A900: Two RAWs run through RAW Photo Processor. Warning! Large pictures!!
I ran two Imaging-Resource still life RAWs through RAW Photo Processor. Both at default settings.
Sony's JPEG engine definitely needs work.
Note that the 1600 ISO shot appears to be half-sized. I'm not sure if it's the beta RPP or if the IR RAW itself was resized, but it opens in RPP at that size. I'll check later when I have time.
Iliah Borg wrote:
It is beta version, however. Please let us know of any issues.-- hide signature --
Thnx for sharing! We could say to Sony: Please do your A900 justice and redo the JPG engine!
I hope they will do before the real reviews come out!
WOW! Thanks for posting, I think 3200 could still be a bit better on Sony's part.
I agree, jpegs need work; but I find myself asking why would anyone pick up this camera and use jpeg, unless they were just shooting some quick memories (like birthday party or something) and did not care? Thanks again....RAW it is.
People need to smile not only in front of the camera; but behind it too!
Here is an Imaging Resource ISO 6400 A900 in-camera JPEG that looks awful -> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/FULLRES/AA900hSLI6400.HTM
I processed the corresponding RAW file using Raw Photo Developer (Mac only), used Noise Ninja (sacrificing much of the detail especially in the red fabrics), and then did a quick levels/curves adjustment to try to roughly match the in-camera JPEG brightness. This is the result -> http://flickr.com/photos/asabet/2843974035/sizes/o/
With a RAW processor that I've actually used more than once, I'm sure I could do much better.
Looks nice to me. ISO3200 actually looks pleasing. I'm surprised the film guys aren't saluting the grain structure.
I didn't look much at the JPG ones, though, so I can't compare.
... I really like the looks of the ISO3200 shot. These noise levels are very acceptable for a 24 MP camera, IMO.
Hopefully Sony soon also works on an improved jpeg engine. (Although I only shoot RAW).
Sony Alpha 700, Sony Alpha 100, Minolta 9xi, Metz 54 MZ-4, Minolta 2.8/100 macro, Sony 1.4/50, Sony 2.8/70-200 SSM, Sony 1.4x TC, Tokina 2.6-2.8/28-70 ProII, Tamron 4.5-5.6/11-18 Di II LD Asph, Tamron 2.8/17-50 Di II LD Asph, Minolta 4.5/400 HS, Canon S70
see some of my images at
I am a film guy and think the a900 looks like a steel....I am actually more interested with it then the D700, and I shoot a Nikon F4s and F3 for film.
it's a beta of Raw Photo Processor and I purposely didn't adjust anything from the default when I exported it to a JPG. I imagine the exposure could be adjusted in RPP to be more correct.
it's also possible RPP itself still needs to be tweaked a bit too for A900 RAW conversion.
Paul W, UK wrote:
Is it me or are both those pretty heavily underexposed...which won't
actually help from a noise viewpoint.
|The Engineer by EXX|
from Steam Trains
|Madrid subway by MAGMATCICO62|
from Your City - Public Transport
|Incandescent Bulb by Kukla|
from Illuminate- Macro only
|Curiousity by PERCY2|
from Macro - Your Best Macro Ever
|Hoar Frosted Trees by sabishiT3T|