Unfortunately, the A7III stripe artifact is very real :(

Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer
It is there.
We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate
You don't know, not "we". Ask the photographer.
, nor posted original RAW file.
on my office PC's monitor. Do you see? Yes the author demo'ed that lines but on 2:1 or 3:1 amplification?

Yes I also have a few such photos with backlit from my A9. But I don't see any striping in full size 1:1, and I don't need to enlarge them to view, why should I?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
You don't know LilyView, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.

Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs. Lr, LilyView are truly retina-aware but none of web browsers and some other popular Mac JPEG viewers such as Xee (until to ver 2.x) are also not.

So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer but I can double check tonight. That photo is not real full-size as Jim pointed out, but I doubt will be suddenly much more obvious and clear between 8x % and 100%. Just make sure if you actually viewing the picture in 1:1 not 2:1 that Mac OS Preview may not a retina-aware viewer.

We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate, nor posted original RAW file.
The image is downressed to the size necessary for a 4x6 inch print on an Epson p[rinter. That's enough to smooth over the stripes.
Yeah, but then less convincing as the author didn't post a true full-size photo or best with a RAW file, and the author didn't indicate in what ratio of that cropped sample, in 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 that show striping clearly.

I really doubt someone claimed he can see stripes clearly and ugly
I really doubt you can't :-O
in that downsized 'full-size' photo as I simply don't see on my office monitor that I can double check on my iMac 5K when I return home. I keep emphasizing that to view photos at truly 1:1 not thru enlargement, that should be a fair request.

It's very important to view photos thru a retina-aware viewer on Mac machines. Despite I only use Mac machines at home now, Windows OS is still better in display configuration. For each monitor, you can set resolution to full size for 4K or 5K. But how about font and text and menu bars etc? No problem as you can customize for each monitor to show fonts/text at 100% (default), or 200% or 300%, much more flexible than Mac OS. So there is no such retina-aware program concept in Windows.

Unrelated the only reason I moved to Mac for home machines is for simplicity - much easier to backup and restore, bit by bit as everything in Mac OS (Unix actually) is file based, no registry, no much complicated moving parts as in Windows. And I also hate drive mapping but much prefer volume path and mounting point in Mac/Unix OS.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share. If you don't know I am very surprised.
So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer
It is there.
Doubt I simply don't see in that so-called 'full-size' photo on my office monitor at 1:1. Appear Jim is not disputing that also but correctly pointed out it's not actually full-size, wondering.
We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate
You don't know, not "we". Ask the photographer.
You know? Where that link says so by the author? Or only your speculation? You ask original author and better asking him to post RAW file for fair review that we all can independently check and view as DPR does.
, nor posted original RAW file.
on my office PC's monitor. Do you see? Yes the author demo'ed that lines but on 2:1 or 3:1 amplification?

Yes I also have a few such photos with backlit from my A9. But I don't see any striping in full size 1:1, and I don't need to enlarge them to view, why should I?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
You don't know LilyView, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.

Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs. Lr, LilyView are truly retina-aware but none of web browsers and some other popular Mac JPEG viewers such as Xee (until to ver 2.x) are also not.

So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer but I can double check tonight. That photo is not real full-size as Jim pointed out, but I doubt will be suddenly much more obvious and clear between 8x % and 100%. Just make sure if you actually viewing the picture in 1:1 not 2:1 that Mac OS Preview may not a retina-aware viewer.

We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate, nor posted original RAW file.
The image is downressed to the size necessary for a 4x6 inch print on an Epson p[rinter. That's enough to smooth over the stripes.
Yeah, but then less convincing as the author didn't post a true full-size photo or best with a RAW file, and the author didn't indicate in what ratio of that cropped sample, in 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 that show striping clearly.

I really doubt someone claimed he can see stripes clearly and ugly
I really doubt you can't :-O
On that cropped sample (that we don't know enlargement ratio) or on that downsized 'full-size' photo? Sure my office monitor is not great but really doubt will be a big difference between I simply cannot see to suddenly clear and ugly when I viewing at iMac 5K in a retina-aware viewer at 1:1.

Seem it's your wishful conclusion, nice try.
in that downsized 'full-size' photo as I simply don't see on my office monitor that I can double check on my iMac 5K when I return home. I keep emphasizing that to view photos at truly 1:1 not thru enlargement, that should be a fair request.

It's very important to view photos thru a retina-aware viewer on Mac machines. Despite I only use Mac machines at home now, Windows OS is still better in display configuration. For each monitor, you can set resolution to full size for 4K or 5K. But how about font and text and menu bars etc? No problem as you can customize for each monitor to show fonts/text at 100% (default), or 200% or 300%, much more flexible than Mac OS. So there is no such retina-aware program concept in Windows.

Unrelated the only reason I moved to Mac for home machines is for simplicity - much easier to backup and restore, bit by bit as everything in Mac OS (Unix actually) is file based, no registry, no much complicated moving parts as in Windows. And I also hate drive mapping but much prefer volume path and mounting point in Mac/Unix OS.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share.
Another sales pitch and offtopic.

I don't care for the applications that don't show the image problems that are there in the image.
If you don't know I am very surprised.
So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer
It is there.
Doubt I simply don't see in that so-called 'full-size' photo on my office monitor at 1:1. Appear Jim is not disputing that also but correctly pointed out it's not actually full-size, wondering.
We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate
You don't know, not "we". Ask the photographer.
You know? Where that link says so by the author.
I know, you don't and try to bury you head in the sand or to mislead.
Or only your speculation? You ask original author and better asking him to post RAW file for fair review that we all can independently check and view as DPR does.
Better? Or what? hahaha
, nor posted original RAW file.
on my office PC's monitor. Do you see? Yes the author demo'ed that lines but on 2:1 or 3:1 amplification?

Yes I also have a few such photos with backlit from my A9. But I don't see any striping in full size 1:1, and I don't need to enlarge them to view, why should I?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
You don't know LilyView, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.

Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs. Lr, LilyView are truly retina-aware but none of web browsers and some other popular Mac JPEG viewers such as Xee (until to ver 2.x) are also not.

So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer but I can double check tonight. That photo is not real full-size as Jim pointed out, but I doubt will be suddenly much more obvious and clear between 8x % and 100%. Just make sure if you actually viewing the picture in 1:1 not 2:1 that Mac OS Preview may not a retina-aware viewer.

We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate, nor posted original RAW file.
The image is downressed to the size necessary for a 4x6 inch print on an Epson p[rinter. That's enough to smooth over the stripes.
Yeah, but then less convincing as the author didn't post a true full-size photo or best with a RAW file, and the author didn't indicate in what ratio of that cropped sample, in 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 that show striping clearly.

I really doubt someone claimed he can see stripes clearly and ugly
I really doubt you can't :-O
On that cropped sample (that we don't know enlargement ratio) or on that downsized 'full-size' photo? Sure my office monitor is not great but really doubt will be a big difference between I simply cannot see to suddenly clear and ugly when I viewing at iMac 5K in a retina-aware viewer at 1:1.

Seem it's your wishful conclusion, nice try.
"Your point doesn’t serve my purposes so it will be ignored. I don’t care how valid it is." :-D:-D:-D
in that downsized 'full-size' photo as I simply don't see on my office monitor that I can double check on my iMac 5K when I return home. I keep emphasizing that to view photos at truly 1:1 not thru enlargement, that should be a fair request.

It's very important to view photos thru a retina-aware viewer on Mac machines. Despite I only use Mac machines at home now, Windows OS is still better in display configuration. For each monitor, you can set resolution to full size for 4K or 5K. But how about font and text and menu bars etc? No problem as you can customize for each monitor to show fonts/text at 100% (default), or 200% or 300%, much more flexible than Mac OS. So there is no such retina-aware program concept in Windows.

Unrelated the only reason I moved to Mac for home machines is for simplicity - much easier to backup and restore, bit by bit as everything in Mac OS (Unix actually) is file based, no registry, no much complicated moving parts as in Windows. And I also hate drive mapping but much prefer volume path and mounting point in Mac/Unix OS.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share.
Another sales pitch and offtopic.
Not, just help you to understand what is retina-aware. If you don't I feel sorry for you as your opinion will simply cheated.
I don't care for the applications that don't show the image problems that are there in the image.
You must care. If you view photos in a non-retina-aware viewer in Mac OS retina screen, you are viewing at 2:1. That Preview program may not retina-aware, so your view is delusional. Do we have to view pictures in 2:1 except for comparison?
If you don't know I am very surprised.
So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer
It is there.
Doubt I simply don't see in that so-called 'full-size' photo on my office monitor at 1:1. Appear Jim is not disputing that also but correctly pointed out it's not actually full-size, wondering.
We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate
You don't know, not "we". Ask the photographer.
You know? Where that link says so by the author.
I know, you don't and try to bury you head in the sand or to mislead.
Why you keep in speculation, wishful thinking?
Or only your speculation? You ask original author and better asking him to post RAW file for fair review that we all can independently check and view as DPR does.
Better? Or what? hahaha
What? I will see only 100% creditable if those samples posted in RAW so I'd not have to live on somebody's words.
, nor posted original RAW file.
on my office PC's monitor. Do you see? Yes the author demo'ed that lines but on 2:1 or 3:1 amplification?

Yes I also have a few such photos with backlit from my A9. But I don't see any striping in full size 1:1, and I don't need to enlarge them to view, why should I?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
You don't know LilyView, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.

Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs. Lr, LilyView are truly retina-aware but none of web browsers and some other popular Mac JPEG viewers such as Xee (until to ver 2.x) are also not.

So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer but I can double check tonight. That photo is not real full-size as Jim pointed out, but I doubt will be suddenly much more obvious and clear between 8x % and 100%. Just make sure if you actually viewing the picture in 1:1 not 2:1 that Mac OS Preview may not a retina-aware viewer.

We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate, nor posted original RAW file.
The image is downressed to the size necessary for a 4x6 inch print on an Epson p[rinter. That's enough to smooth over the stripes.
Yeah, but then less convincing as the author didn't post a true full-size photo or best with a RAW file, and the author didn't indicate in what ratio of that cropped sample, in 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 that show striping clearly.

I really doubt someone claimed he can see stripes clearly and ugly
I really doubt you can't :-O
On that cropped sample (that we don't know enlargement ratio) or on that downsized 'full-size' photo? Sure my office monitor is not great but really doubt will be a big difference between I simply cannot see to suddenly clear and ugly when I viewing at iMac 5K in a retina-aware viewer at 1:1.

Seem it's your wishful conclusion, nice try.
"Your point doesn’t serve my purposes so it will be ignored. I don’t care how valid it is." :-D:-D:-D
Why I need to serve your purpose, with an agenda in trolling?

You can try to run away but you cannot hide. Your claim of so clear and ugly is wrong as either you are cheated by a non-retina-aware viewer so you are actually viewing in 2:1, or you deliberately trying to mislead, or likely both, sadly. Nice try, but you failed ;-)
in that downsized 'full-size' photo as I simply don't see on my office monitor that I can double check on my iMac 5K when I return home. I keep emphasizing that to view photos at truly 1:1 not thru enlargement, that should be a fair request.

It's very important to view photos thru a retina-aware viewer on Mac machines. Despite I only use Mac machines at home now, Windows OS is still better in display configuration. For each monitor, you can set resolution to full size for 4K or 5K. But how about font and text and menu bars etc? No problem as you can customize for each monitor to show fonts/text at 100% (default), or 200% or 300%, much more flexible than Mac OS. So there is no such retina-aware program concept in Windows.

Unrelated the only reason I moved to Mac for home machines is for simplicity - much easier to backup and restore, bit by bit as everything in Mac OS (Unix actually) is file based, no registry, no much complicated moving parts as in Windows. And I also hate drive mapping but much prefer volume path and mounting point in Mac/Unix OS.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share.
Another sales pitch and offtopic.
Not, just help you to understand what is retina-aware.
You are so soi-disant :-D Don't bring owls to Athens. And offtopic.
If you don't I feel sorry for you as your opinion will simply cheated.
Delicious word salad. And offtopic.
I don't care for the applications that don't show the image problems that are there in the image.
You must care
You must be joking. You just demonstrated that the application you are advertising doesn't allow to see what is there in the image.
. If you view photos in a non-retina-aware viewer in Mac OS retina screen,
Is late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" retina?
you are viewing at 2:1. That Preview program may not retina-aware, so your view is disillusion. Do we have to view pictures in 2:1 except for comparison?
"Preview program may not retina-aware" You don't know what you are talking about. You are in need of enlightenment, not me.

Things that are there, if you don't see them - your problem.
 
You don't know LilyView, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.

Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs. Lr, LilyView are truly retina-aware but none of web browsers and some other popular Mac JPEG viewers such as Xee (until to ver 2.x) are also not.

So in that so-called full-size photo that I downloaded, I truly cannot see when viewing at 1:1 in Windows 10 JPEG viewer but I can double check tonight. That photo is not real full-size as Jim pointed out, but I doubt will be suddenly much more obvious and clear between 8x % and 100%. Just make sure if you actually viewing the picture in 1:1 not 2:1 that Mac OS Preview may not a retina-aware viewer.

We don't know what ratio of enlargement, 2:1 or 3:1 in that author's demo'ed sample as the author didn't indicate, nor posted original RAW file.
The image is downressed to the size necessary for a 4x6 inch print on an Epson p[rinter. That's enough to smooth over the stripes.
Yeah, but then less convincing as the author didn't post a true full-size photo or best with a RAW file, and the author didn't indicate in what ratio of that cropped sample, in 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 that show striping clearly.

I really doubt someone claimed he can see stripes clearly and ugly
I really doubt you can't :-O
On that cropped sample (that we don't know enlargement ratio) or on that downsized 'full-size' photo? Sure my office monitor is not great but really doubt will be a big difference between I simply cannot see to suddenly clear and ugly when I viewing at iMac 5K in a retina-aware viewer at 1:1.

Seem it's your wishful conclusion, nice try.
"Your point doesn’t serve my purposes so it will be ignored. I don’t care how valid it is." :-D:-D:-D
Why I need to serve your purpose
You poor thing...

"Your point doesn’t serve my purposes so it will be ignored. I don’t care how valid it is." - that's what you are saying and doing.
You can try to run away but you cannot hide.
What??? :-D
 
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share.
Another sales pitch and offtopic.
Not, just help you to understand what is retina-aware.
You are so soi-disant :-D Don't bring owls to Athens. And offtopic.
You are trying to escape this issue, either you're so stubborn and lacking of knowledge, or still deliberately trying to mislead, or both likely.
If you don't I feel sorry for you as your opinion will simply cheated.
Delicious word salad. And offtopic.
You are cheating, OK that I can tell.
I don't care for the applications that don't show the image problems that are there in the image.
You must care
You must be joking. You just demonstrated that the application you are advertising doesn't allow to see what is there in the image.
It only making sure you view photos at 1:1, the same as in Lr that is also retina-aware if you don't know. As I said it's pathetic and cheating to view photos at 2:1, 3:1 in order to see artifacts, really we have to do that way?
. If you view photos in a non-retina-aware viewer in Mac OS retina screen,
Is late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" retina?
Your machine has retina screen, but your viewer may not such as Preview. On retina Mac machines, by default they only configure screen resolution at half size such as on my iMac 5K which is 5120x2880 pixels, but Mac OS only set at 2560x1440. Why? Because otherwise text, fonts and screen bars etc are way too small to see clearly. Unlike Windows OS that there is another customization that can show text/fonts at 100% (default), 150%, 200%, 300% etc, Mac OS doesn't have that flexibility. So Apple asks developers to develop retina-aware programs, but most programs still not such as Chrome and likely Apple's own Preview (at least in the past).

What is retina-aware program - it will display bar, menu, font, text on the frame at display configured resolution, half in a retina-screen so they will be too small, but display content inside the frame at true 1:1 retina max resolution, exactly as LR itself.
you are viewing at 2:1. That Preview program may not retina-aware, so your view is disillusion. Do we have to view pictures in 2:1 except for comparison?
"Preview program may not retina-aware" You don't know what you are talking about. You are in need of enlightenment, not me.

Things that are there, if you don't see them - your problem.
But if you have to see at 200% view or 2:1 that is delusional or 'pathetic' (not to you but in that tacit).

Listen, nobody denied that issue doesn't exist, as theoretically also existed in my A7r III/II but just how a big deal? So far I have not encountered once as it's not my style to shoot into sun or strong back light.

I can see you don't own Sony and you don't list any details in your profile. I can see you have more interests in trolling or purposely trying to mislead than actually debate on merits. Don't understand why this minor issue touched so many non-Sony owners' nerve by trying so hard to undermine otherwise a wonderful camera, insecure?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share.
Another sales pitch and offtopic.
Not, just help you to understand what is retina-aware.
You are so soi-disant :-D Don't bring owls to Athens. And offtopic.
You are trying to escape this issue,
That's what you are doing :-D
either you're so stubborn and lacking of knowledge, or still deliberately trying to mislead, or both likely.
If you don't I feel sorry for you as your opinion will simply cheated.
Delicious word salad. And offtopic.
You are cheating, OK that I can tell.
You are either being dishonest or delusional. Maybe both.
I don't care for the applications that don't show the image problems that are there in the image.
You must care
You must be joking. You just demonstrated that the application you are advertising doesn't allow to see what is there in the image.
It only making sure you view photos at 1:1, the same as in Lr that is also retina-aware
Drop the retina issue already :-D I told you repeatedly I'm looking at non-retina monitor.
if you don't know. As I said it's pathetic and cheating to view photos at 2:1, 3:1 in order to see artifacts, really we have to do that way?
. If you view photos in a non-retina-aware viewer in Mac OS retina screen,
Is late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" retina?
Your machine has retina screen,
No it doesn't.

This model has an LED-backlit 17.0" 1920x1200 "anti-glare" (matte) display.
but your viewer may not such as Preview.
You don't know how to configure Preview to become retina-aware? Ask Apple support.
Listen, nobody denied that issue doesn't exist
??? Nice...
 
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
You must care. If you view photos in a non-retina-aware viewer in Mac OS retina screen, you are viewing at 2:1. That Preview program may not retina-aware, so your view is delusional. Do we have to view pictures in 2:1 except for comparison?
I can see. Clearly. On a retina screen. Safari browser. And that is an image that Jim says has 89% of the stripes removed!!
Well, Safari browser is also not retina-aware. Or maybe is retina capable but by default doesn't display photos in 1:1. You need to download and view in a retina-aware viewer such as LilyView at 1:1. All major browsers on Mac are not retina-aware. There is a reason as otherwise text/font will be too small as browser otherwise has to be very intelligent that to show text/font in enlarge size (2:1) but picture in 1:1. I know this is a big inconvenient for Mac owners but is a necessary step. Sometime I have to reduce Chrome viewing to 50% in order to view pictures in true 1:1 size but by that doesn't take advantage of retina resolution. Instead still need to download photos and view in a retina-aware viewer. I am getting tired of keep saying so but it's so true.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
Are these pictures keepers, or are they taken just to provoke the striping?

In any case, striping is pretty easy to smooth out - and we know that:
  • The stripes are real
  • They might be seen in backlit scenes, in areas with strong flare
  • Where to look in a picture to find stripes
  • That they are rare, and pretty easy to smooth out at post processing
  • There is a online tool that does the fix too (prof Hank)
Agreed. Virtually all these photos are for sake of provoking the issue, and most those highly flared photos against strong backlit are no worth to save. I guess nobody shoot most photos in such style at daily basis.
Here's what I would call a good photo, not pushed very hard, made with an a9 that exhibits striping:

https://www.mysticalpics.ch/Sony-A9-Banding-Problems

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I don't see striping lines on the full-size photo that I downloaded and viewing in actual size
I do. Clearly.
I will check tonight on my iMack 5K. I truly don't see on my office monitors which so-so HP monitors. But in the past mostly times when I view at 1:1 in Lilyview, a retina-aware JPEG viewer in my iMac 5K, I simply don't see those striping lines clearly and obviously as if I view them at 2:1 in Chrome browse (that is not retina-aware), or as some of those claimed, so that is disparity between.
I have no idea what the apps you've listed do to display an image. I see it on a beaten-up late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" that we use to control an optical bench, in Preview, plain and simple and ugly.
You don't know LilyView
It is offtopic.
, a very poplar lite version of retina-aware JPEG viewer among Mac owners? It faithfully displays photos at 1:1 by default.

Since I have used LilyView in last several years and set to default JPEG viewer, so I have not pay attention to heavy and not-that-friendly OS X built-in Preview that was not retina-aware in the past, so ended you viewing photos in 2:1 enlargement.
Nice sales pitch. Offtopic.
Search if you don't understand what is retina-aware programs
Save your breath. Offtopic.
Come'on that LilyView is highly recommended in Mac community and pretty cheap $3~4 dollar contribution share.
Another sales pitch and offtopic.
Not, just help you to understand what is retina-aware.
You are so soi-disant :-D Don't bring owls to Athens. And offtopic.
You are trying to escape this issue,
That's what you are doing :-D
You are refusing to answer question - do you view in a retina-aware viewer at 1:1? If not, give a try and I doubt you can see in that downsized 'full-size' photo.
either you're so stubborn and lacking of knowledge, or still deliberately trying to mislead, or both likely.
If you don't I feel sorry for you as your opinion will simply cheated.
Delicious word salad. And offtopic.
You are cheating, OK that I can tell.
You are either being dishonest or delusional. Maybe both.
It's your trying to mislead us, you just cannot be honest.
I don't care for the applications that don't show the image pro

blems that are there in the image.
You must care
You must be joking. You just demonstrated that the application you are advertising doesn't allow to see what is there in the image.
It only making sure you view photos at 1:1, the same as in Lr that is also retina-aware
Drop the retina issue already :-D I told you repeatedly I'm looking at non-retina monitor.
??? You said earlier you are viewing at your what year 15" MacBook Pro that may be has a retina screen but your view is not. You just cannot understand.
if you don't know. As I said it's pathetic and cheating to view photos at 2:1, 3:1 in order to see artifacts, really we have to do that way?
. If you view photos in a non-retina-aware viewer in Mac OS retina screen,
Is late 2011 MacBookPro8,3 17" retina?
Your machine has retina screen,
No it doesn't.

This model has an LED-backlit 17.0" 1920x1200 "anti-glare" (matte) display.
Now you changed, you seem changed your story? It doesn't matter just make sure to view at 1:1 ratio, not 2:1.
but your viewer may not such as Preview.
You don't know how to configure Preview to become retina-aware? Ask Apple support.
It was not and not sure if it is today. But I don't use it as its interface is not good and slow. Many chose third-party viewers and LilyView is very popular as it's lite and very fast and truly retina-aware. Virtually all Mac built-in programs are not that good, Finder (that sucks), video player...I use all third-party programs and fortunately they are pretty cheap to purchase.

You seem not quite familiar with Mac so your view likely is delusional and you're trying to mislead us
Listen, nobody denied that issue doesn't exist
??? Nice...
Nice try and you don't even own a Sony camera that I can tell, so why so busy bother in trolling? What's your agenda?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top