Reading mode: Light Dark

Later serial # F828 - minimal or no PF

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lin Evans
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Simple take the cam on auto and shoot everthing in your path, you'll get plenty o purple
Paul Hagood said:
It's nice to read all these posts giving advice on all the things
to try to get PF to appear. If it's that difficult to create, then
how big a problem is it? Just don't shoot lots of bare trees
against bright skies at wide-open apertures! They're usually ugly
shots anyways...

Thanks for the nice posts.

Paul
Click to expand...
 
I see purple in both, i think sony sent a set of blinders out with the later bunch
stan said:
Although your shooting conditions don't really show CA, I still see
some purple on the second pic.
Lin Evans said:
My serial # 13309XX F828 doesn't appear to have issues of any
significance with purple fringing, in fact I'm having difficulty
producing it at all. I finally made a small amount happen by
intentionally overexposing a highly reflective aluminum wheel in
bright sunlight, but even then it was minimal.

In photographing tree limbs against a bright, blue sky, there is
absolutely minimal evidence that I can find of PF. There is the
normal small amount of classic red/green CA, but it's no more than
on many more of my digicams and less than most.

Below are links to a couple of the original fine jpg's at a little
over 3 megapixels each for anyone interested:

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09893.jpg

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09895.jpg
--
http://208.56.82.71
Click to expand...
--
-Stan
stanc.net
Click to expand...
 
Steven W. Bennett said:
Actually, it's not just on the top left. That's just the part
I saw when the pic first loaded and the purple was immediately
and definitely apparent. In truth, it's everywhere to one degree
or another. I'm not trying to beat up on you or your camera.
I'm just telling you what I see.

Steve
Click to expand...
--No beat up here, I see it too, it is very noticable, sorry thats just whats on my screen.
Kind Regards
Dennis
'lifes too short to drink bad wine'
 
I am a little confused over what I am seeing, it looks diferent thanwhat I've seen posted as CA or blooming.

I see some purple, but only in the blow ups, not in the previews. And its not fringing or flare, its like some of the branches, mainly the ones not in the plane of focus, look, slightly, well purple. Again, not the edges. There are a couple of spots where edges or hot spots flare purple. again only under high magnification.

I then printed both shots on my canon I950, out of photoshop. I used Red River high gloss letter size, on highest printer settings. Absoulutly no sign of purple, anywhere.

I have to disgree with Lin only to the point where I have to agree i see purple under high mag. But it does not look like the edge stuff he posted later. More like the picture color level is to magenta.

Ron, I know your not gonna like my claim I can't see it in the photos. if ya want I will mail them to you. At my cost. I know at least you will look at them fairly.

Or If you have a similar printer, try it yourself. They look sweet to me, and my wife and son see no purple in prints either.
Lin Evans said:
My serial # 13309XX F828 doesn't appear to have issues of any
significance with purple fringing, in fact I'm having difficulty
producing it at all. I finally made a small amount happen by
intentionally overexposing a highly reflective aluminum wheel in
bright sunlight, but even then it was minimal.

In photographing tree limbs against a bright, blue sky, there is
absolutely minimal evidence that I can find of PF. There is the
normal small amount of classic red/green CA, but it's no more than
on many more of my digicams and less than most.

Below are links to a couple of the original fine jpg's at a little
over 3 megapixels each for anyone interested:

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09893.jpg

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09895.jpg
--
http://208.56.82.71
Click to expand...
 
Lin Evans said:
If you treat any image the way you've done this one you will get
identical results.

Try the following image made with my Canon EOS-1D and Canon 70-200
L at F16:

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/F96B9706.JPG

Now look at the same image after doing your "levels" adjust. Notice
any similarity? :-)

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/example.jpg
Click to expand...
The results are similar, but not identical and that's the important difference. In the 828 shot, the PF is visible on even the thick branches in the original image.

In the 1D shot, it's not visible in the original image and it covers only the thin branches in the altered one.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
From other posts that show PF it seems the PF is more likely to appear when the sky is a lighter blue or overcast but bright. You seem to have nice deep blue color sky where you live. :-)
 
any evidence that your serial number is "later"?

as far as i remember, andy's (andy yau) 828 has a serial number starts with 19xxxxx and way lot "later" than yours.
better not to make any smoke by pure speculation!
PF is absolute on ALL 828!

The pics you saw without PF were after post-processing. you can confirm this with the shooter.

Indeed, judging if the 828 has PF or not should use the SAME reference, ie, by photos direct from the camera without color editing. Otherwise, it's meaningless.
Lin Evans said:
My serial # 13309XX F828 doesn't appear to have issues of any
significance with purple fringing, in fact I'm having difficulty
producing it at all. I finally made a small amount happen by
intentionally overexposing a highly reflective aluminum wheel in
bright sunlight, but even then it was minimal.
Click to expand...
 
on an 8X10 print (Canon S800 + Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper) of the second one. This is from a viewing distance of about 18". Mostly on the right shadow side of the branches (big and small). However, because it is the shadow detail and does not leave the shadows, the print was very good.

Steven
sandy b said:
I see some purple, but only in the blow ups, not in the previews.
And its not fringing or flare, its like some of the branches,
mainly the ones not in the plane of focus, look, slightly, well
purple. Again, not the edges. There are a couple of spots where
edges or hot spots flare purple. again only under high
magnification.

I then printed both shots on my canon I950, out of photoshop. I
used Red River high gloss letter size, on highest printer settings.
Absoulutly no sign of purple, anywhere.

I have to disgree with Lin only to the point where I have to agree
i see purple under high mag. But it does not look like the edge
stuff he posted later. More like the picture color level is to
magenta.

Ron, I know your not gonna like my claim I can't see it in the
photos. if ya want I will mail them to you. At my cost. I know at
least you will look at them fairly.

Or If you have a similar printer, try it yourself. They look sweet
to me, and my wife and son see no purple in prints either.
sandy b said:
http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09895.jpg
--
http://208.56.82.71
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter
 
Hello Lin,
Member said:
In photographing tree limbs against a bright, blue sky, there is absolutely minimal evidence that I can find of PF.
Click to expand...
What I see is a lot of CA in these pictures and as much as my camera shows at 200mm.

Uwe
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/sony_f828/sony_f828.html
Lin Evans said:
My serial # 13309XX F828 doesn't appear to have issues of any
significance with purple fringing, in fact I'm having difficulty
producing it at all. I finally made a small amount happen by
intentionally overexposing a highly reflective aluminum wheel in
bright sunlight, but even then it was minimal.

In photographing tree limbs against a bright, blue sky, there is
absolutely minimal evidence that I can find of PF. There is the
normal small amount of classic red/green CA, but it's no more than
on many more of my digicams and less than most.

Below are links to a couple of the original fine jpg's at a little
over 3 megapixels each for anyone interested:

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09893.jpg

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/dsc09895.jpg
--
http://208.56.82.71
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
the PF is visible on even the thick branches in the original image.
Click to expand...
That is the main issue with the F828 CA. It bleeds into other ojects and does not stay just as a colored fringe. The means if you try to remove the effect your only choice is to desaturate the colors at these places.

Lin,

you are right CA shows with most lenses and all cameras. But I have to find a shot from a D1x, 10D or 1Ds that is even close.

Uwe
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/sony_f828/sony_f828.html
Ron Parr said:
Lin Evans said:
If you treat any image the way you've done this one you will get
identical results.

Try the following image made with my Canon EOS-1D and Canon 70-200
L at F16:

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/F96B9706.JPG

Now look at the same image after doing your "levels" adjust. Notice
any similarity? :-)

http://www.lin-evans.com/f828/example.jpg
Click to expand...
The results are similar, but not identical and that's the important
difference. In the 828 shot, the PF is visible on even the thick
branches in the original image.

In the 1D shot, it's not visible in the original image and it
covers only the thin branches in the altered one.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Click to expand...
 
Uwe Steinmueller said:
Member said:
the PF is visible on even the thick branches in the original image.
Click to expand...
That is the main issue with the F828 CA. It bleeds into other
ojects and does not stay just as a colored fringe. The means if you
try to remove the effect your only choice is to desaturate the
colors at these places.

Lin,

you are right CA shows with most lenses and all cameras. But I have
to find a shot from a D1x, 10D or 1Ds that is even close.

Uwe
Click to expand...
Hi Uwe,

There's no argument that the blue/purple fringe in high contrasting areas is much worse with the F828 than with nearly any dSLR. The argument here is that dinking with levels will destroy any image and create the purple color in places where it truly doesn't exist.

It's quite obvious in the original image from my 1D that there is virtually zero CA or blooming, yet distorting levels in the extreme way Ron did with the F828 image I posted doesn't "reveal" purple finge, it "creates" purple in places where there never was purple, and has no value in this instance.

The original F828 image I posted has low amounts of purple fringe compared to the very strong purple fringe in the samples I cropped from other posted F828 images. Actually, I think the original looks very similar to results I get with my f707, CP990, CP4500, S7000, C2100UZ, E10, FZ10, C2500L, S70, etc., etc. Virtually all fixed lens digicams either show red/green or blue/purple fringe on branches shot this way against a strong contrasting sky.

I'm quite happy with my f828 so far and find the degree of blooming less than what I'm seeing with earlier releases. Whether that indicates production variances, changes or simply individual camera statistical variance is uncertain, but I'm simply saying this camera is producing consistantly good images and I can certainly live with the small amouts of PF which I've found.

As for the efficacy of distorting levels to produce purple color - it doesn't matter whether the image was taken with my 1DS, my Kodak back, my DCS-760, my 10D, D30 or even a scanned film image. If you shift levels to the degree Ron did as "evidence" of PF, you are not demonstrating what you "think"you are demonstrating. I can produce this effect from virtually any color image of branches against a contrasting sky from any camera - period!

Best regards,

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
Lin Evans said:
There's no argument that the blue/purple fringe in high contrasting
areas is much worse with the F828 than with nearly any dSLR. The
argument here is that dinking with levels will destroy any image
and create the purple color in places where it truly doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
"Dinking" with the levels cannot create color where it doesn't exist.
Member said:
It's quite obvious in the original image from my 1D that there is
virtually zero CA or blooming, yet distorting levels in the extreme
way Ron did with the F828 image I posted doesn't "reveal" purple
finge, it "creates" purple in places where there never was purple,
and has no value in this instance.
Click to expand...
The purple was already there; you just had trouble seeing it. I adjusted the levels to make it easier for you to see.

Adjusting levels has no effect on color.
Member said:
As for the efficacy of distorting levels to produce purple color -
it doesn't matter whether the image was taken with my 1DS, my Kodak
back, my DCS-760, my 10D, D30 or even a scanned film image. If you
shift levels to the degree Ron did as "evidence" of PF, you are not
demonstrating what you "think"you are demonstrating. I can produce
this effect from virtually any color image of branches against a
contrasting sky from any camera - period!
Click to expand...
As has already been explained:
  • Adjusting levels cannot change color.
  • The PF in the 828 shot was already visible in the thick branches without the levels adjustment
  • No PF was visible in the thick branches of the 1D shot after adjustment
As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, these shots are not typical of the ones that have elicited PF complaints from 828 owners. You've stopped down and shot at full tele. Moreover, the colors tend to hide the PF. Despite this, the PF is still present and noticeable.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Ron Parr said:
Member said:
As for the efficacy of distorting levels to produce purple color -
it doesn't matter whether the image was taken with my 1DS, my Kodak
back, my DCS-760, my 10D, D30 or even a scanned film image. If you
shift levels to the degree Ron did as "evidence" of PF, you are not
demonstrating what you "think"you are demonstrating. I can produce
this effect from virtually any color image of branches against a
contrasting sky from any camera - period!
Click to expand...
As has already been explained:
  • Adjusting levels cannot change color.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that you make such a statement in view of the obvious!!

You have just lost all credibility with me in your attempts to be "correct." If you can't admit that adjusting levels can and does change color, we have no further need to discuss this.....

And don't start with some B.S. definition of "color" and pontification about this - the example is clear to anyone with common sense. The image below represents a before and after levels change with OBVIOUS changes in both hue and intensity. Jeez, give it up, you just plain wrong here.

Lin



--
http://208.56.82.71
 
What did you do to that picture? I can turn the edges pink in photoshop fairly easily if I want to. Should I do that and then say "look this image came from the sony 828!" Why did otherwise excellent cameras like the canon g3/g5 never attract such criticism? They were both comparable if not worse than the 828 as far as chromatic abberation levels are concerned.
Ron Parr said:
Hold off on your diagnosis. He's totally right.

There's PF everywhere in the image. As I said, it's just not that
visible because of the exposure and colors in the image. If you
look cafeully, or if you adjust the levels, it just pops out
everywhere:

http://www.pbase.com/image/24980956/original.jpg

Of course, it's true that with careful use of the camera one can
greatly reduce the impact of this issue. As you've shown, for
certain exposures and compositions, it's just not that noticeable.
Still, there's just no denying that it's there.

(BTW, I you object to my posting modified versions of your images,
please let me know and I'll remove it immediately.)

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
Click to expand...
 
But on this one, I have trouble. The second shot you posted exhibits very visible PF in the shadow ares of many of the branches on the right side of the frame. It shows up on the printed page at 8X10 (on my S800) when viewed from a distance of 18" giving the branches a magenta tint. Overall, however, the PF is not distracting on this shot and is well hidden. On larger prints, it would be very easy to see.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter
 
You know - you're right. Changing the levels can cause some small shifts in hue across the image. You know what else? These small shifts have no impact on my point.

Changing levels doesn't introduce random stripes of color that weren't already there. The stripes of color that are already there will be come more noticeable and they might even shift in hue a little bit. It doesn't mean they weren't there in the first place.

My levels adjustment made the PF become a litte more reddish. That's all. Everything about my side of the argument remains true.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
joecorey said:
What did you do to that picture?
Click to expand...
Adjusted the levels.
joe corey said:
I can turn the edges pink in
photoshop fairly easily if I want to. Should I do that and then say
"look this image came from the sony 828!"
Click to expand...
Lin was having trouble seeing the CA, so I did this to make it easier to see.
joe corey said:
Why did otherwise
excellent cameras like the canon g3/g5 never attract such
criticism? They were both comparable if not worse than the 828 as
far as chromatic abberation levels are concerned.
Click to expand...
The G5 is worse than the G3 where PF is concerned. In fact, the G5 took a lot of criticism for its PF. In his review, Phil said, "For me this level of fringing isn't really acceptable in a modern digital camera."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong5/page13.asp

The G5 only got a "recommended" rating and the relatively short cons section listed CA as the first con.

The DC Resource said, "One thing that bugged me, though, was the level of purple fringing and/or purple halos in areas with a lot of contrast. "

and later in the list of things he didn't like about the camera, Jeff again mentioned, "Too much purple fringing."

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_g5-review/index.shtml

The G5 has definitely taken some knocks for the PF problem.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top