Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: narikin on January 23, 2018, 12:11:04 pm
-
Interested to know if anyone here did the 100mp cross-grade form regular IQ100 to the Trichro? and if so roughly what the cost was.
Personally I'm holding out for the 150mp sensor, which I presume will have at least some of the Trichro enhancements on board.
(can't believe they are going to release two versions of the 150mp back, Trichro and Regular, as that would be an admission that the regular CFA has its strengths)
-
Hi,
It seems the old CFA design is more accurate, but the new design gives colours more pop. My guess is that they may end up with stronger IR and UV filtering, that the Thrichromatic has but return to a CFA design that is more accurate in colour.
Best regards
Erik
Interested to know if anyone here did the 100mp cross-grade form regular IQ100 to the Trichro? and if so roughly what the cost was.
Personally I'm holding out for the 150mp sensor, which I presume will have at least some of the Trichro enhancements on board.
(can't believe they are going to release two versions of the 150mp back, Trichro and Regular, as that would be an admission that the regular CFA has its strengths)
-
I wonder if we'll see new hardware in the back at this time...IQ4?
-
It seems the old CFA design is more accurate, but the new design gives colours more pop.
Our IQ3 Trichromatic testing (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-trichromatic-part-2-results/) disagrees with this assessment.
Have you tested a IQ3 100mp and IQ3 100mp Trichromatic?
-
Our IQ3 Trichromatic testing (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-trichromatic-part-2-results/) disagrees with this assessment.
Really? Does it have any objective measurements and comparisons to the ground truth in that article?
-
Really? Does it have any objective measurements and comparisons to the ground truth in that article?
With the possible exception of historic documentation, what value does objective accuracy have over subjective accuracy to a photographer?
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
With the possible exception of historic documentation, what value does objective accuracy have over subjective accuracy to a photographer?
Steve Hendrix/CI
indeed, "16 bits" of the old good CCD backs lore
-
Back to the OPs question, not sure where you are located, but why not just ask one of the dealers as to the upgrade cost? At least two US-based dealers responded in this thread.
I'd think a dealer would be the best resource for an up-to-date upgrade estimate instead of creating a forum thread that opens up an off-topic can of worms that has been beaten to death in other threads.
-
With the possible exception of historic documentation, what value does objective accuracy have over subjective accuracy to a photographer?
It allows to quantify the statement to which I responded - without this it was and remains just a set of words
-
I'd think a dealer would be the best resource for an up-to-date upgrade estimate instead of creating a forum thread that opens up an off-topic can of worms that has been beaten to death in other threads.
Well of course I could ask a dealer for their price, but was mainly interested to know if anyone moved across from IQ100 to Trichro 100. It seems not, or very few, as no one has responded positively.
Which in interesting in itself!
-
It allows to quantify the statement to which I responded - without this it was and remains just a set of words
The previous statement was disagreeing with a further previous statement, which stated the opinion that colors were more accurate with the 100 STD vs the 100 TRI. Doug disagreed and showed examples to back up his opinion. In his opinion, the colors were more accurate with the 100 TRI. I agree that colors are more accurate with the 100 TRI (based on my testing, not necessarily his).
So my question - which I think is a valid one, and I mean no disrespect to measurers - remains. If I and everyone in the room subjectively assess color as more accurate with the 100 TRI, what does it matter to a photographer what an objective measurement indicates?
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
The previous statement was disagreeing with a further previous statement, which stated the opinion that colors were more accurate with the 100 STD vs the 100 TRI. Doug disagreed and showed examples to back up his opinion. In his opinion, the colors were more accurate with the 100 TRI. I agree that colors are more accurate with the 100 TRI (based on my testing, not necessarily his).
So my question - which I think is a valid one, and I mean no disrespect to measurers - remains. If I and everyone in the room subjectively assess color as more accurate with the 100 TRI, what does it matter to a photographer what an objective measurement indicates?
Steve Hendrix/CI
Have I ended up in a hifi-forum? Is someone going to sell me a rock I need to place on my camera to get better images?
-
If I and every
other dealer interested to sell ;D
-
The previous statement was disagreeing with a further previous statement, which stated the opinion that colors were more accurate with the 100 STD vs the 100 TRI. Doug disagreed and showed examples to back up his opinion. In his opinion, the colors were more accurate with the 100 TRI. I agree that colors are more accurate with the 100 TRI (based on my testing, not necessarily his).
The previous statement indicates tests and implied some kind of objectivity. In fact it was nothing but a marketing blurb enriched by sales incentives. If you are entering the argument about more accurate colour then you should be prepared to put forward arguments better than "subjectively it looks better to me". There are a million variables in all of that including profiles and raw development software used which (what a coincidence) devised by the very company interested to sell this back in a first place and come up with a sales pitch to convince buyers.
So my question - which I think is a valid one, and I mean no disrespect to measurers - remains. If I and everyone in the room subjectively assess color as more accurate with the 100 TRI, what does it matter to a photographer what an objective measurement indicates?
Subjectively to me the era of digital backs with the best colour ended with Kodak ProBack 645 and Phase One P20, P25 - you are welcome to try "subjectively" persuade me otherwise
-
For what it's worth, I briefly tested the Trichromatic against the normal IQ100 last month at a P1 event, and found the Trichromatic files to have very attractive, natural (to me) color, very easy to color correct and grade to taste. Great skin tones. Noticeably better color than the IQ100.
These were natural light exterior portraits, as I'm not interested in seeing still life tests.
-
other dealer interested to sell ;D
Wow - you guys really do lump dealers together don't you. And make assumptions. Take my post on its own merits. The argument I am making is one that any fine art photographer for example, might have an opinion about - regardless of what camera they choose.
The only thing I ever "sell" is myself. I don't "sell" equipment, I discuss its merits and the validity for each individual client I work with. Don't get me confused with the bad boy dealer you have worked with.
For what it is worth - despite working at one of the world's most successful and distinguished Phase One dealers, while CI has had some IQ3 100 to IQ3 Trichro upgraders, I have not sold a single IQ3 100 to IQ3 100 Trichromatic upgrade to anyone so far. While I do believe the color response is superior, I feel the price for that investment has to be weighed against the only tangible benefit, which is the improved color (versus a future IQ4 150, which will have other assets of value, albeit surely at a higher price). There is an advantage to the Trichromatic, but the upgrade cost - if you already own an IQ3 100 - has to be considered. Quite a few Lula members engaged in these discussions with me and can back up my description of my position.
My cards are always on the table, just please don't mix them up with cards from other dealers.
Thanks,
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
The previous statement indicates tests and implied some kind of objectivity. In fact it was nothing but a marketing blurb enriched by sales incentives. If you are entering the argument about more accurate colour then you should be prepared to put forward arguments better than "subjectively it looks better to me". There are a million variables in all of that including profiles and raw development software used which (what a coincidence) devised by the very company interested to sell this back in a first place and come up with a sales pitch to convince buyers.
Subjectively to me the era of digital backs with the best colour ended with Kodak ProBack 645 and Phase One P20, P25 - you are welcome to try "subjectively" persuade me otherwise
Sorry, but I disagree. For all practical purposes, it is possible to produce color with reasonably good devices and very similar conditions and determine subjectively that one color is more accurate than another. It absolutely is. Your bias against the presenter of the information is coloring your response to it. While there was a semi attempt (perhaps poorly executed by Phase One) to describe this scientifically, there were also images that were captured which are not intended for objective measurement, and that is what I am ascribing my position to. I myself performed comparative testing. On a certain level I could give a flip how they did it. I'm not interested in selling more of these, I'm interested in finding out if it truly holds any value for my clients. And the results showed me that the performance was superior (the value is a different story).
Regarding your subjective preference for your Kodak backs, if that is a preference for accuracy, ok, I might have a bone to pick with that. But if it is a preference for the color itself, that you like the color (regardless of accuracy), that is entirely something else. I'm not talking about that.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
With the possible exception of historic documentation, what value does objective accuracy have over subjective accuracy to a photographer?
For example product photographers for whom accurate rendition of a product color decreases retouching costs and decreases the likelihood of product returns.
-
The previous statement indicates tests and implied some kind of objectivity. In fact it was nothing but a marketing blurb enriched by sales incentives.
My statements are objective analysis. I can tell you it was raining more yesterday in midtown manhattan than it was today; I don't need to tell you the exact inches of rainfall for that to be an objectively true statement with extremely high confidence.
You probably meant the link did not contain numerical analysis and you are correct that the link I provided did not include numerical analysis; I don't think numerical analysis is especially useful to the target audience of the article (99% of whom are photographers, not color science PHDs), and can even be misleading. For example, if camera X has a 10% lower average Delta E on a Color Checker SG that doesn't mean, necessarily, that is has more accurate color in the context of a particular photographer's needs, especially if the test is made after generating a custom profile the main intention of which is to nail the colors of a Color Checker SG.
It's worth nothing that I'm in R+D, not sales, and have a fair bit of experience in numerical color evaluation having worked with numerous tier one museums and libraries on establishing metrics by which to measure their internal color accuracy and precision. See for example the Phase One Color Guide (https://dtdch.com/color-reproduction-guide-cultural-heritage/) for which I was a lead author, or our Lighting Webinar (https://dtdch.com/dt-photon-custom-cultural-heritage-lighting/) during which I provide an overview on the scientific nature of light and color. So I don't agree with "marketing blurb enriched by sales incentive", but you are welcome to dismiss me as you wish. Should you wish to do your own testing we are glad to facilitate such a test by providing the relevant hardware, at no cost, in our test studios in NYC or LA; you can make the test as centered on targets, numerical analysis, or spectrophotometers as you like.
I 100% stand by my statement and elaborate it further: The Trichromatic produces more accurate color. The difference is most notable in traditionally problematic subject matter and is otherwise pretty minor. Whether that matters to a particular user (given the IQ3 100mp color was already very good), whether that is worth a particular price (and whether now is the right time to pay that price), those are not questions I feel in a position to address – that's for the user to decide. Notably better color accuracy does not guarantee that a given user will find the color more visually appealing; as an obvious example, very few films had "accurate" color, and some of the most beloved films of all time were very far from accurate. =
The bottom line is that when a client asks a question like this we prefer not to answer with test charts, numbers, or raw files. We prefer to answer by putting a camera (or both cameras if relevant) in their hands and tell them to go make their own tests. We may point them at some things to look for (as we've done testing under a wide variety of circumstances) to save them time, but it's really their call from there. We can't put a camera in a hand via text on a forum, and we know some people want to download files and play around before committing their time to their own testing, so we make some of our testing available for free download. Really the only downside is that some people will say hurtful things on the internet, and if I couldn't stomach that I would have left 3721 posts and 11 years ago.
-
For example product photographers for whom accurate rendition of a product color decreases retouching costs and decreases the likelihood of product returns.
Yes, but what I am saying is that there are a ton of photographers who will never utilize objective - based color measurements on the way to final production. In fact, probably the majority of photographers evaluate color visually, and that's it. Certainly this leaves room for error, given the wide variety of devices and conditions all these photographers render and view in (not to mention their own visual acuity). And they'll never change.
But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not? We produced our own image samples and from our own CI samples, I could see the difference and the difference was in favor of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic, as your article did, just with different data.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not?
Yes. I agree with that.
Other then an unimportant semantic distinction I would make between "objective" and "numerical". I don't consider them synonyms.
Sky blue in LA in late afternoon for example, is pretty darn objective. It's true there is variation from day to day or hour to hour, but it's really impossible to look at the IQ3 100mp Trichromatic and the IQ3 100mp rendering of the sky in our direct comparison raw files and come to a conclusion other than the Trichromatic is rendering it more accurately. A numerical delta E value can quantify that difference or comparative spectral response charts might help explain the technical cause of that difference, but for the purpose of directly comparing two cameras looking at both images on a decently calibrated monitor is a pretty good proxy.
I can't wait for a bunch of posts with scientific analysis of the spectral characteristics of sky blue in the western hemisphere at midday with consideration to water vapor levels.
-
But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not? We produced our own image samples and from our own CI samples, I could see the difference and the difference was in favor of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic, as your article did, just with different data.
You can arrive at any number of accurate conclusions about what a percentage of viewers will find more or less 'pleasing'. On the other hand there is no tone 'accuracy' without quantitative objective measurement. One may not care about accuracy and that's perfectly fine. But semantically equating the words 'pleasing' and 'accurate' is misleading. In fact we know based on experience that a percentage of viewers will often prefer an image rendered to show pleasing colors vs one rendered to show accurate ones.
So based on the available objective data (a scant one set, feel free to produce more) Erik and Alexey are correct. And there is nothing there that contradicts what you and Doug are maintaining.
It seems the old CFA design is more accurate, but the new design gives colours more pop...
Jack
-
Hi Steve,
Just to put things in perspective. I am mostly a landscape photographer. It may be that a lot of landscape photographers adjust colours, but I don't have the slightest idea what colours look like. So, I want to have the colours of the camera as close as possible to reality.
I had some discussions with a guy in GB called Tim Parkin, he has a landscape photography site called OnLandscape. He is a photographer, writer, painter and mathematician.
Tim found that the P45+ had about the worst colour of any camera. Tim works often with Joe Cornish and they had long discussions about fixing color coming of the P45+. I was suggesting that the issue could be handled by profiles, but Tim did not agree. I did dig into that a bit.
One of the aspects I stumbled on was that vegetation has high content of IR. The ColorChecker vegetation patch has no IR. So a weak IR filtering would have an effect real vegetation images but no effect at all on the vegetation patch on the ColorChecker.
Later, I have noticed that the P45+ has some tendency to browns on perfectly black cloths, also indicating weak IR-filtering.
When Joe Cornish started shooting with DALSA based backs the issues went away. I still have my P45+ back. At one time I was preparing an article for OnLandscape and made some test shoots. With some interesting results. I used a deep blue purple flower as a subject, as I knew that it was a kind of difficult colour and it also had green leaves.
The P45+ delivered this image:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_DI13125_vsmall.jpg)
I of course also shot it on my Sony Alpha 99, yielding this image:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-_DSC6397_DI13125_vsmall.jpg)
One may be better or worse... But, those images were processed in Lightroom using colour profiles generated by Adobe DNG Profile Editor.
So, what did we get using Capture One, this was P45+:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_C1_vsmall.jpg)
And this is what Capture one made of the Alpha 99 image:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-_DSC6397_C1_vsmall.jpg)
What did that flower look like. Here are the correct colours for the petals:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/Violet_vsmall.jpg)
And for the leafs:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/GreenBlade_spectrum_vsmall.jpg)
So, I guess that Capture One missed on that scene miserably.
Now, getting back to the IQ Thrichromatic. Phase One published some info about the Thrichromatic that made a lot of colour scientist raise their hair in astonishment. So much that Jim Kasson and Jack Hogan developed a set of programs for comparing CFA designs.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60253992
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60278621
One of the early findings was that this response curve was optimal:
(https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS560x560~forums/60255341/c3ab779af2004447b4cfed573d0dc906)
Well, that is the response curve of human vision. For some technical reasons, it is not very practical.
Now that Jack Hogan had some emulation software for analysing data he did some analysis based on two sample image from "DChew" and found that the IQ3100MP back is more colour accurate, but the Thrichromatic has a compromise matrix that is more ideal.
In DChew's images I have seen the brownish contamination of leafs I would attribute to IR in the IQ3100MP, while the IQ3 Thrichromatic had cleaner greens. That may indicate that IR cut off frequency is steeper on the IQ3 Trichromatic.
Usman Dawood published some comparisons between the IQ3100 and the Thrichromatic and showed that the IQ3100 had bokeh fringing that the Thrichromatic did not display. That is a strong indication of a different IR/UV filtering strategy.
If the Thrichromatic has more accurate colour, I would assume that "Digital Transitions's Cultural Heritage division" would switch over to it. That may of course be the case they do.
Doug indicated that "lime greens" are better handled by the Thrichromatic, and that is indeed visible also in "DChew's" test. I bought some limes and green peppers etc and made a set up with some similarity to Doug's and shot it with three cameras I have:
- P45+ - that was known to have problematic colour
- Sony Alpha 900- same generation as the P45+, but known to have excellent colour renditon
- Sony A7RII - my most used camera right now
All three handle lime greens perfectly well, providing perfect match with measured data from the limes themselves. So, yellow contamination was no issue under the test illumination that was studio flash.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Divstuff/3Images_s.jpg)
So, to sum up. The improved IR and UV filtering are probably useful. The only real world data that we have indicates that the IQ3100 MP is the one that yields the more accurate colour.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but what I am saying is that there are a ton of photographers who will never utilize objective - based color measurements on the way to final production. In fact, probably the majority of photographers evaluate color visually, and that's it. Certainly this leaves room for error, given the wide variety of devices and conditions all these photographers render and view in (not to mention their own visual acuity). And they'll never change.
But for someone who wants to compare an IQ3 100 to an IQ3 100 Trichromatic, I am saying it is possible to arrive at a true and accurate conclusion without objective measurements if the devices and conditions are optimal and consistent. That's the whole point of you showing the image samples, is it not? We produced our own image samples and from our own CI samples, I could see the difference and the difference was in favor of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic, as your article did, just with different data.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
it is possible to produce color with reasonably good devices and very similar conditions and determine subjectively that one color is more accurate than another.
This very statement contradicts itself. It may subjectively look that way to you but the very act of observation is subjective. For example, I do not know whether your perception deviates from mine (or even average observer) sufficiently to make a definitive conclusion from your statement. The fact that you and Doug keep discarding "numbers" and yet make your observations based on the very numerically calibrated monitors or prints produced by again very numerically calibrated printers is also quite interesting.
Your bias against the presenter of the information is coloring your response to it. While there was a semi attempt (perhaps poorly executed by Phase One) to describe this scientifically, there were also images that were captured which are not intended for objective measurement, and that is what I am ascribing my position to. I myself performed comparative testing. On a certain level I could give a flip how they did it. I'm not interested in selling more of these, I'm interested in finding out if it truly holds any value for my clients. And the results showed me that the performance was superior (the value is a different story).
You right I am sceptical. And I don't trust the arguments "trust me it's better because I/Phase One/Dealer/Doug/etc said so".
Let me recap what we have so far:
manufacturer releases a new back that they say is more accurate then previous one;
the explanations to what was improved specifically resembled children's book;
the existing comparisons all use manufacturer's software and profiles;
the only explanations you given when ask Phase One about details/spectral data etc is "it's secret but trust us - it's more accurate".
Where in all of that is you find anything objective and unbiased? Lets consider a claim that the new TC back does better colour reproduction than the old ones - all the examples given so far to support that were processed in C1 with Phase One profiles. To me that can mean a few things:- the back is genuinely better in colour reproduction
- the profiles for the older backs were not as good as they could have been and new back better in that area only thanks to better profiling
and the fact is I do not know which of the above is correct. And I do not trust Phase One marketing on this - they are in business of making money selling these backs.
-
Nice work there with the violets Erik, I should try it on my cameras.
As for the perfect CFA combo, I actually gave it a bit more thought and wrote a dedicated article about it here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/perfect-color-filter-array/).
Jack
-
You can arrive at any number of accurate conclusions about what a percentage of viewers will find more or less 'pleasing'. On the other hand there is no tone 'accuracy' without quantitative objective measurement. One may not care about accuracy and that's perfectly fine. But semantically equating the words 'pleasing' and 'accurate' is misleading. In fact we know based on experience that a percentage of viewers will often prefer an image rendered to show pleasing colors vs one rendered to show accurate ones.
So based on the available objective data (a scant one set, feel free to produce more) Erik and Alexey are correct. And there is nothing there that contradicts what you and Doug are maintaining.
Jack
But I never brought up the term "pleasing", you have introduced that term. The example I am bringing up is - let's say we have a vase on a table. It is lit with strobe lighting. We are shooting with an IQ3 STD and an IQ3 TRI, tethered to a computer, displayed on an Eizo monitor. The people assembled in the room are standing around this table, they're looking at this vase, they are forming an opinion on what color this vase appears to be. There are certainly variances in their opinions of this color, based on many things, including their own vision of course. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that once captured, they will as a group be able to point to the IQ3 TRI as more accurate to what they thought they saw. This has been my experience - in this specific instance. Certainly people viewing as a group can often and do often come to variable conclusions, we've seen it time and again. But the specifics of the comparison matter and impact how much variance in group viewing we will see.
Regardless of what is objectively measured, in the real world, in many if not most instances, visually arriving at a judgement of more accurate or not is part of the end use equation. And if the objective measurements seem at odds with the visual judgement, the visual judgement holds more weight. Whether it is more accurate or not, it has to appear to be more accurate, and yes, in a variety of viewing conditions.
Now in another example, I have shot landscapes side by side with these 2 products, and to your point about pleasing - which I was not referring to - I actually found the IQ3 100 more pleasing. But the IQ3 100 Trichromatic was more accurate.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
This very statement contradicts itself. It may subjectively look that way to you but the very act of observation is subjective. For example, I do not know whether your perception deviates from mine (or even average observer) sufficiently to make a definitive conclusion from your statement. The fact that you and Doug keep discarding "numbers" and yet make your observations based on the very numerically calibrated monitors or prints produced by again very numerically calibrated printers is also quite interesting.
You right I am sceptical. And I don't trust the arguments "trust me it's better because I/Phase One/Dealer/Doug/etc said so".
Let me recap what we have so far:
manufacturer releases a new back that they say is more accurate then previous one;
the explanations to what was improved specifically resembled children's book;
the existing comparisons all use manufacturer's software and profiles;
the only explanations you given when ask Phase One about details/spectral data etc is "it's secret but trust us - it's more accurate".
Where in all of that is you find anything objective and unbiased? Lets consider a claim that the new TC back does better colour reproduction than the old ones - all the examples given so far to support that were processed in C1 with Phase One profiles. To me that can mean a few things:- the back is genuinely better in colour reproduction
- the profiles for the older backs were not as good as they could have been and new back better in that area only thanks to better profiling
and the fact is I do not know which of the above is correct. And I do not trust Phase One marketing on this - they are in business of making money selling these backs.
When the end use relies on a subjective assessment of accuracy, then the subjective view of the end result has to be taken into account in some way to arrive at a determination of accuracy with regard to the final presented appearance. This differs perhaps from a historical object, in that case, the objectively measured numbers are more important than the results that appear. So - the use matters.
Regarding Phase One, since 90 + percent of all Phase One users utilize Phase One software, the weight of the abundance of evidence for accuracy must be revealed there. And since they can only control the preparation of the file - they cannot control how Adobe or other programs choose to convert and present their raw file data, it is valid that the results as produced and presented in the Phase One software are completely legitimate in terms of how accurate it appears (again for end use). And yes there are downstream variables after the fact (monitor display, print profiles, viewing light, etc.) But neither measured date nor presented data has any control over that anyway. For end use, where the appearance matters more than the documentary recording, there has to be some point at which a visual assessment is made.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Regarding Phase One, since 90 + percent of all Phase One users utilize Phase One software, the weight of the abundance of evidence for accuracy must be revealed there. And since they can only control the preparation of the file - they cannot control how Adobe or other programs choose to convert and present their raw file data, it is valid that the results as produced and presented in the Phase One software are completely legitimate in terms of how accurate it appears (again for end use). And yes there are downstream variables after the fact (monitor display, print profiles, viewing light, etc.) But neither measured date nor presented data has any control over that anyway. For end use, where the appearance matters more than the documentary recording, there has to be some point at which a visual assessment is made.
If you have not had complete control over the whole process - how can you even begin talking about any accuracy? You definition of that relies in half on some black box (P1 profiles) and in half on measured data (say monitor calibration) and then your perception of the output. Where is the accuracy in that?
If you really want accuracy - define methodology (colours compared, measurement approach, delta measurements etc) and process and apply it to the whole chain so there is no unknown variables. I.e build your own profiles following the same methodology, use the same raw conversion, lighting for the shots, delta calculations etc. Then the accuracy talk will be more convincing and objective
-
Hi Steve,
You are talking to engineers not artists (*). My understanding is that Alex is a contributor to LibRaw development and that he has built his own monochromator/spectrometer. Alex and Iliah Borg also published an open source solution for CFA measurements. Those guys know a lot of things and have been in raw conversion at least as long as Phase One, with a small difference in that they don't make any money.
The term accurate is quite simple. It means that measured values on a flower or a flag are reproduced correctly. So, you take sample readings of a colour:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/Violet_vsmall.jpg)
These were converted jpg presuming D50 illuminant, as far as I can recall.
Now you take an image of the same flower (or flag):
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_AdobeStandard.jpg)
Now, you take a reading of that image and check against some well known colour data base:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/C1Stuff/match1.PNG)
And compare that with:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/C1Stuff/Match2.PNG)
OK, I admit I am cheating. I take an experiment with known results. On the other hand, I made this just a few times but the result is pretty typical.
In this case, I would say the colour reproduction is fairly accurate under D50 (or was it D55?) lighting conditions.
The C1 rendition of the same flower was significantly different: (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/20150107-CF046070_C1.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
(*) My understanding is that Iliah Borg is also fine landscape photographer. I have used some of his stuff since 2006.
But I never brought up the term "pleasing", you have introduced that term. The example I am bringing up is - let's say we have a vase on a table. It is lit with strobe lighting. We are shooting with an IQ3 STD and an IQ3 TRI, tethered to a computer, displayed on an Eizo monitor. The people assembled in the room are standing around this table, they're looking at this vase, they are forming an opinion on what color this vase appears to be. There are certainly variances in their opinions of this color, based on many things, including their own vision of course. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that once captured, they will as a group be able to point to the IQ3 TRI as more accurate to what they thought they saw. This has been my experience - in this specific instance. Certainly people viewing as a group can often and do often come to variable conclusions, we've seen it time and again. But the specifics of the comparison matter and impact how much variance in group viewing we will see.
Regardless of what is objectively measured, in the real world, in many if not most instances, visually arriving at a judgement of more accurate or not is part of the end use equation. And if the objective measurements seem at odds with the visual judgement, the visual judgement holds more weight. Whether it is more accurate or not, it has to appear to be more accurate, and yes, in a variety of viewing conditions.
Now in another example, I have shot landscapes side by side with these 2 products, and to your point about pleasing - which I was not referring to - I actually found the IQ3 100 more pleasing. But the IQ3 100 Trichromatic was more accurate.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
If you have not had complete control over the whole process - how can you even begin talking about any accuracy? You definition of that relies in half on some black box (P1 profiles) and in half on measured data (say monitor calibration) and then your perception of the output. Where is the accuracy in that?
If you really want accuracy - define methodology (colours compared, measurement approach, delta measurements etc) and process and apply it to the whole chain so there is no unknown variables. I.e build your own profiles following the same methodology, use the same raw conversion, lighting for the shots, delta calculations etc. Then the accuracy talk will be more convincing and objective
I understand where you are coming from. And I completely share your description of what is required to determine the objective accuracy of a capture device. Agree completely. But - you and I are simply approaching this from a different perspective. I know that you are identifying accuaracy as only one thing - objective, measured accuracy. It is determined to be more accurate or not, based o the objective measured data. I get that. But when Eric Kaffehr says that the IQ3 100 is more accurate, then I don't really care how he objectively arrived at that conclusion with whatever objective measurement process. For subjective evaluation it is not more accurate. I know that is a contradiction. But if you measure the results pre-Capture One, for most photographers those results don't matter.
What is going to matter is what they see in Capture One. In my world, where users of the product overwhelmingly use Capture One as the software, and who evaluate imagery visually, this matters much more to them than whatever objective methodology is used to determine accuracy. I can see more accurate results with the IQ3 100 TRI, and in a variety of conditions, that's what matters. What you're able to measure before that doesn't matter to a photographer who is visually evaluating their photographs in Capture One.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Hi Steve,
Just to say, anything you see on screen is a bit clouded. Adobe RGB truncates a lot of colours. If you print from Prophoto RGB you will get much more vibrant colours. Looking at images on screen may be a decent approximation of colour, but Adobe RGB is sort of history.
This is 2018, and we have Rec 2020. It is probably not that well implemented. But take 2-3 years and Adobe RGB will get it's well deserved place on the scrapheap of image processing history.
Best regards
Erik
I understand where you are coming from. And I completely share your description of what is required to determine the objective accuracy of a capture device. Agree completely. But - you and I are simply approaching this from a different perspective. I know that you are identifying accuaracy as only one thing - objective, measured accuracy. It is determined to be more accurate or not, based o the objective measured data. I get that. But when Eric Kaffehr says that the IQ3 100 is more accurate, then I don't really care how he objectively arrived at that conclusion with whatever objective measurement process. For subjective evaluation it is not more accurate. I know that is a contradiction. But if you measure the results pre-Capture One, for most photographers those results don't matter.
What is going to matter is what they see in Capture One. In my world, where users of the product overwhelmingly use Capture One as the software, and who evaluate imagery visually, this matters much more to them than whatever objective methodology is used to determine accuracy. I can see more accurate results with the IQ3 100 TRI, and in a variety of conditions, that's what matters. What you're able to measure before that doesn't matter to a photographer who is visually evaluating their photographs in Capture One.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
You are talking to engineers not artists (*). My understanding is that Alex is a contributor to LibRaw development and that he has built his own monochromator/spectrometer. Alex and Iliah Borg also published an open source solution for CFA measurements. Those guys know a lot of things and have been in raw conversion at least as long as Phase One, with a small difference in that they don't make any money.
Almost - two different Alex's ;). My contribution to LibRaw was only a small one (Fuji Xtrans compression decoding) - it is mostly maintained by Iliah and Alexey Tutubalin.
-
Hi Steve,
Just to say, anything you see on screen is a bit clouded. Adobe RGB truncates a lot of colours. If you print from Prophoto RGB you will get much more vibrant colours. Looking at images on screen may be a decent approximation of colour, but Adobe RGB is sort of history.
This is 2018, and we have Rec 2020. It is probably not that well implemented. But take 2-3 years and Adobe RGB will get it's well deserved place on the scrapheap of image processing history.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric -
Yes I am aware of this.
But for now Adobe in the commercial space is probably dominant, and ProPhoto in the fine art space more dominant. But regardless of the murkiness, it is what photographers use in overwhelming numbers.
I know that I am talking to engineers (and extremely accomplished ones) and not artists, but artists do read these forums, it is called Luminous Landscape after all, and I like to present the perspective from their end as a story that needs to be told, with regard to how they are going to assess an image.
I initially found the IQ3 100 Trichromatic too accurate compared to the IQ3 100 for landscape scenes, the IQ3 100 was warmer and brought out more tones in yellow, green grasses, for example. But then I realized at 12:30pm and the scene should not look like "magic hour" and the IQ3 100 Trichromatic rendered it visually closer to what mid day should look like. So my choice was to cool down the IQ3 100 image if I didn't want magic hour at mid day, or to warm up the IQ3 100 Trichromatic if I did. I decided if I shot at mid-day, or in the morning (or the afternoon for that matter), that I would want to shoot with the IQ3 100 Trichromatic to more accurately render the time of day and if I chose for it to look different, I would make an adjustment to the file afterward.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Now in another example, I have shot landscapes side by side with these 2 products, and to your point about pleasing - which I was not referring to - I actually found the IQ3 100 more pleasing. But the IQ3 100 Trichromatic was more accurate.
Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :) In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.
But hey! I have an idea. You and Doug are dealers, right? Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files. Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you. Better yet, shoot them in daylight and throw in a couple of violets. I am now really curious to see whether Erik's right about the IQ3-100 Standard Back having that inadequate hot mirror shown in Phase One's marketing material.
No? Well, no surprise and no hard feelings. All the best,
Jack
-
Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :) In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.
You and Doug are dealers, right? Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files. Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you....
No? Well, no surprise and no hard feelings.
We did exactly this months ago. Trichromatic Test (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-trichromatic-part-2-results/)
Exact same scene with both backs: Yes. Two indoor studio scenes and one outdoor scene. Identical body, lens, settings, and lighting.
Targets of known colorimetry: Yes. ISA Golden Thread target and color checker SG
Publish the raw files: Yes. Free download link emailed to anyone who wants it.
-
I'm staying out of this one. I just upgraded my IQ180 to a Nikon D850. And an upgrade it is !
-
Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :) In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.
But hey! I have an idea. You and Doug are dealers, right? Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files. Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you. Better yet, shoot them in daylight and throw in a couple of violets. I am now really curious to see whether Erik's right about the IQ3-100 Standard Back having that inadequate hot mirror shown in Phase One's marketing material.
No? Well, no surprise and no hard feelings. All the best,
Jack
If you guys wait until spring in Ohio, the leaves in those test scenes will include purplish-blue flowers. And this time I will leave some separation so the ColorChecker isn’t contaminated by the surrounding green.
:)
Dave
-
An engineer talking with a salesperson about accuracy in color. The mind boggles. That is just not going to be successful! :)
-
...
Publish the raw files: Yes. Free download link emailed to anyone who wants it.
Excellent Doug. Let's start with the two captures of the "Appetizing Fruits and Veggies" scene with the ColorChecker in it, I've PM'd you my email address. If you happen to have measured the spectral data of the illuminant and ColorChecker Passport used send those along too.
Much appreciated.
Jack
-
Excellent Doug. Let's start with the two captures of the "Appetizing Fruits and Veggies" scene with the ColorChecker in it, I've PM'd you my email address. If you happen to have measured the spectral data of the illuminant and ColorChecker Passport used send those along too.
The link to receive raw files is self serve. No need to wait until I’m at a computer.
-
Hi Dave,
The turning "deep blue purple" into "deep blue" seems to be a C1-feature rather than a P1 feature as it also affects Sony files.
I have seen that also when shooting in nature, but I use LR as my processing tool and that has seldom been an issue to me.
Best regards
Erik
If you guys wait until spring in Ohio, the leaves in those test scenes will include purplish-blue flowers. And this time I will leave some separation so the ColorChecker isn’t contaminated by the surrounding green.
:)
Dave
-
Hi Doug,
I have downloaded those raw files. I did run a quick check on the ColorChecker Passport and found that the Thrichromatic was a tiny bit more accurate than the IQ3100MP.
IQ3100MP C1 ->DE (CIEDE 2000) = 3.65
IQ3100MP LR -> DE (CIEDE 2000) = 3.39
IQ3 Thrichromatic, C1 -> DE(CIEDE 2000) = 3.51
In this case, the IQ3100 with LR and my own profile had the most accurate results. I did not get good results with my DCP profile for the Thrichromatic, though. But there is a lot of room for mistakes.
My take is that the Thrichromatic seems to have better colour on vegetation. That would make it a winner for me.
I am much interested to see what Jack Hogan et al. will find, as Jack looks at those things more from the math side, that is before 3D-LUT has been applied.
Best regards
Erik
The link to receive raw files is self serve. No need to wait until I’m at a computer.
-
An engineer talking with a salesperson about accuracy in color. The mind boggles. That is just not going to be successful! :)
Ouch Geoff! Unfair use of Titles! Salesperson... I prefer Business Partner, at least, or 411/911 Client Advisor.
:)
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Steve ... how to put this tactfully ... errr (trying to channel my inner eronald)... nice try but no :) In English accurate has a very precise meaning and you are using the word inaccurately.
But hey! I have an idea. You and Doug are dealers, right? Why don't you shoot the same exact scene including a target of known colorimetry with both the Tri and the Standard Back - and publish the raw files. Each of us here can then look at the raw files and understand what accurate means to you. Better yet, shoot them in daylight and throw in a couple of violets. I am now really curious to see whether Erik's right about the IQ3-100 Standard Back having that inadequate hot mirror shown in Phase One's marketing material.
No? Well, no surprise and no hard feelings. All the best,
Jack
Nice shot, Jack!
I see what is happening here, so please allow me to modify my terminology. In the world where I live and operate, I work as a 411/911 Advisor to all sorts of photographers around the world, across many industries. Most of them, regardless of the industry, consider themselves artists, or aspire to be. They use their minds and their senses to arrive at a conclusive judgement of what they were trying to achieve when they pressed that button, usually, but not always located on the top of their camera.
Regardless of Eric's findings that the Trichromatic was slightly more accurate - AHA! - I am changing my terminology, per your correct assessment of my inappropriate use of the word accurate. Instead, I will modify my term to the images out of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic not looking more accurate, but looking more RIGHT. And this is a key differentiator, so I thank you for bringing this up. You see, I work for these photographers, and they don't really give a flip if the image is more accurate, in the way that you are referring to, which realistically, is the only way you could use the word, I suppose. But it doesn't matter if the image is more accurate to them if it doesn't look RIGHT.
And human beings - those faulty, inaccurate, variable nutheads that we are, can see when something is right and something is wrong. If you look at a blue sky shot with the IQ3 100 TRI vs the IQ3 100 STD, you can tell the IQ3 100 TRI is RIGHT. When you look at some sort of brown piece of furniture, you know when it looks right and when it doesn't. That should not be confused with accuracy. You are correct.
Importantly and thankfully, Phase One also takes into account more than just objective numbers when producing their camera systems.
So continue to measure in the way that you do, and arrive at your conclusions. That's what you do well. Photographers around the world will continue to make images and I know they will continue to look forward to cameras that produce images that look right to human beings.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Hi Steve,
Thanks for making that point. Just to make things clear, I used to be an engineer. Iliah Borg is a photographer and one of the major developers of LibRAW, RawDigger, among other things.
Great scientists can be great photographers, and great photographers may learn a lot about science. Ansel Adams was a great photographer, but he also had deep knowledge of sensitometry.
Bill Atkinson was one of the main developers behind the McIntosh, but he is also a fine art photographer. Bill Atkinson wanted to print a book, "Within the Stone". So, he teamed up with a Japanese printing firm and helped them implement colour management, in return, they printed his book...
I don't think there is a conflict between Art and Science. But, there is a conflict between supernatural and science.
Phase One had the bad taste to present some extremely bad info with the introduction of the Thrichromatic. In a way it is typical of the MFD industry to spread bad information and talk about magic instead of real benefits.
Just to mention, early speak about MFD advantages mentioned 6EV DR advantage and 16 bit file formats. At the same time it was quite clear that MFD was pretty much limited in ISO. If you have a 6EV DR advantage it would convert to 64 times an ISO advantage! Did MFD deliver good performance at 6400 ISO? No, that was not the case.
It has also been demonstrated that MFD files mostly have been 14-bits wide. This was most clear with PhaseOne files. Once the IQ3100MP arrived, it actually needed a 16 bit file format and a new file format was developed for it.
It is a bit unfortunate, but MFD and foremost Phase One has always been doing a lot of marketing based on "alternate phacts", the Trump Guy just took on that note from Phase One. Was Hasselblad any better? Not really, but they at least had a 16-bit file format, although they just used 14 of those bits. The honest guys were Pentax, Fuji and a guy called Steve Hendrix. Steve Hendrix have never talked BS and for that he should earn a lot of credit!
I think that MFD has some advantages. It could be a larger sensor collecting more photons, it could also being a larger sensor making less demands on the lenses. It could also be that MFD doesn't have those f/1.4 lenses, but the lenses they have perform well fully open?!
But, things are a bit more complex. Some guys like Zeiss or Sigma make really great lenses for 24x36 mm. Lenses that work reasonably well at full aperture.
Personally, I am a guy who prefers to work directly with vendors. I download the manuals, check the MTF data, evaluate raw samples and feel that I make an educated decision.
As a matter of fact, most cameras I bought in 30 years I never had in my hand before delivery:
- The Pentax 67 I bought at B&H in the US. I am living in Sweden.
- All my digital cameras were bought over the net.
- Both my P45+ and the Hassy gear were bought over the net.
When I bought my P45+ there were some parts missing. So, I contacted the local dealer in Sweden and they never heard anything about viewfinder masks. Fortunately, I found another dealer in Sweden and he was most helpful.
I would suggest that there are great dealers and not so great dealers. Would I live in the US, I would trust in Doug or Steve, in Sweden we don't have that option.
Best regards
Erik
Ouch Geoff! Unfair use of Titles! Salesperson... I prefer Business Partner, at least, or 411/911 Client Advisor.
:)
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Hi Steve,
Thanks for making that point. Just to make things clear, I used to be an engineer. Iliah Borg is a photographer and one of the major developers of LibRAW, RawDigger, among other things.
Great scientists can be great photographers, and great photographers may learn a lot about science. Ansel Adams was a great photographer, but he also had deep knowledge of sensitometry.
Bill Atkinson was one of the main developers behind the McIntosh, but he is also a fine art photographer. Bill Atkinson wanted to print a book, "Within the Stone". So, he teamed up with a Japanese printing firm and helped them implement colour management, in return, they printed his book...
I don't think there is a conflict between Art and Science. But, there is a conflict between supernatural and science.
Phase One had the bad taste to present some extremely bad info with the introduction of the Thrichromatic. In a way it is typical of the MFD industry to spread bad information and talk about magic instead of real benefits.
Just to mention, early speak about MFD advantages mentioned 6EV DR advantage and 16 bit file formats. At the same time it was quite clear that MFD was pretty much limited in ISO. If you have a 6EV DR advantage it would convert to 64 times an ISO advantage! Did MFD deliver good performance at 6400 ISO? No, that was not the case.
It has also been demonstrated that MFD files mostly have been 14-bits wide. This was most clear with PhaseOne files. Once the IQ3100MP arrived, it actually needed a 16 bit file format and a new file format was developed for it.
It is a bit unfortunate, but MFD and foremost Phase One has always been doing a lot of marketing based on "alternate phacts", the Trump Guy just took on that note from Phase One. Was Hasselblad any better? Not really, but they at least had a 16-bit file format, although they just used 14 of those bits. The honest guys were Pentax, Fuji and a guy called Steve Hendrix. Steve Hendrix have never talked BS and for that he should earn a lot of credit!
I think that MFD has some advantages. It could be a larger sensor collecting more photons, it could also being a larger sensor making less demands on the lenses. It could also be that MFD doesn't have those f/1.4 lenses, but the lenses they have perform well fully open?!
But, things are a bit more complex. Some guys like Zeiss or Sigma make really great lenses for 24x36 mm. Lenses that work reasonably well at full aperture.
Personally, I am a guy who prefers to work directly with vendors. I download the manuals, check the MTF data, evaluate raw samples and feel that I make an educated decision.
As a matter of fact, most cameras I bought in 30 years I never had in my hand before delivery:
- The Pentax 67 I bought at B&H in the US. I am living in Sweden.
- All my digital cameras were bought over the net.
- Both my P45+ and the Hassy gear were bought over the net.
When I bought my P45+ there were some parts missing. So, I contacted the local dealer in Sweden and they never heard anything about viewfinder masks. Fortunately, I found another dealer in Sweden and he was most helpful.
I would suggest that there are great dealers and not so great dealers. Would I live in the US, I would trust in Doug or Steve, in Sweden we don't have that option.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric - I didn't mean to infer that there are no engineers who photograph, even artistically, or vice versa, with photographers who need to perform unartistic documentary recording. Some of my favorite clients are engineers! I won't really go into Phase One marketing, but I'll agree they could have done a better job of explaining the IQ3 100 Trichromatic, and leave it at that.
You know our focus is always on what the product can produce in terms of real world end results, marketing teams are going to do what they do.
Regarding wide open performance, the majority of the Schneider lens lineup for Phase One performs very, very well wide open. Some notable exceptions would be the 28mm and 55mm lenses, though they sharpen up well stopped down a bit. These are among the oldest designs as well.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
...
So continue to measure in the way that you do, and arrive at your conclusions. That's what you do well. Photographers around the world will continue to make images and I know they will continue to look forward to cameras that produce images that look right to human beings.
Steve,
There appears to have been a misunderstanding: I happen to be one of those photographers and a human being. And we photographers and human beings all know intuitively that the cameras that produce images that most look right to us usually are the ones that produce the best colors out of the box (the sensor). If they don't get it close to right out of the box there are times when no profile or processing will save them - we've had some pretty good examples of that in this very thread. And then perhaps a career in painting would be advisable instead.
Also, I think that Phase One was courageous with the Trichromatic and its CFA, trading accuracy for precision (well, paraphrasing their marketing material a bit:-) as anyone who has read my analysis (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic-linear-color-i/) of David Chew's captures surely understands. I like the resulting matrices. Time will tell whether tacking away from the group will yield results and/or be appreciated by us photographers, we are a fickle bunch. Sometimes it works, sometimes you end up in the doldrums. Either way I am personally quite intrigued by the related intellectual trip, bring it on. Just don't expect us to take marketing voodoo talk at face value ;)
Next time I am in your neck of the woods I am going to make it a point to stop by and take you (and Doug) out for a beer.
Jack
-
Steve,
There appears to have been a misunderstanding: I happen to be one of those photographers and a human being. And we photographers and human beings all know intuitively that the cameras that produce images that most look right to us usually are the ones that produce the best colors out of the box (the sensor). If they don't get it close to right out of the box there are times when no profile or processing will save them - we've had some pretty good examples of that in this very thread. And then perhaps a career in painting would be advisable instead.
Also, I think that Phase One was courageous with the Trichromatic and its CFA, trading accuracy for precision (well, paraphrasing their marketing material a bit:-) as anyone who has read my analysis (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic-linear-color-i/) of David Chew's captures surely understands. I like the resulting matrices. Time will tell whether tacking away from the group will yield results and/or be appreciated by us photographers, we are a fickle bunch. Sometimes it works, sometimes you end up in the doldrums. Either way I am personally quite intrigued by the related intellectual trip, bring it on. Just don't expect us to take marketing voodoo talk at face value ;)
Next time I am in your neck of the woods I am going to make it a point to stop by and take you (and Doug) out for a beer.
Jack
Jack, I'm glad you are a photographer (and human being!). Forgive me if I inferred otherwise. You have the benefit of peeking with more interest and precision at what happens at the sensor level than I do. So as a result, I weigh my findings more completely on the final results. And sometimes a thread gets very heavy on the sensor findings, in this case I became more interested when there was doubt expressed about the relative accuracy of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic because viewing it from my end, this seemed contradictory. So I'm glad Eric did find - so far - that the Trichromatic seems to be more accurate than the IQ3 100. For my purposes, I know what I see, and I'm not alone, so I'll be interested in further findings at the investigative stage prior to the theater I operate in.
I certainly wouldn't expect you to take marketing voodoo at face value, we sure don't, so why should you? There is good marketing, there is bad marketing. Points for or against for good or bad communication efforts. Nonetheless, it is ... marketing.
Do please stop by if you're in Atlanta, I'll treat you to the best Thai food. Doug's in New York, so you'll have to work out a beer there.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
You have the benefit of peeking with more interest and precision at what happens at the sensor level than I do. So as a result, I weigh my findings more completely on the final results. And sometimes a thread gets very heavy on the sensor findings, in this case I became more interested when there was doubt expressed about the relative accuracy of the IQ3 100 Trichromatic because viewing it from my end, this seemed contradictory. .
Surely though a photographer would like to be in complete control of his/hers equipment - and that means having minimised variables and dependency on the unknowns? At least a few photographers I know do prefer this. That was true in the days of the film and it remains even more true in the days of digital. Though in the days of the film a lot more information was provided by film manufacturers that it is nowadays by camera/back/sensor manufacturers (Kodak published data about all its sensors in the olden days but these days are now in the past). Sadly, what we have nowadays is equivalent to this in film era: having a film with no data whatsoever except ISO sensitivity and a statement from manufacturer "if you develop it in our lab and print it on our paper, then we will give you the utmost fim accuracy and colours" (and to be clear I am not referring to just Phase One - this is applicable to just about any camera manufacturer these days).
-
Ok, I've taken a look at the Phase One IQ3 100MP "Appetizing Fruits and Veggies" raw files in Doug Peterson's article.
I confirm the earlier findings (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic-linear-color-iii/) based on similar processes. Out of the box (the sensor), that is before any color profiles and processing have been applied, the IQ3 100MP Standard Back appears to produce more accurate tones than the Trichromatic with this D50 capture, with SMI00 of about 87.6 for the SB vs 83.5 for the TC. I would call those excellent and good respectively. The TC still has better looking matrices and they both look similar to previous ones once the change in lighting has been taken into consideration. Refer to the linked articles for information on the processes and related limitations.
Given prior experience with this audience I won't bore you with the details. Suffice it to say that the largest error by the SB is in the red patch (dE00 2.0), while the 'caucasian skin' patch is the most problematic for the TC (dE00 3.1) in this case. Should anyone be interested in the linearly rendered files and metrics PM me your email address and I will send them to you. Just don't spend too much time on the orange, the left lime and the yellow and orange peppers because their linear colors are mainly out of gamut even in Adobe RGB.
Jack
-
Ok, I've taken a look at the Phase One IQ3 100MP "Appetizing Fruits and Veggies" raw files in Doug Peterson's article.
I confirm the earlier findings (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic-linear-color-iii/) based on similar processes. Out of the box (the sensor), that is before any color profiles and processing have been applied, the IQ3 100MP Standard Back appears to produce more accurate tones than the Trichromatic with this D50 capture, with SMI00 of about 87.6 for the SB vs 83.5 for the TC. I would call those excellent and good respectively. The TC still has better looking matrices and they both look similar to previous ones once the change in lighting has been taken into consideration. Refer to the linked articles for information on the processes and related limitations.
Given prior experience with this audience I won't bore you with the details. Suffice it to say that the largest error by the SB is in the red patch (dE00 2.0), while the 'caucasian skin' patch is the most problematic for the TC (dE00 3.1) in this case. Should anyone be interested in the linearly rendered files and metrics PM me your email address and I will send them to you. Just don't spend too much time on the orange, the left lime and the yellow and orange peppers because their linear colors are mainly out of gamut even in Adobe RGB.
Jack
I think I am just now starting to realize what you meant by accurate vs precision. While you did not seem to indicate the Trichromatic was more accurate out of the box, you feel it is more precise, meaning less color polluting or colors crossing paths that ideally do not? You can put it the way that makes the most sense or is most correct.
In this case, that would seem to then make total sense why I look at a sky with the Trichromatic and feel it looks right (more precise? more accurate?), while the IQ3 100 comparatively does not. I don't know how a red cast to a sky squares with being more accurate or precise, but certainly the end result seems to favor the Trichromatic.
If a small amount of up front accuracy is sacrificed in exchange for some up front precision, and the end result is a more correct image (agh, now I'm paranoid about all these terms!), then I think the result is better in this case.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix
-
Instead of discussing the various nuances between accurate and precise, i'm currently wondering about the following far more interesting question:
What does the TC offer that a standard IQ combined with say a $100 UV cut filter does not?
-
Interested to know if anyone here did the 100mp cross-grade form regular IQ100 to the Trichro? and if so roughly what the cost was.
Personally I'm holding out for the 150mp sensor, which I presume will have at least some of the Trichro enhancements on board.
(can't believe they are going to release two versions of the 150mp back, Trichro and Regular, as that would be an admission that the regular CFA has its strengths)
How do you know sir that 150mp is coming in first place?! Regards.
-
Hi,
Sony has announced the sensors around Photokina 2016, with part numbers and all.
It is not very feasible that Phase One or Hasselblad would abstain from using them, especially as they probably also represent three years of development over the older sensors.
Sony also announced 100 MP 44x33 sensors at the same time, essentially meaning that we will see 100 MP on both X1D and GFX platform late this year or early next year.
Best regards
Erik
How do you know sir that 150mp is coming in first place?! Regards.