Sample of weird jpg processing on A7

[Arlene]

Just tried an A7 out at a camera store - jpg's only and I got this weird smearing effect on the skin. See the sample below. The Dp review is accurate - jpg processing is disappointing. I didn't change any settings. Maybe it was on high NR and I needed to set it on low NR or no NR. I'm going to go bk to the store and try again. --Arlene

www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312.jpg

If the above link doesn't work or doesn't display clear enough, click on the link below to see it at pbase.com (click on original size to see the problem)

Loading…

www.pbase.com

Interested to know if you've run across this problem and how you handled it. --Arl

 

[Arlene]

By the way, on pbase, it says the camera is an A7R - it was not, it was an A7.

 

[forpetessake]

Just tried an A7 out at a camera store - jpg's only and I got this weird smearing effect on the skin. See the sample below. The Dp review is accurate - jpg processing is disappointing. I didn't change any settings. Maybe it was on high NR and I needed to set it on low NR or no NR. I'm going to go bk to the store and try again. --Arlene

www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312.jpg

If the above link doesn't work or doesn't display clear enough, click on the link below to see it at pbase.com (click on original size to see the problem)

http://www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312

Interested to know if you've run across this problem and how you handled it. --Arl

The default NR is very aggressive with weird artifacts. I set NR to off on mine, it's never actually off, just at a low level. Still jpegs from A7 are poor at high ISO, so processing raw is pretty much a necessity. DPR mentioned this in their A7 review too.

--

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter -- Winston Churchill

 

[Arlene]

Just tried an A7 out at a camera store - jpg's only and I got this weird smearing effect on the skin. See the sample below. The Dp review is accurate - jpg processing is disappointing. I didn't change any settings. Maybe it was on high NR and I needed to set it on low NR or no NR. I'm going to go bk to the store and try again. --Arlene

www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312.jpg

If the above link doesn't work or doesn't display clear enough, click on the link below to see it at pbase.com (click on original size to see the problem)

http://www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312

Interested to know if you've run across this problem and how you handled it. --Arl

The default NR is very aggressive with weird artifacts. I set NR to off on mine, it's never actually off, just at a low level. Still jpegs from A7 are poor at high ISO, so processing raw is pretty much a necessity. DPR mentioned this in their A7 review too.

So if you turn off the NR altogether, how high can the iso go before jpgs start to look bad?

---Arlene

--

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter -- Winston Churchill

 

[forpetessake]

Just tried an A7 out at a camera store - jpg's only and I got this weird smearing effect on the skin. See the sample below. The Dp review is accurate - jpg processing is disappointing. I didn't change any settings. Maybe it was on high NR and I needed to set it on low NR or no NR. I'm going to go bk to the store and try again. --Arlene

www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312.jpg

If the above link doesn't work or doesn't display clear enough, click on the link below to see it at pbase.com (click on original size to see the problem)

http://www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312

Interested to know if you've run across this problem and how you handled it. --Arl

The default NR is very aggressive with weird artifacts. I set NR to off on mine, it's never actually off, just at a low level. Still jpegs from A7 are poor at high ISO, so processing raw is pretty much a necessity. DPR mentioned this in their A7 review too.

So if you turn off the NR altogether, how high can the iso go before jpgs start to look bad?

It says NR off, but in reality there is still quite a bit of NR applied. How bad is A7 high ISO? -- It's subjective. I think A7 with NR off looks slightly noisier than NEX-5N with NR set to Low, though when both resized to the screen resolution the noise looks the same to me. I couldn't post full size A7 images here, DPR limits the file size to 20MP, so here are some resized images taken with the same lens.

One weird thing, A7 consistently measured higher ISO for the same subject and the same shutter speed than NEX-5N. I can explain half of that, because I kept the same distance, and changed focal length from 35mm for NEX to 50mm for A7 to keep the same subject size and perspective. Since it was a variable aperture zoom, it looses light on the long end. But that loss is only 1/2 stop or less, while the cameras were typically 1 stop apart. I think A7 is overstating ISO by at least 1/2 stop.

 

[forpetessake]

Sony traditionally had poor red channel jpeg processing, A7/r are not exception. Reds are blurred and lose all texture and contrast. It's very visible at DPR test shot on that Beatles scene .

 

[quezra]

Just tried an A7 out at a camera store - jpg's only and I got this weird smearing effect on the skin. See the sample below. The Dp review is accurate - jpg processing is disappointing. I didn't change any settings. Maybe it was on high NR and I needed to set it on low NR or no NR. I'm going to go bk to the store and try again. --Arlene

www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312.jpg

If the above link doesn't work or doesn't display clear enough, click on the link below to see it at pbase.com (click on original size to see the problem)

http://www.pbase.com/arlene/image/154258312

Interested to know if you've run across this problem and how you handled it. --Arl

It's a very spotty face, and at ISO 1,600 the camera is expecting to have to kill substantial noise. Where the contrast is not high enough to interpret the spots as actual skin features, it interprets it as noise and mushes them (you'll notice it's closer to highlights that the problem occurs). This is true of all JPEG engines, so the question is whether or not other cameras do it better. If they don't, then the answer is you either shouldn't be at default NR, or shooting ISO 1,600, or using JPEG (or some combination of the three) for this type of shot.

For what it's worth, I had to really pixel peep with my face about 3" from my HD monitor to really see what you're talking about. So how bad would it be in prints?

 

[JohnK]

I didn't change any settings.

There's your problem, right there ;-)

--
JohnK
Take a picture, it'll last longer.

 

[Keit ll]

I'm not so convinced that the Jpeg shown is so bad ? Camera sensors pick up colour differences which are less visible directly to the human eye. If this was happening at low ISOs I would be more worried.