of a bit more transparency in their manuals to avoid this when a photographer needs a cleaner image:

If I read that correctly, you're just showing that the Sony files are 13 bit

No, that's not what the screenshot shows.

Care to clarify this a bit some more? Otherwize people will be left a bit in dark about the meaning of the screenshot.

 

[mgrum]

His business model still represents a clear conflict of interest (as does anyone who's source of income is an add supported website, but to a lesser extent).

He also has a certain narrative (in this case it's 'Sony doesn't understand photography') and sticks to it. He has the opposite opinion of Sigma's DP Merrill cameras, I sent him some evidence of their artifacts and RAW file cooking but he wasn't interested as it didn't fit the narrative he'd established.

 

[Amin Sabet]

Right. But on the Lloid's example the problem exists even before that. Raw data is already posterized.

Visibly posterized?

Raw data, visibly?

Or are you just referring to the combing of the histogram in the highlights given the tone compression?

I'm saying in Lightroom ProPhoto already shows problems, visible problems that is, in red channel.

Could this be remedied similarly to what Lightroom did with D810 support here?

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/camera-standard-profile-displays-posterized.html

 

[BarnET]

While this is a known problem with Sony camera's it's not something you run into that often.

Same with the Nikon's that had the option to switch between 12 and 14 bit. Sometimes after editing 12-bit this problem pops up. and it will look terrible. But in most cases it's fine.

I just hope Sony will get into the larger Raw formats as an option in the menu. For one it will silence some some trolls. For the other it will help photographer that love pushing a single exposure with less colour information related issues.

Pardon me for pointing out the inconsistency in your comments. You say that Sony changing the raw format will be welcomed but at the same time you call those who raise the issue of compromised raws 'Trolls' ?

The term 'TROLL' is not intended to describe those who just have different opinions & naturally wish to express them here.

No problem,

The issue i have is that while this is a (small)problem it won't be apparant in most images and is therefor just a small con that could and i think should be adressed in firmware.

That while trolls just attack this otherwise very impressive camera becouse it wipes the floor with what their favourite brand is capable off. Which is something certain people here simply can't handle properly. Especially if it's made by Sony.

 

[timparkin]

but also a lot of damage is done in conversion from ProPhoto RGB to output space.

Iliah, can you describe how this could be avoided?

By using soft-proofing in Photoshop when doing the conversion.

Does this imply the user would be applying some type of correction during the process based on what he sees during the soft-proofing?

Absolutely.

Which type of correction would that be to eliminate posterization, outside of maybe adding some noise?

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.

Ah, very useful, thanks. I plan to do some reading up on this; I've never had to deal with colorspace posterization before (or I've been too naive to notice it

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?

I have seen similar effects to what has been mentioned and it could be profile problems or possibly even display problems. If I desaturate the area a little the 'problems' are mitigated considerably.

Reflections from waves is a nightmare for any camera and particularly when out of focus. The transitions are fast and the combination of poor lens bokeh (check foreground bottom left), CA correction (on), colour verging on out of gamut for the camera, profile or monitor (out of gamut blues) all can contribute to visual issues.

I would like to see the raw file opened up using a very neutral profile and with a bit of desaturation to move things well away from gamut clipping and no noise reduction or sharpening.

Can anyone get Lloyd to do that? Without the RAW file it's impossible to tell..

p.s. Also, some of the new 4K monitors don't match adobe1998 gamut in blues (and especially darker blues) - Perhaps this visual comparison is an issue also?

p.p.s. If you look at the 200% view showing supposed orange peel, it's so littered with jpeg artefacts it's difficult to know what we're seeing. Looking at the other files, the jpeg artifacts are hiding most of the detail (as jpeg is designed to do with low frequency colour detail). RAW please ...

 

[ZOIP]

A quick question and it is probably not relevant but does the A7r2 offer the option of mechanical shutter only and if so was it used for the offending image. I ask as a long term user of the NEX 5n I know that posterization sometimes occurs in EFC mode but not in mechanical mode when shooting smooth yellow or deep blue tones?

I wonder if a missmatch between the rippling of the water and timing of the readout could exaccerbate the issue.

No doubt under exposure of the red channel via the polariser and general underexposure would not help much either. I guess in the end there may be an issue but I imagine for most shooters needs it will be quite irrelevant

One other point Illiah has mentioned a few times on forums is the use of the magenta filter, no one ever seems to comment upon this but I would like to add that shooting with strong Magenata Red filtration on the A900 and Nex 5n has an enormous beneficial effect on almost every aspect of the file quality under daylight conditions, doing exactly as he indicated by levelling up the 3 channels. I have shot thousands of images this way over the past 4 years and none have ever shown any posterization and it makes for a very malleable file.

 

[Simone S]

Sony A7RII + sony 70-300 SSM + LA-EA3 @300mm f5,6

Is that the same problem i'm experiencing here?

Jpg X.Fine ooc. It is the same with steady shot on or off. I think it related to the particular lens because the Sony-Zeiss 135 f1,8 does not have this kind of artifacts.

 

[Petroglyph]

Potential posterization issue with A7RII documented here: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150819_1136-SonyA7R_II-posterization-BlueLake.html

Lloyd shared the RAW with a reputable getdpi forum member and professional photographer, and he confirmed the issue, at least with this particular exposure, in this thread: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/55836-seeing-any-posterization-issues-a7r-ll.html

Was a thread about this already, but it seems to have been lost. Perhaps we can all discuss this like adults, without the usual accusations of fanboy, troll, shill, willfully blind to any criticism of one's chosen brand, etc.

I would hate to think dpreview is attempting to quash discussion of a potential problem with a new camera. This is, after all, how products improve.

I don't know what to think of this. I guess I'll wait until I see something similar myself. I did think Iliah Borg's suggestion to use CC40M filter for scenes with a lot of sky (or blown out wave tops) is reasonable for any Camera with a Sony sensor (incl. Nikon & Pentax) since I've been seeing channel split raw histograms for a while on other makes even. Mind it doesn't seem to degrade the final output after raw processing for me anyway. I'm ready to try CC40M on bright red flowers in the sun to see what that does for clipped reds & yellows. (Dreaded magenta cast blow out)

 

[ZOIP]

Sorry Simone I can't really tell much from the low res image you posted describe to me what you are experiencing here.