Adobe ACR - diagonal lines artifacts with Sony cameras

[mdcromer]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured Sony shooters might be more aware of this issue than the Adobe community at large and be able to offer advice.

'm very happy with Bridge / ACR / Photoshop for the most part. I really like the workflow and have few complaints.

My only complaint is that thin diagonal lines get rendered as "jaggies". Basically, 2x2 blocks of dark. Nothing I do seems to fix this problem.

Here I will post two images from my Sony RX100 to show the problem, one rendered by ACR, the other by RawTherapee. I have zoomed in to 400%, but it is still very clear at 100%, where ACR images always look "stair-stepped".

I know sharpening is not the same between the two files, but I still get the same effect from ACR on diagonal lines, no matter what I do with the "sharpening" or "detail" sliders, radius etc.

Any ideas what I can do to make ACR do a better job demosaicing diagonal lines?

I get this same result with my Sony dSLRs, dSLTs and my Sony RX100. As you can see, the RawTherapee results are just far superior on diagonal lines, which I have a lot of as I do a lot of landscape photography in the forests of the Southeast. I don't want to switch to RawTherapee as the app is hard to use, but if I can't get better results from ACR I'm going to have to consider alternative RAW converters.

Thanks for your suggestions.

 

[Daniel Lauring]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured Sony shooters might be more aware of this issue than the Adobe community at large and be able to offer advice.

'm very happy with Bridge / ACR / Photoshop for the most part. I really like the workflow and have few complaints.

My only complaint is that thin diagonal lines get rendered as "jaggies". Basically, 2x2 blocks of dark. Nothing I do seems to fix this problem.

Here I will post two images from my Sony RX100 to show the problem, one rendered by ACR, the other by RawTherapee. I have zoomed in to 400%, but it is still very clear at 100%, where ACR images always look "stair-stepped".

I know sharpening is not the same between the two files, but I still get the same effect from ACR on diagonal lines, no matter what I do with the "sharpening" or "detail" sliders, radius etc.

Any ideas what I can do to make ACR do a better job demosaicing diagonal lines?

I get this same result with my Sony dSLRs, dSLTs and my Sony RX100. As you can see, the RawTherapee results are just far superior on diagonal lines, which I have a lot of as I do a lot of landscape photography in the forests of the Southeast. I don't want to switch to RawTherapee as the app is hard to use, but if I can't get better results from ACR I'm going to have to consider alternative RAW converters.

Thanks for your suggestions.

It is interesting to see Fuji isn't the only one who gets a bum deal from ACR.

 

[mdcromer]

It is interesting to see Fuji isn't the only one who gets a bum deal from ACR.

Well with Fuji it's understandable - as their sensor layout is very different from everyone else.

Not sure what Adobe's reason is for their Sony conversion issues.

 

[nandbytes]

Very interesting. Have you tried with Sony IDC? Someone on a-mount forum posted a while back about this and how it made a difference over using Adobe.

http://jdebordphoto.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/do-you-shoot-sony-cameras-heres-biggest.html

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured Sony shooters might be more aware of this issue than the Adobe community at large and be able to offer advice.

I use Lightroom (same engine) with my NEX-5/A3000 and have yet to see anything quite that bad. It would be interesting to see if others can reproduce your results.

--
Erik

 

[pixelpushing]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured Sony shooters might be more aware of this issue than the Adobe community at large and be able to offer advice.

'm very happy with Bridge / ACR / Photoshop for the most part. I really like the workflow and have few complaints.

My only complaint is that thin diagonal lines get rendered as "jaggies". Basically, 2x2 blocks of dark. Nothing I do seems to fix this problem.

Here I will post two images from my Sony RX100 to show the problem, one rendered by ACR, the other by RawTherapee. I have zoomed in to 400%, but it is still very clear at 100%, where ACR images always look "stair-stepped".

I know sharpening is not the same between the two files, but I still get the same effect from ACR on diagonal lines, no matter what I do with the "sharpening" or "detail" sliders, radius etc.

Any ideas what I can do to make ACR do a better job demosaicing diagonal lines?

I get this same result with my Sony dSLRs, dSLTs and my Sony RX100. As you can see, the RawTherapee results are just far superior on diagonal lines, which I have a lot of as I do a lot of landscape photography in the forests of the Southeast. I don't want to switch to RawTherapee as the app is hard to use, but if I can't get better results from ACR I'm going to have to consider alternative RAW converters.

Thanks for your suggestions.

I find this happens more when I try to add any sharpening (including default). I think DxO might do a better job but I haven't compared, honestly.

I was pitting my DP3M (a sharpness beast) against my A7II + Oly 24/2.8 the other day and while the LR image did get very close, I noticed that with moderate sharpening (50-ish) it tore up the edges of rose blossoms slightly in the foreground. It looked like interpolation/demosaicing issues to me and only happened in the red transitioning to dark shadow area. I could post the sample...

 

[mdcromer]

I use Lightroom (same engine) with my NEX-5/A3000 and have yet to see anything quite that bad. It would be interesting to see if others can reproduce your results.

--
Erik

This is the RX100, I get the same kinds of results with my Alpha 65, 550 and 350.

I've seen people with other Sony cameras complain about the same thing with the A7 series.

 

[Stflbn]

There's WAY drastically different sharpening between those two files. The left ones sharpened way more than it every should be IMHO.

You sure you don't have some over sharpened preset accidentally saved or something?

--
Sony A7ii | A6000
Sony 55 FE 1.8 | 24-70 FE F4 | 70-200G FE F4 | 70-400G ~ LA-EA4
Rokinon 14mm 2.8 | Kiron 105 Macro
Helios 40-2 | Tair 11a | Helios 44-4 | Min MC 50 1.4
http://stufflebeanphotography.com

 

[mdcromer]

There's WAY drastically different sharpening between those two files. The left ones sharpened way more than it every should be IMHO.

The one on the left is done with the detail slider at 100% for deconvolution sharpening. It's also at 400%.

It doesn't matter - the exact same artifacts also show up with no added sharpening at all.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

There's WAY drastically different sharpening between those two files. The left ones sharpened way more than it every should be IMHO.

The one on the left is done with the detail slider at 100% for deconvolution sharpening. It's also at 400%.

It doesn't matter - the exact same artifacts also show up with no added sharpening at all.

It's sharpening. Here is an A3000 branches against sky shot with LR 5.7 (with default capture sharpening of 25,1.0,25 and no output sharpening )vs. Sony IDC 4.2 (with default sharpening.) Which has more jagged diagonals at 400%?




LR 5.7 vs. Sony IDC at 400%. View 1920x1200 original.



--
Erik

 

[mdcromer]

I don't see the artifacting here in either image. No 2x2 blocks. The blockiness you are showing is simply from the 400% view.

Not every RAW file has this issue, and in any given file, not every diagonal branch displays the artifacting. But it is quite common in Adobe RAW conversions.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I don't see the artifacting here in either image. No 2x2 blocks. The blockiness you are showing is simply from the 400% view.

Exactly. IDC and LR perform almost identically. AMaZE may be a little better than Adobe's algorithms for some subjects but it's up to you to tune the sharpening to how you intend to use the image (screen vs. print, large vs. small).

Not every RAW file has this issue, and in any given file, not every diagonal branch displays the artifacting. But it is quite common in Adobe RAW conversions.

To minimize the problem, simply don't oversharpen and don't view at 400%.

 

[JimKasson]

Here I will post two images from my Sony RX100 to show the problem, one rendered by ACR, the other by RawTherapee. I have zoomed in to 400%, but it is still very clear at 100%, where ACR images always look "stair-stepped".

I know sharpening is not the same between the two files, but I still get the same effect from ACR on diagonal lines, no matter what I do with the "sharpening" or "detail" sliders, radius etc.

The sharpening is radically different. I'd call the RT image just slightly oversharpened, and the Lr one is off the charts.

Any ideas what I can do to make ACR do a better job demosaicing diagonal lines?

I have been unable to reproduce your results, including here:

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9042

Could you post a link to your raw file?

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

 

[mdcromer]

.

To minimize the problem, simply don't oversharpen and don't view at 400%.

--
Erik

I know what sharpening artifacts are, and the 2x2 blocks are very visible when sharpening is set to zero, at 100% magnification.

If you would like to process the original ARW file in the Adobe RAW convertor to try and avoid the 2x2 blocks, be my guest.

Original RAW File is available here:

http://lightskyland.com/files/DSC09180.ARW

EJ Peiker who is very familiar with RAW conversions, gave it a shot, and his conversion in Adobe showed the artifacts (his C1 conversion did not!)

If you can get a conversion from the Adobe RAW converter without the 2x2 blocks showing up in some (not all!) of the diagonal branches I'll be very happy.

Note: these artifacts do not show up in all images with prominent high-contrast diagonal lines. They are more likely to occur in very high MTF images (perfectly sharp and in focus).

I've found them in images from three different Sony cameras processed in Adobe RAW conversion software.

 

[mdcromer]

The sharpening is radically different. I'd call the RT image just slightly oversharpened, and the Lr one is off the charts.

Agreed, the ACR image is much more sharpened due to setting the "detail" slider to 100% (I have been experimenting with deconvolution sharpening which the Adobe convertor supposedly uses at 100%). However, the sharpening artifacts are visible regardless of sharpening amount.

Here is EJ Pieker's conversion, first from ACR:

And next from Capture One:

The 2x2 blockiness on the diagonal is immediately obvious from ACR, the C1 image does a much better job with demosaic.

Could you post a link to your raw file?

Jim

Sure thing Jim!

http://lightskyland.com/files/DSC09180.ARW

Note that the cropped area is visible near the top 10% of the frame, just slightly to the left of center.

I will take a look at your blog post now. Note that these 2x2 blocks at diagonal lines do not shot up all the time, and when they do, it isn't in every single diagonal line in the frame.

Also, I have found evidence that this is a known issue in the Adobe RAW conversion. Having trouble re-locating the discussion online though.

 

[dchao]

I noticed that too from tomhongkong's test shots with 1670Z

Here is 200% center crop (with 1670z 52mm and f/5)

I thought it was my monitor. But I am glad I am not alone.

 

[mdcromer]

I have been unable to reproduce your results, including here:

http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9042

Hi again Jim.

From the corner crop of the Tamron image from your link:

I think if you took a centered image of that area (instead of the corner) you'd see even more prominent blockiness. It seems to show up the most when tree branches are sharpest on very high contrast edges (although not all of them!)

 

[JimKasson]

Note that these 2x2 blocks at diagonal lines do not shot up all the time, and when they do, it isn't in every single diagonal line in the frame.

Thanks for the link. Here's what I see now with Lr default settings:

For the quad-pixel blockiness to occur, the angle has to be right, and also the thickness of the line. Also the contrast has to be high; note that the errors get smaller as the contrast decreases along the branch. I believe what we are seeing here is a case where the Lr/ACR demosaicing algorithm is not optimal for this kind of image structure. It looks to me like Lr is placing a high priority -- maybe too high, in this case -- on avoiding chromaticity errors and a lower priority on this particular kind of luminance error.

While not perfect, I consider this type of error inconsequential in most cases. You're not going to see it in a print without a loupe.

Jim

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[mdcromer]

I noticed that too from tomhongkong's test shots with 1670Z

Here is 200% center crop (with 1670z 52mm and f/5)

I thought it was my monitor. But I am glad I am not alone.

In this picture, the ropes going into the water from the bow of the boat at bottom left certainly show the 2x2 blocky artifacting.

 

[rjjr]

The sharpening is radically different. I'd call the RT image just slightly oversharpened, and the Lr one is off the charts.

Agreed, the ACR image is much more sharpened due to setting the "detail" slider to 100% (I have been experimenting with deconvolution sharpening which the Adobe convertor supposedly uses at 100%). However, the sharpening artifacts are visible regardless of sharpening amount.

Here is EJ Pieker's conversion, first from ACR:

And next from Capture One:

The 2x2 blockiness on the diagonal is immediately obvious from ACR, the C1 image does a much better job with demosaic.

Could you post a link to your raw file?

Jim

Sure thing Jim!

http://lightskyland.com/files/DSC09180.ARW

Note that the cropped area is visible near the top 10% of the frame, just slightly to the left of center.

I will take a look at your blog post now. Note that these 2x2 blocks at diagonal lines do not shot up all the time, and when they do, it isn't in every single diagonal line in the frame.

Also, I have found evidence that this is a known issue in the Adobe RAW conversion. Having trouble re-locating the discussion online though.

I've found in general the $30US Capture 1 for Sony does a much better job than ACR on my Sony files. The resultant tiffs from Capture 1 also sharpen better and have less noise in CS6 than ACR files.