a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

These 4 pics were shot on full auto so that the CIZ would work. Two were with my a6500 and FE 70-200 F4 and two with my RX10m4.

These are all SOOC JPG's, of course. I used the "quality" setting that gives the largest JPG in all cases. The distance is about 400'. The time was after 10 am and before noon, sky somewhat clear, Detroit area but not inside the air pollution bubble/dome. The a6500 shots were actually about an hour later.

One RX10m4 shot was at 600 mm equivalent and the other is full-on CIZ so 1200 mm. The exposure is nearly perfect if you consider that the brightest white on the railing is just a hair under 250 on my Mac's Digital Color Meter. The white cover on the porch awning is 255,255,255 on that meter.

The other two shots were the a6500 FE70-200 at 200 mm physically which is equivalent to 300 mm and with CIZ to show equivalent 600 mm. It's a manual zoom lens. The camera has a user-setting to invoke the CIZ and the "hat switch" is used to move from 1X to 2X continuously variable. This is not anywhere near as easy as with the RX10m4.

Now all you pixel peepers and download zealots should have something to work with. As most of you know, the RX10m4 sensor is a "one inch" size and the a6500 is a 1.5x crop frame.

Both shots include normal architecture as well as a bit of nature's shapes. The sky conditions between pairs changed a little.

The EXIF's will give the details but if you can't read them let me know and I will respond with screen captures of them.

A note of observation: Each pair has smaller file sizes for the CIZ version. But since the 2X zoom would be expected to include only 25% of the image area the logical explanation is that Sony is doing a lot of very interesting stuff with CIZ. The EXIF says the pixel dimensions of the shot are the same with and without CIZ. Sony is filling in the spaces, I guess.

I measured a distance on the images on one pair with and without CIZ and as I expected, the linear dimension on the CIZ version was about 0.5X. That means the CIZ image area is .25X. I also measured an object on the CIZ version of the a6500 (600 mm) and the non-CIZ version of the RX10m4 (600) and the sizes were almost exactly the same. So in this case, 600=600.

RX10m4

(Download)

RX10m4

(Download)

a6500,FE70-200

(Download)

a6500,FE70200

(Download)

Screenprint to compare field of view of 4 shots

(Download)

Screenprint of file sizes

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

What is CIZ?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’m really not sure what this is supposed to show us. There’s no real subject. I’m not quite sure what I’m supposed to focus on. I’d probably pick an actual subject was some actual detail for this kind of demonstration. Then again maybe this is indicative of your photography, in which case I’d say CIZ works just fine for you.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Were these all from tripod ??? And, what is YOUR take-away from all this ??

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

I would appreciate it if you would tell me what CIZ stands for. Just as a general note to those who post it is helpful to many who reads these threads if you explain the meaning of the acronyms. They are not always obvious.

What you are trying to show is interesting.

Bill_de Loc: US

Sony "Clear Image Zoom"

I Googled "CIZ in photography".

Sometimes Google gives answers quicker than UHH.

---

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

CIZ = Clear Image Zoom

This is term Sony uses to crop the image and to then make up new pixels to insert into the image to bring it back to the original pixel dimensions. It only works with JPG images, and not RAW. The amount of resizing can be varied up to 2.0x. At 2.0x, it has to invent 3 new pixels for every 1 existing pixel. At 1.4x, it is close to 1 new pixel for every 1 existing pixel.

Other camera manufacturers also have tools like this with different names. I think I recall Olympus calling it Digital Teleconverter, or something like that. And it fills in missing pixels the same way. Olympus also allows the camera to shoot RAW + JPG and it resizes the JPG and passes through the RAW in its normal size.

CIZ and the others are reasonably good. I have found that external resizing programs can produce superior results, such as Topaz's Gigapixel AI and offerings from ON1 and Adobe also, and probably others. CIZ works best on edges that are highly predicable and can be a little mushy on real busy areas of a picture. But then again, it can sometimes surprise on just how well it can really do.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I try to avoid personal responses but you seem like a troll. Just my view, of course.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Hand held but resting on a solid object.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

There seems to be a lot of wind .....

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I do not recall any significant wind. Are you saying the pictures are blurred?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I don’t seem to be the only one questioning the point of your post.

Then again it’s no more pointless than your useless resolution spreadsheets that have nothing to do with resolution.

Ollieboy

Why are you using CIZ?

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I almost never use it except for video. I was trying to be helpful with objective information because many posts on UHH refer to it. Here are two that are very recent and the URL for a search of UHH for the subject.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=13090539&t=736260

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=13090539&t=736260

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search-topic-list?q=clear+image&sectnum=0&username=

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am going to try to give my own evaluation for what it's worth but it's not really conclusive. YMMV. I did this to help you and a few others who have some interest in it. I have no other purpose for this thread.

I don't think this particular set is a complete test/comparison but when I display both 600 mm (equivalent) shots side by side at "actual size" then the images are not the same size nor the same quality. I would want to use a tripod in any repetition of the comparison.

The larger, better one shown here is the a6500 with the FE70-200 F4 and using CIZ. The smaller, not as good one is the RX10m4 at full zoom but no CIZ. The FE70-200 is a physical 200 per Sony and the lens on the RX10m4 is a 220 according to Sony. I think Sony does a bit of rounding in their numbers! It may be relevant that the pixels in the a6500 sensor are 6000 across but the RX10m4 is 5472 across. So when displayed at the same pixels per inch on the same monitor, the a6500 picture looks bigger. At least I think that is what this means.

BTW, for birds at a distance, I use my 500 mm Minolta reflex lens and although its quality is not as good as the FE70-200, the >2X length difference usually means that is my best option. I have seen, though, that a Sony 400 mm zoom gives me my best results. But I don't own one 🥵.

This does agree with my other various observations over the last several years which favors the a6500's IQ. While I don't use CIZ, usually, because I shoot raw nearly exclusively, I have found that images from that camera in general and especially with my best lenses can be enlarged 2X linearly (4X area) with software with excellent results. Those results, in other tests were a bit better than with CIZ, too.

I tried to make this screenshot downloadable but for some mysterious reason that is not working on this older computer which isn't my usual one for photographic subjects.

Interestingly, this comparison gives a different result for size. I have no explanation for that, at least not now.