snapsy wrote:
Agreed. I've read through patents of various HDR implementations and some interleave the multiple-exposure/gain data read off the sensor, requiring ISP ASIC logic to process the data, whereas others dump them into separate frames that are more amenable to firmware processing.
If A7V doubles the number of bands in DGO, doesn't that mean it reads separately (or 2x slower) for low and high gain?
j4nu wrote:
If A7V doubles the number of bands in DGO, doesn't that mean it reads separately (or 2x slower) for low and high gain?
Only DGO implementations that use the ES double the bands. The A7V only uses DGO with the mechanical shutter so the 2x readout speed occurs after the exposure is over and the mechanical curtains shut, so it has no impact on rolling shutter artifacts like banding.
j4nu wrote:
If A7V doubles the number of bands in DGO, doesn't that mean it reads separately (or 2x slower) for low and high gain?
They have multiple DAs in there. I guess with DGO two will be needed to read a single pixel whereas the same two could convert two different pixels simultaneously without DGO.
snapsy wrote:
Only DGO implementations that use the ES double the bands. The A7V only uses DGO with the mechanical shutter so the 2x readout speed occurs after the exposure is over and the mechanical curtains shut, so it has no impact on rolling shutter artifacts like banding.
Where are the images that no one has produced yet 🙄 concidering electronic shutter DR is the same as the a6700 where is the a6700 16 stop of DR in mechanical shutter 🤔 i know the a7000 ultra 😁
Dual-gain seems too powerful an innovation to not beome a standrd feature on new models, where it is feasible, as they roll out in the future. It sounds like it is less likely to come to fully-stacked cameras like the A1 III because of the additive DR loss. But I could easily see a future A7C3 featuring the A7V sensor with dual gain and semi-stacked.
But perhaps not the higher mpix A7CR successor because the extra mpix makes any form of stacking more expensive to achieve.
Does anyone have any educated estimates of how well the semi-stacked sensor in the A7V will deal with the banding problem caused by the flickering of modern LED lighting (which is becoming ubiquitous)?
chiron wrote:
Dual-gain seems too powerful an innovation to not beome a standrd feature on new models, where it is feasible, as they roll out in the future. It sounds like it is less likely to come to fully-stacked cameras like the A1 III because of the additive DR loss. But I could easily see a future A7C3 featuring the A7V sensor with dual gain and semi-stacked.
But perhaps not the higher mpix A7CR successor because the extra mpix makes any form of stacking more expensive to achieve.
I think it will be standard, also I think all future Sony cameras may also have at least partially stacked sensors. I just realized that A7R6 can come out by end of next year.
chiron wrote:
Does anyone have any educated estimates of how well the semi-stacked sensor in the A7V will deal with the banding problem caused by the flickering of modern LED lighting (which is becoming ubiquitous)?
In electronic shutter, the readout time is currently estimated to be around 14ms. This means it will behave more or less the same as Nikon Z6III, Panasonic S1II, Canon R6II or R8.
chiron wrote:
Does anyone have any educated estimates of how well the semi-stacked sensor in the A7V will deal with the banding problem caused by the flickering of modern LED lighting (which is becoming ubiquitous)?
chiron wrote:
Does anyone have any educated estimates of how well the semi-stacked sensor in the A7V will deal with the banding problem caused by the flickering of modern LED lighting (which is becoming ubiquitous)?
As you can see in the image sample, even the A1 has trouble in some situations so I would not expect much too much from the A7V. Global shutter is the only answer afaik
As you can see in the image sample, even the A1 has trouble in some situations so I would not expect much too much from the A7V. Global shutter is the only answer afaik
Yes, but no. Jim Kasson has previously demonstrated that some LED lights can produce banding even with a stacked sensor. This is especially true of some stadium and theatrical lighting and the occasional home, public or retail lighting
However, in thousands of images shot under a variety of home and public LED lighting, I have virtually never gotten a banded image with either an A9, A1, or A1 II. They are all fast enough to not have a problem with common modern lighting.
On the other hand, with an A7iii, A7RIII, A7Cii, and A7CR, banding under common LED lights is universal and extreme.
So it is a matter of degree rather than an absolute, but the degree of difference between stacked and unstacked is very great.
j4nu wrote:
In electronic shutter, the readout time is currently estimated to be around 14ms. This means it will behave more or less the same as Nikon Z6III, Panasonic S1II, Canon R6II or R8.
I don't have experience with any of those cameras. How do they behave with ordinary LED lighting?
chiron wrote:
Yes, but no. Jim Kasson has previously demonstrated that some LED lights can produce banding even with a stacked shutter. This is especially true of some stadium and theatrical lighting and the occasional home, public or retail lighting
However, in thousands of images shot under a variety of home and public LED lighting, I have virtually never gotten a banded image with either an A9, A1, or A1 II. They are all fast enough to not have a problem with common modern lighting.
On the other hand, with an A7iii, A7RIII, A7Cii, and A7CR, banding under common LED lights is universal and extreme.
So it is a matter of degree rather than an absolute, but the degree of difference between stacked and unstacked is very great.
How many bands do you have on say A7CR? What you can do is divide the a7CR picture vertically by the ratio of the read speed (about 4:1 between A7CR and A7v?). Then stretch it back to the original aspect ratio. That's roughly how the picture will look like on A7v.
chiron wrote:
Yes, but no. Jim Kasson has previously demonstrated that some LED lights can produce banding even with a stacked sensor. This is especially true of some stadium and theatrical lighting and the occasional home, public or retail lighting
However, in thousands of images shot under a variety of home and public LED lighting, I have virtually never gotten a banded image with either an A9, A1, or A1 II. They are all fast enough to not have a problem with common modern lighting.
On the other hand, with an A7iii, A7RIII, A7Cii, and A7CR, banding under common LED lights is universal and extreme.
So it is a matter of degree rather than an absolute, but the degree of difference between stacked and unstacked is very great.
chiron wrote:
However, in thousands of images shot under a variety of home and public LED lighting, I have virtually never gotten a banded image with either an A9, A1, or A1 II. They are all fast enough to not have a problem with common modern lighting.
Basically you lucked out. I’ve definitely run into my fair share of everyday light bulbs that cause banding when using the A1’s electronic shutter.
The image sample wasn’t anything exotic either, just a single standard domestic fixture with cheap E27 bulbs shot with the A1 at high shutter speed.
The mechanical shutter on the A1 is remarkably fast, and does mitigate banding to a greater extent.
aCuria wrote:
As you can see from my A1 sample, I’ve definitely run into everyday light bulbs that cause banding when using the A1’s electronic shutter. This wasn’t anything exotic either, just a single standard domestic fixture with cheap E27 bulbs.
Yes, but you shot it at 1/32000s (i.e. A1's max shutter speed) ... That is not really typical when shooting with indoor LED lightning .
j4nu wrote:
Yes, but you shot it at 1/32000s (i.e. A1's max shutter speed) ... That is not really typical when shooting with indoor LED lightning .
The high shutter is on purpose to maximize the visibility of the banding effect. This way, the lines where the light is flickered OFF will be completely black.
At slower shutter speeds the banding is not as high contrast but its still there!
If I used the A9iii to take the same shot, it would be completely clean even at 1/32000s!
aCuria wrote:
The high shutter is on purpose to maximize the visibility of the banding effect. This way, the lines where the light is flickered OFF will be completely black.
At slower shutter speeds the banding is not as high contrast but its still there!
If I used the A9iii to take the same shot, it would be completely clean even at 1/32000s!
Yes, that's what I meant. Unless @chiron shoots his indoor events at 1/32000s, it won't affect his shooting.
And as you noted, GS has its own share of problems with flicker ...
j4nu wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant. Unless @chiron@ shoots his indoor events at 1/32000s, it won't affect his shooting.
And as you noted, GS has its own share of problems with flicker ...
j4nu wrote:
Yes, that's what I meant. Unless @chiron@ shoots his indoor events at 1/32000s, it won't affect his shooting.
No! At lower shutter the banding is still there.
j4nu wrote:
GS has its own share of problems with flicker ...
GS does not have issues in practice for me.
First, the anti flicker setting will help you catch shots when the lights at their maximum cycle.
Second, my subjects are not on the ceiling. The light bulb being dimmer does not affect a shot of the subject.
... That is not really typical when shooting with indoor LED lightning 
