RX1 - Clear Image Zoom - results

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Muizen, Jul 5, 2013.

  1. Muizen

    Muizen Regular

    Mar 25, 2013
    Mechelen, Belgium
    Harry Briels
    Have you tried out the Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) function in RX1 and what are your observations and possible conclusions?
    Does zooming in CIZ (in Jpeg ExtraFine) bring better results than traditional cropping in RAW?
  2. rogerc

    rogerc Regular

    May 16, 2013
    The Hexagonal.

    All CIZ is doing is cropping the shot. There is no advantage in doing it in camera vs cropping later. You are reducing the mp as you crop (I think its 14mp on 50mm) so either way you are going to get the same result. Doing in camera gives you a JPEG while doing it separately gives you the ability to at least do some post of the file. You can also access the other virtual focal lengths from 35mm to anything... ;)

    The only advantage, maybe, of using CIZ in jpeg is that you can 'see' the FOV of what you are taking a photo of. All else is just a crop.
  3. bartjeej

    bartjeej Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Nov 12, 2010
    There might be a metering advantage too, if you're in multi or average metering mode, since the camera knows it should only meter the part that's required for the tighter crop.
  4. Muizen

    Muizen Regular

    Mar 25, 2013
    Mechelen, Belgium
    Harry Briels
    Hello Rogerc,
    A definite advantage is that, where a cropping in PP results in a smaller file, the CIZ (max. 3x) keeps the original size (24M).
    I see a better IQ in CIZ versus a crop of the same size in PP.
    Moreover it is very easy.

    I don't quite understand what you mean in your last sentence (about the FOV)?
    It is perfectly possible when using CIZ to have a focus point by using the level.
  5. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I find the potential of a metering advantage with the in-camera crop to be heavily outweighed by the quality of the raw files relative to the Sony jpegs. A slight miss in metering is usually more than close enough given the incredible DR of this sensor. But the couple of times I've tried Clear Image Zoom I just didn't find the quality of the file nearly as good as a cropped raw, which can still be very very good at well below 10mp if you're not planning huge prints...

  6. ozmander

    ozmander New Member

    Jul 18, 2013
    This is helpful, thanks.

    Is there any example online of how the RAW and JPG (after cropping vs. CIZ) stack up? At the pixel peeping level there may be differences, but do they really show up, even under close observation, say for a printed 12x16 image?

    And don't you find the cropped FOV to be very helpful for framing? Hard to visualize a cropped RAW file in the moment. At least for me...
  7. Muizen

    Muizen Regular

    Mar 25, 2013
    Mechelen, Belgium
    Harry Briels
    I thought a lot about your above statement about a PP crop in RAW being better than a Clear Image Zoom in Jpeg.
    First most of the time a RAW will convert to JPEG eventually.

    My experience is that using the Clear Image Zoom results in far better image quality of the zoomed image, compared to the RAW file cropped in PP to approx. the same size.
    I took the following shots in Clear Image Zoom and list their resolutions:

    1) In Image Quality L24M 2,0x (70mm) resolution 6000 x 4000 (24,0M)
    2) " " " M10M 3,0x (105mm) " " 3936 x 2624 ( 9,6M)
    3) " " " S4,6M 4,5x (158mm) " " 2640 x 1760 ( 4,7M)

    The RAW file, Image Quality L24M, cropped to approximately the same sizes as the zoomed sizes:
    1) Resolution 2610 x 1740 (4,5M)
    2) " " 2047 x 1364 (2,8M)
    3) " " 1503 x 1002 (1,5M)

    When zoomed to 70mm no resolution is lost; when cropped in PP to approx. the same size as the zoomed size, the resolution decreases from 24M to 4,5M!
    In the other two crops the cropped sizes are approx. 70% smaller than the zoomed sizes!
    Based on the resulting resolution the zoomed images are much better and can be used for larger prints.
    What mistake in interpretation do I make?
  8. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Yes, but they're doing some sort of interpolation and filling in the extra pixels, so its not REAL resolution, its sort of filled in resolution. When I tried it and looked at it in any sort of detail, it just looked really funky to me (for lack of a more technical term). When I crop a raw file, I'm fine working with lower resolution. Particularly for portraits (which is where I'm mostly likely to use this anyway), where extreme detail can be a problem and most people end up softening results anyway.

    If you like it, use it and enjoy it. I didn't like it...

    As for raw files being converting to jpegs eventually, yeah, but not until AFTER the end user manipulates the raw data in ways he or she wishes and then converts to a jpeg just for posting or viewing or printing. When you start out with a SOOC jpeg, you have much less to work with to create that final viewable jpeg. If you're happy with it as a starting point and don't need the additional data to manipulate, that's fine. But if you do, starting with a jpeg won't get you there...

  9. R Melanson

    R Melanson Rookie

    Aug 12, 2013
    Toronto, Canada
    It's good for quick results but you'll get better results if you incident meter externally, shoot in RAW and crop in post. Have fun, good luck.
  10. kenghusted

    kenghusted New Member

    Aug 14, 2013
    Well, interesting discussion I think, but it gets a bit too technical for me. Why don't you lucky RX1 owners post a few shots using CIZ. That would be great because at the moment I'm really tempted in buying RX1 instead of the RX100 II dispite the huge price difference here in Denmark. Thanks in advance.
  11. entropic remnants

    entropic remnants Hall of Famer

    Mar 3, 2013
    John Griggs
    I use similar techniques to what Sony is doing to create very large prints from lower megapixel files. For instance from slightly cropped X100 or micro four thirds shots. When I print 24x36" now I do it.

    The basic idea is to first dramatically increase the resolution beyond the target resolution with slight softening during the interpolation (the creation of new pixels). Then, do a conversion back down to the target resolution (in my case, Lightroom export) and doing the sharpening THEN. What this does is create a very smooth image with some sharp looking details. It is pleasant to the eye and conveys an IMPRESSION of more than is actually there and presents well.

    This technique is not new, and it has been applied to some cameras before. It basically produces a file with no new information in it versus the crop, but scaled to a resolution that is desired with a look that is pleasing.

    It does look surprisingly good in the work I do but the key thing to remember is that you actually have no more information in the picture than was in the crop version, and that resolution of the file, and resolution of the actual image information are no longer the same thing.