Sony crop error

[vAfotoriporter]

My currently experienced problem is similar to a previous post linked below:
http://forums.camerabits.com/index.php?topic=10290.msg50954#msg50954

I set up my a7III and RX100VII to 16:9 aspect ratio to have a 16:9 mark in photo mode to allow composition for video. The RAW files are still 3:2 and I love it this way. The embedded JPG of RAW files is 16:9, but I'm ok with it.

BUT when I apply a 3:2 crop in PM to these theoretical 16:9 factual 3:2 RAW files they display in 3:2 in PM however they open up in LR with a totally different aspect ratio crop. Nor 16:9, neither 3:2 - it is more like 4:5.
In this situation I would not love, but could accept 16:9. I would prefer and expect the 3:2 aspect ratio to work properly as set in PM.

I guess the problem comes from the different aspect ratio of the embedded image and the original RAW file and the way the two totally different crop marks translate for the two images in LR. However I don't know if this is only because of the way LR interprets the markings or the way PM saves them into the files.

I hope you can find a solution for this problem.

If you need I can send sample files to test it.

[Kirk Baker]

My currently experienced problem is similar to a previous post linked below:
http://forums.camerabits.com/index.php?topic=10290.msg50954#msg50954

I set up my a7III and RX100VII to 16:9 aspect ratio to have a 16:9 mark in photo mode to allow composition for video. The RAW files are still 3:2 and I love it this way. The embedded JPG of RAW files is 16:9, but I'm ok with it.

BUT when I apply a 3:2 crop in PM to these theoretical 16:9 factual 3:2 RAW files they display in 3:2 in PM however they open up in LR with a totally different aspect ratio crop. Nor 16:9, neither 3:2 - it is more like 4:5.
In this situation I would not love, but could accept 16:9. I would prefer and expect the 3:2 aspect ratio to work properly as set in PM.

I guess the problem comes from the different aspect ratio of the embedded image and the original RAW file and the way the two totally different crop marks translate for the two images in LR. However I don't know if this is only because of the way LR interprets the markings or the way PM saves them into the files.

I hope you can find a solution for this problem.

I'm not sure how this can be solved.  If LR is picking its own aspect ratio that is neither the RAW ratio or the preview ratio, then there isn't much we can do.

-Kirk

[Hayo Baan]

My guess is that the crop that is being set is different from what LR expects in this case. Can you post an example so I can analyse the issue?

[Kirk Baker]

Hayo,

My guess is that the crop that is being set is different from what LR expects in this case. Can you post an example so I can analyse the issue?

The crop coordinates are normalized (0.0 - 1.0) so the crops should be proportional, but not equivalent aspect ratio-wise.  The normalized crop coordinates are scaled to the image/video dimensions, so if LR is rendering with some other aspect ratio than is expected, I don't think there is much we could do.

-Kirk

[Hayo Baan]

Hi Kirk,

My guess is that the crop that is being set is different from what LR expects in this case. Can you post an example so I can analyse the issue?

The crop coordinates are normalized (0.0 - 1.0) so the crops should be proportional, but not equivalent aspect ratio-wise.  The normalized crop coordinates are scaled to the image/video dimensions, so if LR is rendering with some other aspect ratio than is expected, I don't think there is much we could do.

I don't think it will be easy for you to match what is done by LR in this case, but still I'd like to see what they're actually doing (purely out of metadata interest).

Note: I suspect LR defines the crop against the full size of the image, not against the in-camera cropped image. Or at least something similar to this.

[Hayo Baan]

Hi vAfotoriporter,

I had a look at the files you sent me yesterday and they confirm my suspicion. The 16:9 image is actually a full sized raw image but with an in-camera crop applied. This is what is rendered as the preview image (that's why you see the image as 16:9 in PM).

Here's where it gets a bit hairy: PM uses the preview image to base the crop information on. LR on the other hand takes the full-size original raw data and bases the crop on that. Hence the fact that the crop turns out differently (PM/LR crops are relative to the width and height). Note: if you crop the original image in LR you'll see there is actually much more image data than the 16:9 render.

This is fixable, of course, but would create considerable effort on Camerabits'-side, they'd have to try to correctly interpret the initial in-camera crop and take that into account when performing a crop on such images. This would be effort only to serve some very special cases. IMO, I think they'd better spend that on other things. Also given that the 16:9 crop (on raw) is actually still the full image, perhaps the best solution is to simply not shoot in that size; it won't give you any real (space) benefit and it does give you more crop freedom later.

(Note: e.g. Nikon cameras also have in-camera crop modes, but these are true crops and are also applied to the raw data)

[vAfotoriporter]

Hi vAfotoriporter,

I had a look at the files you sent me yesterday and they confirm my suspicion. The 16:9 image is actually a full sized raw image but with an in-camera crop applied. This is what is rendered as the preview image (that's why you see the image as 16:9 in PM).

Here's where it gets a bit hairy: PM uses the preview image to base the crop information on. LR on the other hand takes the full-size original raw data and bases the crop on that. Hence the fact that the crop turns out differently (PM/LR crops are relative to the width and height). Note: if you crop the original image in LR you'll see there is actually much more image data than the 16:9 render.

This is fixable, of course, but would create considerable effort on Camerabits'-side, they'd have to try to correctly interpret the initial in-camera crop and take that into account when performing a crop on such images. This would be effort only to serve some very special cases. IMO, I think they'd better spend that on other things. Also given that the 16:9 crop (on raw) is actually still the full image, perhaps the best solution is to simply not shoot in that size; it won't give you any real (space) benefit and it does give you more crop freedom later.

(Note: e.g. Nikon cameras also have in-camera crop modes, but these are true crops and are also applied to the raw data)

I know Sony makes no real crop of the RAW file (I wrote this in my initial post too) - and I like it this way.

I prefer 3:2 aspect ratio for photos. I choose to use the camera in 16:9 instead of 3:2 because this is the only option to see the 16:9 crop that will be applied for video. This way I don't have to recompose the frame after the video is started as I see the exact video crop in photo mode before starting video recording.

However this also means loosing PM’s crop feature.