Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on December 11, 2007, 09:29:24 pm
-
My P45+ has its issues, and although my very nice dealer (Le Moyen Format) would like to see it swapped, the local Paris Phase rep -Prophot- thinks he'll lose money if he sends it back without my proving by shooting in front of him that it's broke. And the back acts up at random so I cannot prove it's broken. So here today is a nice, heavily postprocessed image (saturated, texturized) which is actually near salable except it has a centerfold dividing it into a Right and a Left half. Aaaaaaarrrrrrrggghh!
Of course, according to the rep, I'm not supposed to shoot at 400, ISO. I think Phase should give me a back that works, and then I'll keep on showing people how wonderful 400 ISO looks when the P45+ is working properly ... otherwise I guess I have to keep showing my broken images until someone gets the point - reminds me of the Leaf story a year or so ago ...
This image is really good except for the centerfold - and it was properly exposed. As shown it has been saturated, textured, and hue-rotated and stray hair has been retouched. There has been no sharpening . I can provide Raw if people want to look, but would prefer not to as I will sell prints of this one, I think, although I don't know which hue variation -think Warhol- is cutest. The model is a mannequin in a shop in Zurich which is why I needed 400 ISO.
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/centerfold2.jpg)
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/centerfold1.jpg)
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/Girl1486C1.jpg)
Edmund
-
Ed,
It looks like the two sides of the chip are responding to the light very differently.
Fortunately my P45+ has not exhibited any of these issues yet. Although I don't use it at ISO 400 much.
Good luck. John
-
Why is there a split in the colour on the first image? Is that the problem your talking about?
Michael
-
Why is there a split in the colour on the first image? Is that the problem your talking about?
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a split in both, it is more visible in the first. Yes, that is today's problem with this back.
Edmund
-
Ed,
It looks like the two sides of the chip are responding to the light very differently.
Fortunately my P45+ has not exhibited any of these issues yet. Although I don't use it at ISO 400 much.
Good luck. John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
That would indicate that Phase could find me a working back if they wanted to.
Edmund
-
No need to shoot at ISO 400 to have centerfold issues: just shoot a uniform grey background and steepen a bit the curve, and you will see it, if the sensor is out of a certain specification.
Thierry
Ed,
It looks like the two sides of the chip are responding to the light very differently.
Fortunately my P45+ has not exhibited any of these issues yet. Although I don't use it at ISO 400 much.
Good luck. John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thank you, Thierry.
Strange thing, the various problems don't appear in every shot, but they uncannily appear in the good images I'm starting to think there must be an environmental factor contributing, eg heat generated as the camera is used. Actually that would make sense - if something interests me I shoot several shots in succession and hey-presto, hot sensor.
Edmund
No need to shoot at ISO 400 to have centerfold issues: just shoot a uniform grey background and steepen a bit the curve, and you will see it, if the sensor is out of a certain specification.
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
hi Edmund,
as said: try to shoot a grey uniform background, evenly lit, and shoot some images. Then go and steepen the curve and you will see if you have it all the time or randomly.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thank you, Thierry.
Strange thing, the various problems don't appear in every shot, but they uncannily appear in the good images I'm starting to think there must be an environmental factor contributing, eg heat generated as the camera is used, or stray light.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
hi Edmund,
as said: try to shoot a grey uniform background, evenly lit, and shoot some images. Then go and steepen the curve and you will see if you have it all the time or randomly.
Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry -
Sounds like a precise prescription, Doctor I'll do that as soon as I wake up tomorrow.
Edmund
-
Thierry -
Sounds like a precise prescription, Doctor I'll do that as soon as I wake up tomorrow.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ed I have the same "problem" with my A65 back.....but when the image processes it dissapears.
In your case it doesn't, maybe it is a firmware upgrade?
In my images it is most evident in underexposed situations.
-
Ed I have the same "problem" with my A65 back.....but when the image processes it dissapears.
In your case it doesn't, maybe it is a firmware upgrade?
In my images it is most evident in underexposed situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Nicolaas,
Interesting you should talk about underexposure ...
My underexposed shots with this Phase P45+ back are often wrecked by *horizontal* stripes, but here Phase claims it is because they are underexposed .... The image above (and some others) is more entertaining because here the edge is *vertical* while the shot is well-exposed.
The thing is, these vertical and horizontal edges are very visible to me because I'm a color consultant, and I know they will be equally visible to any working photographer, but in an unenhanced image they are not visible to a "normal" person working in a camera dealership. Of course, once a file is manipulated in Photoshop, curved or sharpened, any defects jump out. Anyone who doubts this can look at the C1 screenshot above and the way it gets turned into a print.
Ric Agudelo (Ric Agu here on LL) shoots Phase and uses my Phase profiles, and he was in Paris this weekend, and he too could see the centerfold and banding issues with my back with one glance at the display.
All of this makes me very, very frustrated, because the ergonomics of the back are good, the camera works usably, the colors are wonderful, the resolution is superb, there is little grain at ISO 400, but I cannot get the hi-iso (400+) imagery I want because the back I paid for is broken
Edmund
-
Edmund,
It must be deeply frustrating to have to deal with this situation, especially after having ordered the camera/back, paid a good sum of Euros and then have this awful situation happen. Perhaps you may wish to consider contacting P1 HQ in Copenhagen? If I were them I would want to make this problem go away swiftly. We will all be watching to see how they deal with you, providing moral support. But we'll also like to hear about the results of the grey card shot that Thierry mentioned.
Link: http://www.phaseone.com/Content/ContactUs/...ctPhaseOne.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/Content/ContactUs/Contact/ContactPhaseOne.aspx)
Sean
-
The centerfold is there, not extremely well visible but it is there. Kodak sensors aren't supposed to have this but we have seen more examples.
It appears you have got a lemon.
I am astonished your dealer is not taken the courtesy of looking into your problem more seriously. Have you tried contacting P1 directly?
-
Edmund, I have been following your saga and feeling your pain. I think you have been incredibly patient, may be a little too much. It seems Phase don't really want to know about this (that's NOT an anti-Phase statement, simply a logical response to what has been described) and that horrifies me and annoys my little botty off. In the UK we have the Sale of Goods Act, which means products have to be fit for the purpose. I would be surprised if you don't have an equivalent in France. It would be very easy to get professional opnions, many, to back you up stating that the back you have is clearly unfit. Personally, I would have had Phase in court long ago - or at least threatened to. Again, this view is not especially anti-Phase, it's driven more by an offended sense of justice.
-
Edmund, I heard you opened a "customer case" on their website? I'm very surprised by their response. They closed the case? They don't close any cases unless the problem is resolved.
I quote you text here:
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']Samuel,
Thank you for your confirmation of my own findings. I had a Phase One case open. They CLOSED my case as soon as I sent them that file !!!! They refused to acknowledge that this is a clear indication that the back has issues at 400 ISO, and pretend it's only a 800 ISO underexposed problem. I don't know what is the matter here but I'm feeling increasingly unhappy, even more so as I paid for the VA option. The rep agreed now to send the back to Denmark, we'll see if Phase actually does something to fix the issues, but if they are in denial maybe having some pro photographers using Phase products look at that file and chiming in might help ...
if this is back is defective, as I believe, then it needs to be repaired or replaced. If as Phase believe it is in spec and this is Phase P45+normal quality at ISO 400 then I think prospective buyers deserve to be shown what problems they can expect.
Here is what they wrote me:
------------
Hi thanks for the image - i have looked at the image and i have posted Olivier from Prophot some suggestions and answers. I have also suggestted him that you can try one of their P 45+ to compare.
What i have written Prophot is that a 1-2 f-stop under exposure and then at ISO 800 leaves the signal/noise ratio in a very low position where you will get difficulties. The sensor will only use a minimum of the dynamic range that way. Instead we recommend that you get a image correct exposed and then afterretouch whatever changes you may have. I have also written that maybe you should try a P 30+ or P21+ instead - these camerabacks are more optimized for higher ISO (P 30+ ISO 1600) and they both have microlenses in case you need to shoot in dark invironment.
About the 3.7.7 crash when processing can only be related to your local Mac - please ensure that RAM and CPU are performing well and the harddrive as well. The pattern noise supression will be supported in the final 3.7.8 version that will be release in the comming weeks.
Thanks
Customer Support[/span]
You really need to put press on them. They cannot provide you with a back that doesn't work properly. Be more aggressive.
I find PhaseOne's support remarkable. My feeling is that it's your dealer you should be complaining to. They are responsible.
-
I just read your post, and thought i should see if my images had a centerfold... I pull up the last job i did on my P45+, drag the exposure compensation to the very bottom, and whooops, there it is!
-axel
PS: I'm not so sure the P45+ examples we are seeing are lemons any more, i'm getting the feeling that it affects a number of these backs. If people with recent production P45+ backs could check their files by pulling/pushing a bit, I'd be happy to see some genuine non flawed raw files!
PS2: My dealer has told me this centerfold issue is a "Lens Cast Error". If anyone can confirm that it's Phase Ones official explanation that a perfect line in the middle of the frame, from an image shot with a HC100 f2.2 lens on a H2 body, is a typical example of lens cast, I'll bite the bullet
[attachment=4225:attachment]
-
Axel,
this is certainly not a "lens cast": it is a line located exactly in the half of the sensor. That's what we call "centerfold". And your image is shot with ISO 100.
Best regards,
Thierry
Best regards,
Thierry
I just read your post, and thought i should see if my images had a centerfold... I pull up the last job i did on my P45+, drag the exposure compensation to the very bottom, and whooops, there it is!
-axel
PS: I'm not so sure the P45+ examples we are seeing are lemons any more, i'm getting the feeling that it affects a number of these backs. If people with recent production P45+ backs could check their files by pulling/pushing a bit, I'd be happy to see some genuine non flawed raw files!
PS2: My dealer has told me this centerfold issue is a "Lens Cast Error". If anyone can confirm that it's Phase Ones official explanation that a perfect line in the middle of the frame, from an image shot with a HC100 f2.2 lens on a H2 body, is a typical example of lens cast, I'll bite the bullet
[attachment=4225:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Axel -
My guess is the various backs all have this to some degree, and it is solved by firmware/software. For some reason the software cannot clean up the images from our backs - my guess is the hardware is out of spec, or gets out of spec when it warms up during shooting and is subjected to thermal gradients.
Exactly how much exposure compensation a Phase back is supposed to take before the image breaks into half I don't know. But I do think that ZERO image compensation at 400 ISO using their own software can be expected to be clean and not break into two halves.
And then of course I have a question - if I make a camera profile using my back, which is the side I should profile ? Maybe I should image two targets, one on the right and one on the left ?
This defect makes a mockery of any serious attempt at determining accurate camera color, and certainly prevents me from giving or selling others profiles which have been created with the back Phase has sold to me.
As some of you may have noticed, I have not sent out any new Phase profiles for the P45+ since I bought this back . This may have seemed strange to you, but now you know why - I didn't feel entirely comfortable with my sample.
Edmund
I just read your post, and thought i should see if my images had a centerfold... I pull up the last job i did on my P45+, drag the exposure compensation to the very bottom, and whooops, there it is!
-axel
PS: I'm not so sure the P45+ examples we are seeing are lemons any more, i'm getting the feeling that it affects a number of these backs. If people with recent production P45+ backs could check their files by pulling/pushing a bit, I'd be happy to see some genuine non flawed raw files!
PS2: My dealer has told me this centerfold issue is a "Lens Cast Error". If anyone can confirm that it's Phase Ones official explanation that a perfect line in the middle of the frame, from an image shot with a HC100 f2.2 lens on a H2 body, is a typical example of lens cast, I'll bite the bullet
[attachment=4225:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Edmund,
You really should scold your dealer and then contact Phase management. There is no reason to have to put up with anything other than a perfect product at this price point.
Backs can have this problem because the data is read out from the center of the chip to the side. This means that at the point where the two data read outs start there is a levels mismatch.
One doesn't see minor mismatches within a single readout because the discontinuities are so small, but where they meet there can sometimes be this type of discrepancy.
I don't know about other back makers, but what Phase does is test every chip and then create a calibration file (up to about about 1MB) which is burned into the ROM and which is then embedded into each raw file. The raw software is supposed to read that data and then correct any flaws.
Clearly, something in that chain isn't happening properly.
Do pursue Phase until they make it right. Your dealer is letting you down. In my experience Phase won't ignore you, just as would be the case with any of the other back makers. They all stand behind their products and will make it right.
Michael
-
Greetings, Michael !
Thank you for your support on this.
I've called up the product manager for backs at Phase One, emailed him a link to this thread with the centerfold images, and he said he will set something up.
I'm due to take in the back tomorrow to the rep. We will see how it goes, I'm looking forward to have a working back, I happen to like taking pictures, and also there are some color experiments which I need to do.
Edmund
Edmund,
You really should scold your dealer and then contact Phase management. There is no reason to have to put up with anything other than a perfect product at this price point.
Backs can have this problem because the data is read out from the center of the chip to the side. This means that at the point where the two data read outs start there is a levels mismatch.
One doesn't see minor mismatches within a single readout because the discontinuities are so small, but where they meet there can sometimes be this type of discrepancy.
I don't know about other back makers, but what Phase does is test every chip and then create a calibration file (up to about about 1MB) which is burned into the ROM and which is then embedded into each raw file. The raw software is supposed to read that data and then correct any flaws.
Clearly, something in that chain isn't happening properly.
Do pursue Phase until they make it right. Your dealer is letting you down. In my experience Phase won't ignore you, just as would be the case with any of the other back makers. They all stand behind their products and will make it right.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160064\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Edmund,
there was a Beta 3.7.8 released quite sometime ago that was made to fix Centerfold issues. Your dealer or phase one can get you a copy of it.
-
My P45+ has its issues, and although my very nice dealer (Le Moyen Format) would like to see it swapped, the local Paris Phase rep -Prophot- thinks he'll lose money if he sends it back without my proving by shooting in front of him that it's broke. And the back acts up at random so I cannot prove it's broken. So here today is a nice, heavily postprocessed image (saturated, texturized) which is actually near salable except it has a centerfold dividing it into a Right and a Left half. Aaaaaaarrrrrrrggghh!
Of course, according to the rep, I'm not supposed to shoot at 400, ISO. I think Phase should give me a back that works, and then I'll keep on showing people how wonderful 400 ISO looks when the P45+ is working properly ... otherwise I guess I have to keep showing my broken images until someone gets the point - reminds me of the Leaf story a year or so ago ...
This image is really good except for the centerfold - and it was properly exposed. As shown it has been saturated, textured, and hue-rotated and stray hair has been retouched. There has been no sharpening . I can provide Raw if people want to look, but would prefer not to as I will sell prints of this one, I think, although I don't know which hue variation -think Warhol- is cutest. The model is a mannequin in a shop in Zurich which is why I needed 400 ISO.
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/centerfold2.jpg)
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/centerfold1.jpg)
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/Girl1486C1.jpg)
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eronald:
It does appear to be a center fold issue. I just wanted to let you know from a dealer stand point that there is no loss of money when a camera is replaced by P1. This is done by P1 exchanging the unit froms service stock. Your dealer needs to step up to the plate and get this done for you. Over the last year I have had many P1 camera backs shipped by P1 that showed artifacts. In all cases I was able to get a replacement shipped the same day I opened the case. All of this from the service techs looking at one RAW file they could determine that the back was defective. This makes it less painful.
But what I have seen and heard a lot about most recently is cameras backs having to sent back to P1 for recalibration. I just do not buy it either. At the price point these products cost, they should work flawless. I would expect that as a photographer and as a dealer. It is good that you have a VA warranty because I have had customers that did not have that warranty and they had to do without while there camera back that they purchased and paid for was sent back to the factory for recalibration. The recalibration should not be needed in the first place. The camera back should have been delivered without these issues.
Most interesting I have recently seen some similar artifacts from only ISO 200-400. The images contained a black curtain and half way across the curtain there was a 50 point magenta cast from the top to the bottom. Never a problem at ISO 100 with strobe. Thousands of captures with no issues until the ISO was changed.
I hope you get a perfect one next time and thanks for sharing this with us.
Chris Snipes
President
Image Production, Inc
www.imageproduction.com
chris@imageproduction.com
Phase One Test Studio Florida
New and Used Phase One camera backs
Phase One Production Motorhome
-
Edmund,
My P45+ arrived a few weeks ago and had a similar centerfold issue (as well as a capacitor whine). I sent .TIFFs to my dealer (Optechs, Seattle) and they worked with Phase to replace my back immediately, no questions asked.
The back I have now has no hint of the centerfold issue that my previous one had. Just like in your case, not every photograph exhibited the issue, but I did not study it long enough to attempt to determine a pattern.
I agree with Michael. I can see no reason why they wouldn't want to make this right for you--Phase has been nothing but helpful in my personal experience. I recommend politely insisting on a replacement unit.
You are welcome to contact me offline (PM or e-mail) if you would require contact information for folks within Phase if you feel you need to escalate this issue.
Best regards,
Brad
-
Edmund, I don't have time to read the entire thread. Suffice it to say that this is NOT centerfold, as the Kodak chip is built from one piece. This is due to dual readouts of the chip (as Michael suggested). Simply obtain a copy of C1 3.7.8 beta from your Phase dealer, it should solve the problem. Note that the only thing that 3.7.8B changes is the dual readout problem, so please don't ask if it supports the latest greatest dSLR.
Regards,
Ron
-
Edmund, I don't have time to read the entire thread. Suffice it to say that this is NOT centerfold, as the Kodak chip is built from one piece. This is due to dual readouts of the chip (as Michael suggested). Simply obtain a copy of C1 3.7.8 beta from your Phase dealer, it should solve the problem. Note that the only thing that 3.7.8B changes is the dual readout problem, so please don't ask if it supports the latest greatest dSLR.
Regards,
Ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund, I have the 3.7.8 version. If you want to try it just tell me. I'll make you an image of the CD. It may help solving your problem. (Who knows, maybe the "striations" too.)
/Samuel
-
Edmund,
Sorry to hear that you are having an issue with your P45+. We have forwarded the issue you are having with your digital back to the president of Phase One.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration
-
Edmund, I don't have time to read the entire thread. Suffice it to say that this is NOT centerfold, as the Kodak chip is built from one piece. This is due to dual readouts of the chip (as Michael suggested). Simply obtain a copy of C1 3.7.8 beta from your Phase dealer, it should solve the problem. Note that the only thing that 3.7.8B changes is the dual readout problem, so please don't ask if it supports the latest greatest dSLR.
Regards,
Ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160109\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought the centerfold on Dalsa chips came from a dual readout, and not the fact that the chips are made from 6 "casts". There is no line in a dalsa chip on the spot that the centerfold's appear (at the centre).
I don't know about this firsthand, I'm just going on the dalsa chip i inscpected a couple of weeks back, and the centerfold issue as I have seen examples on this forum... (and therefore might be very wrong on this one )
-axel
-
Edmund, I have the 3.7.8 version. If you want to try it just tell me. I'll make you an image of the CD. It may help solving your problem. (Who knows, maybe the "striations" too.)
/Samuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have tried the V4 Beta 2 and I still have striations, they just move around to other places on the same images and I really hate to look at the display on my back, the banding there is so ugly. The software does clean that up -except sometimes it doesn't.
Because of the way the problems move around the images, I don't think the factory calibration is necessarily bad, I am enclined to think that the back is drifting away from its calibrated position because of some hardware problem.
As an engineer I don't think sweeping hardware issues under the table with a software fix is a reliable long-term solution. If that back has a bad condenser in there or a bad solder joint, that will eventually come back to haunt me. And Murphy's law guarantees it'll happen when the prettiest girl in the world is standing in front of my lens
I now have zero confidence in this back. At this point I think Phase should provide me with a sample of the P45+ that is clearly within spec and shoots well at 400 and 800 Iso with no strange artefacts. I paid for the VA warranty, so assuming less than 10% of the backs have an issue, Phase shouldn't consider they are losing money on a swap.
Edmund
-
...I now have zero confidence in this back. At this point I think Phase should provide me with...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We see this type of message often from newcomers trying to leverage their position with a supplier by garnering sentiment on the forum. Manipulation never sits well with some of us, even though the target may be the next guy and not us.
When we've run out of options, this may be the only alternative. But that's not the case here. Several with influence and insight have offered assistance and its yet to be known what effect they will have.
Give Phase a chance.
Fred
-
I now have zero confidence in this back. At this point I think Phase should provide me with a sample of the P45+ that is clearly within spec and shoots well at 400 and 800 Iso with no strange artefacts. I paid for the VA warranty, so assuming less than 10% of the backs have an issue, Phase shouldn't consider they are losing money on a swap.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Obviously these are extremely fine equipment that are assembled by hand. It's possible like you write that there's a bad solder joint or tiny 5 cent resistor gone bad. It happened to me once with a Sony Vaio memory connector. There's no way of knowing and obviously the problem is not solving by writing and showing what a terrible product you have.
If I was you I would put the back in its case and take it to the dealer and demand warranty service and full inspection because of the unexpected performance. Since you have the VA they'll probably provide a loaner for you to shoot and "test". The dealer has to provide service if you so request.
-
We see this type of message often from newcomers trying to leverage their position with a supplier by garnering sentiment on the forum. Manipulation never sits well with some of us, even though the target may be the next guy and not us.
When we've run out of options, this may be the only alternative. But that's not the case here. Several with influence and insight have offered assistance and its yet to be known what effect they will have.
Give Phase a chance.
Fred
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps you miss the difference in Edmund's case. He has apparently paid for a "hot swap" warranty that entitles him to an immediate loaner of a replacement P45+ while his dealer and Phase go figure out what the source of the problem is and how to fix it.
As an aside, I think Edmund's experience is an object lesson as to why buying a MFDB is a radically different buying experience from buying other products. A MFDB is a complex product and may very well need service, and the quality of your dealer and his relationship with the manufacturer make a huge difference in how that process will go. A dealer may even want to do right by you, but unless he is a major account with the manufacturer and has well earned influence, it won't matter. You may pay a bit more to buy a Hasselblad H3D from Steve Hendrix in Atlanta or a Phase back from Capture Integration than you would pay elsewhere, but problems are expeditiously addressed and resolved.
-
Edmund,
Sorry to hear that you are having an issue with your P45+. We have forwarded the issue you are having with your digital back to the president of Phase One.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Chris -
It's a pity they don't have a clone of you over here, you're starting to become a legend
Edmund
-
We see this type of message often from newcomers trying to leverage their position with a supplier by garnering sentiment on the forum. Manipulation never sits well with some of us, even though the target may be the next guy and not us.
When we've run out of options, this may be the only alternative. But that's not the case here. Several with influence and insight have offered assistance and its yet to be known what effect they will have.
Give Phase a chance.
Fred
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fred,
I will be delighted to give Phase a chance. In fact the product manager Espen Beck just got back to me by email, and I trust this will get straightened out soon, indeed I hope by tomorrow afternoon.
By the way, I seem to have joined this forum a couple of years before you - like many here I am a carryover from the old RG MF forum which self-destructed, and we all found a new virtual home thanks to Michael's hospitality.
As Hcubell points out, with MF we are buying products which are complex and too expensive to swap easily, and we are therefore dependent on the goodwill of our suppliers. Over time, an important part of the role of this forum has become helping each other locate a solid supply chain.
Edmund
-
Edmund,
we're keeping our fingers crossed for you!
Sean
-
Right, Godfred.
Thierry
I thought the centerfold on Dalsa chips came from a dual readout, and not the fact that the chips are made from 6 "casts". There is no line in a dalsa chip on the spot that the centerfold's appear (at the centre).
I don't know about this firsthand, I'm just going on the dalsa chip i inscpected a couple of weeks back, and the centerfold issue as I have seen examples on this forum... (and therefore might be very wrong on this one )
-axel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thank you Chris -
It's a pity they don't have a clone of you over here, you're starting to become a legend
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sad to say but, and I know your country really well, it was mine for 30 years, it's a place on earth where service is far from average...
-
Sad to say but, and I know your country really well, it was mine for 30 years, it's a place on earth where service is far from average...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm actually from the UK, studied in France (my doctorate is from Ecole Polytéchnique). I like living over here - the food, the wine, the women, the art ...
Forget about getting anything serious done in a hurry, any attempt will likely end in frustration
Edmund
-
that's why I moved to Switzerland first, then to Thailand, I mean for/because of the women ....
But I have my fair share of frustrations as well here in Thailand, when it comes to have things simply done, not even speaking about rush!
Cheers Edmund,
Thierry
I'm actually from the UK, studied in France (my doctorate is from Ecole Polytéchnique). I like living over here - the food, the wine, the women, the art ...
Forget about getting anything serious done in a hurry, any attempt will likely end in frustration
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
that's why I moved to Switzerland first, then to Thailand, I mean for/because of the women ....
But I have my fair share of frustrations as well here in Thailand, when it comes to have things simply done, not even speaking about rush!
Cheers Edmund,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wonder how I ended up in Sweden..... I'm originally from Spain.
-
Continuing the digression... it's interesting, do photographers as a breed migrate much, I wonder? I'm from the UK, then to Australia then UK then Canada and now Japan. But maybe it's another thread. Trouble is, all the interesting stuff is in the Medium Format section!
-
Stewart,
I was having the same thoughts this morning, when reading this. I was wondering how many of us photographers are living/working abroad.
It seems to be a lot, when reading here.
Very interesting, IMO.
Best regards,
Thierry
Continuing the digression... it's interesting, do photographers as a breed migrate much, I wonder? I'm from the UK, then to Australia then UK then Canada and now Japan. But maybe it's another thread. Trouble is, all the interesting stuff is in the Medium Format section!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You all supported me, I owe you all a report.
The good news is that thanks to Espen Beck who is the product manager for digital backs at Phase one, and Olivier Percheron who is the technician at Prophot, I have a replacement new P45+ back which is a definite improvement on the first one.
The bad news is that I have adjusted my expectations of what one can expect of a P45+. It appears some degree of striation at high ISO is normal for this product.
Good news detail: When I got to Prophot, Olivier had already read the LL thread and had got some phone calls. He opened a new back, and did some comparison images of me wearing my dark grey wool sweater. The first images he took of me at ISO 800 immediately showed up the centerfold issue. I was offered the just-opened back as a warranty replacement and accepted this offer.
Bad news detail: We did some comparison tests with the old and new back at 800,400 and 200 ISO. The new back too shows some -a few- striations in the shadows, although fewer than the old one, and these bands are really apparent at ISO 800 and 400, and you can still see them at ISO 200 if you know what you are looking for. This is bad news because it appears to be a general characteristic of the product.
Olivier and I agree, that after comparing the old and new backs we can say that the old one was out of spec (centerfold), but that with respect to the new one I have to be prepared to adjust my expectations, and accept that shots above ISO 200, or underexposed shots at ISO 200 cannot be expected to be really completely clean. Olivier states the real native ISO of this product is ISO 50, and we would agree that it should be shot at or below ISO 200, with ISO 400 and 800 risking a need for some retouching in the shadows, although if lucky the pictures would be ok.
It also appears therefore, that the common advice of using the P30+ for low light shooting is probably justified because it should shoot ISO 400 without striations, if it has the same performance as the P45+ with one stop more due to microlenses.
In the end Phase did indeed deliver on its warranty - I do regret that my hopes of smooth albeit noisy Hi-ISO have been dashed for the time being, although one can always hope for future improvement. I will temper my expectations, and await your reports on competing backs at high ISO with great interest.
This has certainly been a learning experience, and I am glad it is resolved. I would like to thank Espen Beck at Phase and Olivier Percheron at Prophot for their friendly help, my dealer Fabrice Michaux at Le Moyen Format for his solidarity, and everyone who contributed to this thread for their support and encouragement which certainly helped to get this problem solved.
Edmund
-
It also appears therefore, that the common advice of using the P30+ for low light shooting is probably justified because it should shoot ISO 400 without striations, if it has the same performance as the P45+ with one stop more due to microlenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logically after I send you two Images P45+ ISO 400 & ISO 800 I decided to pick few of my friends P30+ and test the performance in underexposed condition. All I can tell you at ISO 400 it's funny but the striations/bending is obvious with P30+ perhaps to my surprise even more than on your P45+ files but no centrefold issue.
Next time when you are with your dealer pick one of his P30+ and see what is your experience. I know there are number of P30+ owners here, perhaps they can report on underexposed ISO 400/ISO 800 condition/performance.
Hopefully new P45+ will come with more charm Anyway, all these products are good, I am just tired of getting the files ready for post processing and just the whole issue is a little technical regardless of you/us using Leaf, Sinar, Hasselblad, Phase, sooner or later we are all searching for answers etc.
-
Bad news detail: We did some comparison tests with the old and new back at 800,400 and 200 ISO. The new back too shows some -a few- striations in the shadows, although fewer than the old one, and these bands are really apparent at ISO 800 and 400, and you can still see them at ISO 200 if you know what you are looking for. This is bad news because it appears to be a general characteristic of the product.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
I'd be interested to see a P45+ RAW image at ISO 400 which requires a -1 EC adjustment in ACR to recover highlight detail and which also shows striations in the shadows.
From what I've seen of your seriously underexposed ISO 400 & 800 shots, I find it difficult to believe there would be any problem in the shadows with a further 3 stops or so of exposure.
-
Edmund,
I'd be interested to see a P45+ RAW image at ISO 400 which requires a -1 EC adjustment in ACR to recover highlight detail and which also shows striations in the shadows.
From what I've seen of your seriously underexposed ISO 400 & 800 shots, I find it difficult to believe there would be any problem in the shadows with a further 3 stops or so of exposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, although your comment is doubtless justified, I have an experiment for you. Take the piece of plexiglass that came with your back, put it in front of the lens, set your camera to full auto, at ISO 800, and shoot a frame with focus at infinity. Then look at the display on the back of the back, and the C1 preview and see what that looks like. Next develop the image and look what that looks like. My feeling is that the nicer the shot when unprocessed, the less work the software needs to do to correct, and the fewer the problems that make it into the processed file.
I'm going to take the new back, and the C1 3.7.8 beta which was recommended to me by Samuel and which I now got from the dealer too (found another in the VA package), and am going to go shooting at random for a couple of days to see how things go. Pixel peeping only makes me unhappy, and is only necessary anyway when one starts to have image issues. I just hope I won't have any image issues.
Edmund
-
My feeling is that the nicer the shot when unprocessed, the less work the software needs to do to correct, and the fewer the problems that make it into the processed file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmund,
Although your comment is doubtless justified also, I think it's unreasonable to expect an image that has received 1/8th of the amount of light for full-well exposure in the highlights to be processed in the usual manner.
On the basis that the P45+ has a base ISO of 50, an exposure at ISO 400 represents just 1/8th the amount of light. Furthermore if such an exposure is 3 stops less than it could be with a full ETTR, that's another 1/8th less, a total of 1/64th the amount of light that a full ETTR exposure would get at ISO 50.
I just mention this to get things in perspective. I don't need to own and use a digital back to see these simple mathematical relationships, do I?
-
My feeling is that the nicer the shot when unprocessed, the less work the software needs to do to correct, and the fewer the problems that make it into the processed file.
I agree, except for the observation that habitually underexposing by two stops does not generally make one's shots "nicer", especially at higher ISO settings. Your own posted images demonstrate this.
-
Glad to hear they took care of you, Edmund.
Best regards,
Brad
-
i.m.o. its absolute nonsense that a back cannot be underexposed.
if the back works as iz should do the underexposed image has to be clean but darker.
and even if yu raise up after the levels of this image there should not become visible any strivations or other artefacts ( except noise ). the "noise floor" of the sensor has to be much lowr, if its a bad sensor around 10stops under clipping level, if its a good one 11,5. this can show up in fine lines or "hair" structures in the worst case. in the best case there will not become even at this floor any image ununiformity visble, just noise.
if this stripes would be normal you never could make any HDR image, just for example. and if this should be brand or type specific i would hardly suggest not to buy this product.
its clear you cant underexpose three stops and push it up and expect great quality,- although this will result in worser images than the properly exposed ones. but in any case they should not be DESTROYED by unacceptable amounts of image defects, which are not caused by increased noise.
i think Edmund is right here from the beginning.
-
You are right Rainer, it should happen not but my experience (after quite a number of different backs) is, it does.
Sure you can make a HDR, if you underexpose for HDR you typically expose for highlights, which are not affected by the underexposure as the shadows are.
Anyway, I think you should consider yourself very lucky when you have a back that doesn't deliver some weird stuff in the dark parts when you underexpose. Most I have owned did, some were just less obvious than others.
-
my two backs dont show things like this. one is perfect ( ofcourse it has "normal" noise floor ) and one shows very fine hair structures which become a little bit visible if i raise up shadows about 6 or 7! stops.
in general its really sad that tools as expensive as are this backs spread so wide in terms of quality. if i buy a sigma 12-24 lens i can understand this, sigma hardly can ask a price of 2000$, which they probably should ask for if they kick 4 out of 5 lenses to the rabbish where they belong to ( although same with many canon and nikon lenses ).
with the mf backs it seems to me that many of this defects are caused by tolerances of electronic parts which can be bought cheaper with higher tolerances. this are probably justsome 100 dollars if QC department would manage their business diferent, which they would do if the buyers would be more demanding. it would not be any problems if the backs would cost 1000 or 2000 $ dollar more and would deliver consistant quality, what they obviously dont do.
it shows much that so many photographers accept backs which are acting by far inferior to hi-end 35mm cameras just to have the feel to get (imaginative) 16bit files and subjectiv perceived 3-dimensionality.
ofcourse i am far away to bash mf backs here otherwise i would not
use them nearly exclusiv for my own work - with good reasons.
B.T.W. i use the sigma 12-24 lens too for ultrawide shots with my 5d,- but i kicked back to the shop 4 from the 5 samples i tried out,- bringing my pb with me in the shop. its not fun to sell this days equipment to me, but quite often i cant live and work with the quality out of the box .
for me its not acceptable that edmund gets bashed here for doing something wrong which he obviously hasnt done.
the statements of the users who tell here that backs in general CANNOT be underexposed are wrong.
mf backs can be underexposed and this should be possible if they are working at its specs.
about HDR.
no,- with bandings as shown by edmund you cant stack images because these stripes are visible in the blacks for beeing the lightest parts there,- except you pull them down in postpro, so far that they become hided.
if i shoot for HDR i let all exposure and gradations linear and the results are amazing, this should not be possible with backs which act as edmunds.
-
Yeah..... you have got Sinar backs which are still on my list to own one somewhere in the future
My C-Most was horrible, the Valeos were so-so, the Aptus was not good, the H10 was really good, the CF39 seems to be really good and I cannot comment on the 384 yet since I don't own it that long (in multishot it is fantastic ).
No kidding, sure you can have one that doesn't and if it is indicative for the whole line that would be great. I have never touched a Sinar or handled a file of one.
-
The bad news is that I have adjusted my expectations of what one can expect of a P45+. It appears some degree of striation at high ISO is normal for this product.
Bad news detail: We did some comparison tests with the old and new back at 800,400 and 200 ISO. The new back too shows some -a few- striations in the shadows, although fewer than the old one, and these bands are really apparent at ISO 800 and 400, and you can still see them at ISO 200 if you know what you are looking for. This is bad news because it appears to be a general characteristic of the product.
- I do regret that my hopes of smooth albeit noisy Hi-ISO have been dashed for the time being, although one can always hope for future improvement. I will temper my expectations, and await your reports on competing backs at high ISO with great interest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My H3D39II arrives on Monday so I will do a few tests to see how it handles underexposure. It will be interesting as the sensor is the same. I have said before that I'm not defensive about gear (or my purchase decisions) so I'll tell it how it is. I'm not heavily into pixel peeping or charts, etc, so it will be a real-world test, like Edmund's. I tested an H3d39 mk1 for underexposure by accident, got the dials all wrong as I didn't know the camera and had 1.7 stops under on several shots but I didn't notice anything horrible lurking in the shadows. When I get time I'll look harder and will also be able to compare with my mk2. My starting point is that I agree with Rainer: it is nonsense that backs at this level cannot be underexposed.
-
i.m.o. its absolute nonsense that a back cannot be underexposed.
if the back works as iz should do the underexposed image has to be clean but darker.
and even if yu raise up after the levels of this image there should not become visible any strivations or other artefacts ( except noise ). the "noise floor" of the sensor has to be much lowr, if its a bad sensor around 10stops under clipping level, if its a good one 11,5. this can show up in fine lines or "hair" structures in the worst case. in the best case there will not become even at this floor any image ununiformity visble, just noise.
if this stripes would be normal you never could make any HDR image, just for example. and if this should be brand or type specific i would hardly suggest not to buy this product.
its clear you cant underexpose three stops and push it up and expect great quality,- although this will result in worser images than the properly exposed ones. but in any case they should not be DESTROYED by unacceptable amounts of image defects, which are not caused by increased noise.
i think Edmund is right here from the beginning.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
+1
My thoughts exactly. No brand should be able to label their product with an ISO setting that produces anything other than an increase in noise. Artefacts, be it stripes, banding, miscolorations or otherwise, should not appear, and if it does, the product should not have been put out for sale with a label stating the ISO where the artefacts start to appear.
-
my two backs dont show things like this. one is perfect ( ofcourse it has "normal" noise floor ) and one shows very fine hair structures which become a little bit visible if i raise up shadows about 6 or 7! stops.
in general its really sad that tools as expensive as are this backs spread so wide in terms of quality. if i buy a sigma 12-24 lens i can understand this, sigma hardly can ask a price of 2000$, which they probably should ask for if they kick 4 out of 5 lenses to the rabbish where they belong to ( although same with many canon and nikon lenses ).
with the mf backs it seems to me that many of this defects are caused by tolerances of electronic parts which can be bought cheaper with higher tolerances. this are probably justsome 100 dollars if QC department would manage their business diferent, which they would do if the buyers would be more demanding. it would not be any problems if the backs would cost 1000 or 2000 $ dollar more and would deliver consistant quality, what they obviously dont do.
it shows much that so many photographers accept backs which are acting by far inferior to hi-end 35mm cameras just to have the feel to get (imaginative) 16bit files and subjectiv perceived 3-dimensionality.
ofcourse i am far away to bash mf backs here otherwise i would not
use them nearly exclusiv for my own work - with good reasons.
B.T.W. i use the sigma 12-24 lens too for ultrawide shots with my 5d,- but i kicked back to the shop 4 from the 5 samples i tried out,- bringing my pb with me in the shop. its not fun to sell this days equipment to me, but quite often i cant live and work with the quality out of the box .
for me its not acceptable that edmund gets bashed here for doing something wrong which he obviously hasnt done.
the statements of the users who tell here that backs in general CANNOT be underexposed are wrong.
mf backs can be underexposed and this should be possible if they are working at its specs.
about HDR.
no,- with bandings as shown by edmund you cant stack images because these stripes are visible in the blacks for beeing the lightest parts there,- except you pull them down in postpro, so far that they become hided.
if i shoot for HDR i let all exposure and gradations linear and the results are amazing, this should not be possible with backs which act as edmunds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are right, if you let the stripes come through but these are very easy to mask out.
Anyway, I think we are in agreement here. It should not happen, you should be able to underexpose at least to some degree without pulling up all sorts of misery. It is indeed sad the reality is not always at par with how it should be.
I had no idea Edmund got flamed? At least that was never my intention if it came across like that. I must admit I also was sceptical in the beginning after the first files. After seeing more and seeing the centerfold appearing under circumstances it absolutely should not, I had no doubt his back was not what it should be.
I am glad it got resolved. (though he now has a back that does the same but to a lesser extend).
BTW, I never claimed MFDB cannot be underexposed. I have only experienced that you exponentially increase the likeliness of getting weird stuff when underexposing. To be frank I don't recall anyone saying you cannot underexpose because obviously you can (but against what price).
Again. I totally agree that you should be able to underexpose (to some degree) without pulling up all sorts of misery.
-
that doesn't deliver some weird stuff in the dark parts when you underexpose.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This "truth" about underexposure has to stop, I provided ample evidence throught raw files that the histogram before my eyes in the examples I provided on the other thread, showed no underexposure, and where just short of clipping to the right. Yet the images still had visible artefacts in the dark parts of the images, even at ISO 400 (one stop short of the P45+ max iso range.) It does not show a lot, but it shows if your eye is tuned into what it should look for.
The fact that Panopeeper and others could find ample underexposure if using other software that the one supplied from the manufacturer should in this case not be of any significance. The software you have to use for tethered shooting, or the histogram on the screen of the back, should be the measurement for correct exposure, anything else is: "if you cut out your convenient, P1 approved workflow, an try this other more demanding workflow, then you may or may not see these artefacts. Of course you will not be able to trust your eyes to check for clipped highlights during a photoshoot unless you check and recheck the histogram every 5 minutes during the shoot in this second, non manufacurer provided, software." What if you are not shooting tethered, and cannot check your histogram in ACR like in Edmunds cases. How do you then determine correct exposure if you cannot trust the histogram on the back for an ETTR exposure?
-axel
-
Not sure what you are currently quoting of me but I have never put anything down as the 'truth'. I always say stuff within the context of my own experiences.
The only thing you have supplied ample proof of is that your back delivers artefacts even when exposed properly.
I agree you should be able to trust your histogram but in case it is off it is not so hard to compensate through experience. If you have used your equipment for a while you should know how to handle it and how to compensate if necessary.
Sure, we should live in a perfect world where everything functions as advertised and flawless, unfortunately in my experience we are not. I would love to have it otherwise don't get me wrong, I envy those that have not experienced a single glitch, setback, etc..
I even recently received a recall of something that hadn't even arrived at my address!
-
about HDR.
no,- with bandings as shown by edmund you cant stack images because these stripes are visible in the blacks for beeing the lightest parts there,- except you pull them down in postpro, so far that they become hided.
if i shoot for HDR i let all exposure and gradations linear and the results are amazing, this should not be possible with backs which act as edmunds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rainer, Dustbak,
Exactly wiich back are you using ? How did you get a sample that doesn't band or stripe ?
I think Dustak has Hasselblad as posted above but I'd like to know more details about the 384 - I don't know what this is, and why he didn't get the CF39 converted to MS ?
Note that one can actually do HDR -probably- with a back that stripes like the Phase, by going down to an ISO where it does not stripe. That means several images, obviously, one cannot do it just with the Raw developer.
Edmund
-
about HDR.
no,- with bandings as shown by edmund you cant stack images because these stripes are visible in the blacks for beeing the lightest parts there,- except you pull them down in postpro, so far that they become hided.
if i shoot for HDR i let all exposure and gradations linear and the results are amazing, this should not be possible with backs which act as edmunds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course you can, I do it regularly but with ISO 100, ISO 200 very few with ISO400 because I use long exposure so I don't need to even go over ISO100
So HDR is definitely NOT a PROBLEM with PHASE ONE, in fact the results are excellent. Of course as you know I'm sure, you can't expect to please everyone!
To my surprise as I said before I tried two P30+ and when underexposed they show more striations/bending at ISO 400, ISO 800 than P45+, Other LL members/P30+ owners here can report on their results with underexposed ISO 400/ISO 800 condition/performance.
Let's hope the new version of C1 will fix the striations/bending problems.
Regarding Sinar Digital Back, I think they have a very nice product only my dollar goes to Sinar when they decide on at least 3" screen and I hope it happens very soon!
-
Not sure what you are currently quoting of me but I have never put anything down as the 'truth'. I always say stuff within the context of my own experiences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure I respect and expect that, and I'm sorry if i angered you or pointed a finger, that was not my intention.
I was merely wanting to point out that (as quoted from you below) the "underexposure" cup that is being carried around in relation to Edmunds experiences, is not giving the problem due justice, as its not just Edmunds back, and it's not just underexposed shots.
Again, no offence, and I shold probably not have quoted you previously, just said my piece about underexposure
-axel
These are less underexposed than Edmund's examples. The one with the lowest exposure of the ISO400 samples is only about 1 stop under. At least that is what ACR is telling me.
Pushing it towards the point of clipping does show the bag go mildly to magenta & greenish.
I bet when you would underexpose that shot another stop, with which you will come close to Edmunds example, there will be a lot more garbage in the bag.
I am currently downloading your ISO800 examples...
Yikes! The ISO800 examples look horrible. These are going from being exposed right on the point of clipping to being 3/4 of a stop over? Even than there is a lot of Green/magenta rubbish in the darker parts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I currently use a Hasselblad CF39 and an Imacon384. I did not do anything special to get one that doesn't stripe of band.
However I do get other stuff when using in certain ways.
I get a blue hotspot on the DigiFlex with the ZF50macro which cannot be resolved according Zeiss.
I get lightrings with the PC85 Nikkor on the Truewide with the A17 something caused by the optics of the lens, cannot be resolved according to Nikon.
I get magenta and green goblins under certain circumstances with indoor lighting and the CF39.
I get magenta blobs when pulling up shadows too far on the CF39 (especially when underexposing but also with exposing ETTR!)
Etc...
Most things can be worked around or fixed in post-processing. I have used several brands of backs and each had specific weird things under specific circumstances. Sometimes annoying but I have simply accepted them as a fact of life (what else can you do?).
@Axel
No offense taken. That quote below your last post was one of my first to Edmunds issues. At that point I was indeed doubtful that the problem was with the back. That changed when Edmund posted more shots and eventually the centerfold part. As you can see I already acknowledged with the ISO800 shots that they were exposed correctly and still showed misery (I think these were your examples?).
Sorry, I have made too many user errors myself. I always first look whether there is an user error instead of looking for broken equipment.
-
Which back are you using, Rainer ? How did you get a sample that doesn't band or stripe ?
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i used at first two,5 years before a sinar emotion22 which was a great back without any shadow defects. i added than in mai 2006 one of the first emotion75 which showed very unlinear colors. my friend stefan hess wrote first profiles for this back in his already existin g dng konverter,
then the colors became better. centerfold issue showed up soon,- foto-z was the first one who saw this in an image i had posted in the net in rgalbraight.
i returned the back and got a new one ( which i still use ).
the second back had much better linearity but still centerfold, but no noise or patterns in the dark.
i asked stefan now to think about if he could write a code to remove it ..... after 2 or 3 days he finished the first code ( !!!! ) which already was wrking very good, just needed some fine tuning with more backs ( stefan wrote around 50 updates..... ) . incredible no? he wrote in few days a code where the established companies till today have not been able to deliver one ( in fact all other solutions in the market are just "work-arounds"- cosmetic ). well --- sinar took over this code in their captureshop program and now in exposure. therefor they had very little image damage from this horrible dalsa sensor fault. BTW. it is also caused by too big tolerances of 3% between the different amplifier zones in the chip. i suppose the sensors are cheaper to manufacture with this hi tolerances and software departements in the companies promised to resolve this but ...... some delay... u know.
so .. long story. but in contrary to many others i did not accept the quality i found and searched for a solution. fortunately i knew stefan and he is really a sotware-star. so i got my own "custom" manufactored soluton ..... later we tweaked the brumbaer tools more and more till the workflow was in a way that it seemed to have some logic for my needs. not any proramm in the market delivers a workflow which i would name logical and fast,- for the needs of architecture shooting where you need to make many white references to have color free results.
somehow similar than your profile writing but brumbaer tools and so our experience are freeware. some photographers use them now as you probably know.
i just updated some weeks ago my old emotion22 to a 75lv as well, this back was good out of the box. not 100% as good as my old one but nearly as good- the new one shows this "hair" structure 11 stops down.
both backs have good bright oled display, these displais are very different,- some are perfect visible in sunlight and some are only usuable for histogram control. seems so that M.R. had one of these bad ones..... fortunately i have two good ones.
-
I think a *normally* exposed shot of the plexi or a sheet of paper or wall and a glance at the preview on the back itself actually gives one a good idea of how well the back *hardware* of a Phase back is doing. The software will clean up as much of the mess as it can. I think this trick is the MF equivalent of holding a lens up to the light to see if it is scratched or if the aperture i getting stuck, and maybe used digital camera buyers should adopt it too.
Edmund
To my surprise as I said before I tried two P30+ and when underexposed they show more striations/bending at ISO 400, ISO 800 than P45+, Other LL members/P30+ owners here can report on their results with underexposed ISO 400/ISO 800 condition/performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think a *normally* exposed shot of the plexi or a sheet of paper or wall and a glance at the preview on the back itself actually gives one a good idea of how well the back *hardware* of a Phase back is doing. The software will clean up as much of the mess as it can. I think this trick is the MF equivalent of holding a lens up to the light to see if it is scratched or if the aperture i getting stuck, and maybe used digital camera buyers should adopt it too.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
every exposure should look good. some darker, some brighter.
higher isos cause noise. not bandings in any form. not centerfold.
thats the way it has to be with P1 leaf hasselblad and sinar.
-
I think a *normally* exposed shot of the plexi or a sheet of paper or wall and a glance at the preview on the back itself actually gives one a good idea of how well the back *hardware* of a Phase back is doing. The software will clean up as much of the mess as it can. I think this trick is the MF equivalent of holding a lens up to the light to see if it is scratched or if the aperture i getting stuck, and maybe used digital camera buyers should adopt it too.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree Edmund, that is what I did with plexi card delivered by Phase. However, at that point Lens cast is mostly/all I can see on the preview including the annoying quality/noise of the screen it self >>>This is my experience only with wide angle lenses Schneider Apo-Digitar 5.6/24 mm XL and Rodenstock Apo-Sironar digital HR 4.5/28 mm, No problems with others so far..... <<<
-
the stripes should be there at any iso, just at the darker end. at least with sinar it is in this way. the noise is moving up with higher isos in the same way as if you underexpose a lo iso. so a three stops underexposed iso 400 shows exactly the same noise than a 6 stops underexposed iso 50.
many backs dont do much other things than to level the histograms for the higher isos. file content is the same than underexposed lo iso files, but with cutted lights and levelled histo.
i attached here a min. 6 stops underexposed iso50 , which equals more or less a correct exposed iso3200 or 6400. to show the noise floor i raised up the shadows as you can see,- more is not possible. here remains just noise but no deeper structure and in this way it should look,as i think.
the deep shadows should be at the teoretical limit of the sensor DR, abot 12 stops under.
ofcourse this image could not be used but its not the sense of it, its lowest part of a HDR
so the not-leveled shot is the one which is in use.
-
Here it how it looks like on a P21 ISO 400 Underexposed 3 stops and then pushed:
(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/images/LL/400-3.jpg)
-
This "truth" about underexposure has to stop, I provided ample evidence throught raw files that the histogram before my eyes in the examples I provided on the other thread, showed no underexposure, and where just short of clipping to the right. Yet the images still had visible artefacts in the dark parts of the images, even at ISO 400 (one stop short of the P45+ max iso range.) It does not show a lot, but it shows if your eye is tuned into what it should look for.
The fact that Panopeeper and others could find ample underexposure if using other software that the one supplied from the manufacturer should in this case not be of any significance.
It is significant, in that the manufacturer's software is defective if it forces you to underexpose several stops to avoid clipping with that software. I thought losing a stop of DR using Canon's camera JPEGs was bad, but what the back software seems to be doing is throwing away 2-3 stops of sensor data and forcing you to underexpose, which means you're seeing far higher noise levels, more artifacts such as striations and banding, and throwing away significant highlight detail that is actually present in the RAW data.
-
I had this centerfold issue. I spoke directly to a Phase One person at the NYC PDN show last October. The issue was resolved immediately with the installation of the c1pro version 3.7.8. Aparantly, this version is shipping now with the + backs. The phase one person informed me that this update had one fix. It was to fix this issue. So, I would suggest that you contact your phase one dealer and request this latest version: CaptureOnePRO_378b_3130.dmg
-
Hey, Rainer, with Sinar the stripes are the other way from Phase - across rather than along !
Edmund
the stripes should be there at any iso, just at the darker end. at least with sinar it is in this way. the noise is moving up with higher isos in the same way as if you underexpose a lo iso. so a three stops underexposed iso 400 shows exactly the same noise than a 6 stops underexposed iso 50.
many backs dont do much other things than to level the histograms for the higher isos. file content is the same than underexposed lo iso files, but with cutted lights and levelled histo.
i attached here a min. 6 stops underexposed iso50 , which equals more or less a correct exposed iso3200 or 6400.
[attachment=4242:attachment][attachment=4243:attachment][attachment=4244:attachm
ent][attachment=4245:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hey, Rainer, with Sinar the stripes are the other way from Phase - across rather than along !
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
what you see here is around 11 till 12 stops under. absolute unvisible in any photo.