I don't see any detail at all in the Palm Trees. There is a little stair-stepping along the car window border. Are you saving the example JPGs with too-high a compression? You might also resize up by 2x to make the details more obvious and save at the highest-quality.
Otherwise, if I remember, sRAW is not RAW but already a demosaiced TIF created by the camera.
If ACR has a way to change between Process 2003 and Process 2010 then try that to see if the ACR 6.1 photos appear more ACR 4.6-like.
There seems to be demosaicing errors in the bright green areas - visible in the palm trees as even/odd lines.
It's also visible in some of the pine trees.
1 person found this helpful
Ok, if I zoom in to 300%+ in FireFox on my 1600x1200 monitor I can see the lines. This could be a result of the new noise/detail processing in LR2.7/ACR5.7 but without more tests it is not possible to say if this is a result of the camera doing something when creating the sRAW which is just an already demosaiced TIF, or if it is happening with all the images from the camera. I'd suggest trying a full RAW file and see if the banding is there. Since LR is not demosaicing an sRAW there is less blame for it than there would be for full RAW.
Pre-ACR 5.7 would be using a much less detailed sharpening and noise-reduction algorithm which could be why you don't see the banding in the ACR 4.6 processing.
I still suggest trying both Process 2003 and Process 2010 to see if it makes a difference, as well as fiddling with the Detail and Contrast and sharpen-masking sliders to see if you can reduce or eliminate the banding.
From the numerous posts in this forum, it seems that this is a sRaw/mRaw (which is, by the way, not that raw) problem, not ACR's.
The reason you didn't see them in ACR 4.6 is a different sharpening algorithm, which was not able to extract that super-fine detail.
Shoot "real" RAW to avoid stair-stepping.
Process 2003 is a handy workaround, thanks!
It is true that shooting in full RAW yeilds better results, but at 2-3 times the filesize, often it doesn't make sense to have a 21 megapixel image when an 8-9 megapixel image will do. (Especially when one is shooting HDR and often taking 9 exposures of the same shot.) But having the workaround is a nice bit of insight.