Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Paul2660 on February 11, 2014, 08:01:28 pm
-
After spending some time working up the stitched series from the 250 and 260 shots that were provided by Doug, it's pretty apparent that we most likely have seen the last CCD back. The 250 files have a tremendous range to them whereas the 260 images seem to suffer once the exposure dropped off. Since no CF was used on the 32mm Rodenstock, the LCC had a lot of work to do and the noise that is contained in the 260 shot may have been a bit better, however it would have made the 250 image better also the way I look at it. I worked up the series of images that were the shifted series only, not working on the rise and fall as you can see the differences in just the 3 shifted files. I have attached 4 screen prints showing areas that seem to really stand out.
The first one is taken from the left shifted portion of each camera. There is large panel on the far left that at first I thought was wood, however when I looked at the 250 file, you could see what appears to be fabric and then as you move to the right edge, a brass hinge. The 260 image is so noisy that you really can't make anything out of the details on this large panel until you get to the very right edge. The support/glass structure on the very left is pretty much gone on the 260 file (partly due to focus and low light) but the same piece of material is much easier to make out on the 250 image.
The 2nd one shows a close up from the balcony and the railing support. Here look at the area underneath the balcony, with the 260 image there is really nothing there but you can easily make out details right up to the very back. What was even more striking was the details around the large plate holding the railing upright in place, and the amount of detail that is shown in the metal of the base of the upright. This all falls away on the 260 image. You can also see a lot more of the details in the wood in the back ground.
The 3rd image is from the curved portion of the balcony. Looking underneath from the 250 shot here the difference is very impressive. You can make out several fine details all the way back to the light fixture and see what appears to be some form of a camera next to the light. Again the detail in the metal work also stands out much better and the patina of the metal also seems to be shown better. In this shot below the balcony you can see the X shaped supports that run throughout the library. From this angle the 260 picked up a huge amount of aliasing, which I worked on in Capture One with a local adjustment and I found I was able to get a lot of it taken out, but the 250 file from the start has much less of the aliasing.
The 4th image was taken from the right shift, the near the lowest portion on the floor. This comparison speaks for itself as the wall in the background on the 260 file has pretty much gone away and the yet with the 250, you easily make out the grain in the wood and see the emblem in the center. The stand that is hold the glass cover looks much better on the 250 image with almost no noise.
The images were a challenge to WB, and I know I probably am not close, however I would really have to be in that building myself to get a feel for the room. I felt there was a overall red tint to the 260 images that was possibly made worse by the aliasing. The aliasing is extreme enough that it would show up in even a web sized image if not worked on. The only downside I found to the 250 images was just a bit of banding on the large panel on the left. I did note that Capture One was a bit shaky working on the 250 files, especially when zooming to 100% and back out. About 50% of the time on zooming out, the image size dropped to a postage stamp causing me to restart Capture One. This did not happen when I was working on the 260 images.
Overall the images pretty much tell the future for Medium format digital. I can't see much difference is color but I there may be some faint differences. A test in the outdoors would be better for me, but I did appreciate working on this series of images as it's a beautiful subject indeed.
What is real key in all of this to me: the fact that the Sony chip with it's tremendous DR has now made it to the MF world and the results are as impressive as when in April 2012 the D800 hit the market.
Thanks again to the Doug and DT for taking the time to provide these examples.
Paul C
-
I've looked on the raw files for IQ260 and IQ250 32HR, no shift.
The IQ250 is slightly lower exposed in raw values (like 1/3 stop), but in terms of exposure time it's ISO100 3 seconds vs ISO50 6 seconds on the IQ260.
In RawTherapee you can turn off all noise reduction and all hot pixel filtering, and the amount of hot pixels in the IQ260 file is a lot, it's peppered like a 30 second exposure on my Aptus 75. Still the file says only 6 second exposure, so I'm wondering if there's something wrong with the IQ260? It seems unlikely that it should be as noisy as it is.
When pushing the shadows the noise difference between the IQ250 and IQ260 is huge, the IQ250 is as clean as we expect any Sony Exmor sensor to be, but as far as I can see the IQ260 is much more noise than we would expect from a recent CCD back. On the other hand I've not seen multi-second exposures in previous examples, maybe the good DR from an IQ260 only is obtainable with sub-second exposure times?
The attached image is from the IQ260 image, with all noise reduction turned off. Note the hot/dead pixels, the black, white, red and blue dots scattered all over the shadowy parts, and a few in the brighter too.
I'd like to see an explanation why the IQ260 is this noisy, if it's normal or not.
(concerning IQ250 and shift, I'm still very much skeptical about color stability, but I need more testing with my own algorithms etc, my workstation crashed yesterday so I can't do much advanced testing until it is restored)
-
It would be interesting to throw in the mix a spherical stitch from a D800 + Zeiss 55mm f1.4 with the same angular coverage and a flat projection corrected for verticals.
I am really not impressed by the image quality in the corners of any of those images, at least on the 47mm XL images I checked in detail.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It would be interesting to throw in the mix a spherical stitch from a D800 + Zeiss 55mm f1.4 with the same angular coverage and a flat projection corrected for verticals.
I am really not impressed by the image quality in the corners of any of those images.
You should be impressed by the 32HR, it's kind of the best there is. But of course proper stitching (ie turning the camera) will always outperform in terms of corner performance. If it doesn't, just put on a longer focal length and stitch even more. I have no doubt that the D800 spherical stitching plus remapping to rectalinear would provide the best result in this stitching scenario, it would be more files to keep track of though, but for the difference in cost you can probably come up with some good workflow :)
I think tech cam is best when you don't need to stitch in the general case, and just stitch occasionally. Reduced corner performance for these extreme wide angle shots is rarely a problem in production. These are just test shots, stitching together a large shot to test all sorts of shifting in one image and push beyond the limit so you can see where it is. Shifting 30mm in a 90mm image circle is nothing you would do normally. Of course, if you stitch all the time in production I'd suggest to strongly consider a spherical head.
Also consider that these are f/9 shots. f/11 would improve corners. The older symmetrical 35XL and 47XL performs pretty bad at f/9, they're designed to be shot at f/11, and for large shifts I'd recommend f/16. Personally for the shooting style I have I prefer to have symmetrical designs optimized for smaller apertures, and make a slight sacrifice in corner performance, going all in for resolution just leads to costly heavy overkill designs (with added distortion too). I just want the large format shooting experience, but with a digital back. If that experience is replaced with just a larger mirrorless camera and otherwise the same as smaller format I'd probably will exit MF, to me it's very much about the emotional experience of shooting.
The IQ250 does not do well with those symmetrical designs unfortunately due to poor and varied angular response. I'm a bit worried that it may have pixel crosstalk too (eg due to low angle photons passing through the red filter gets registered in the green photodiode), but I'm not sure how I could see that in the files.
-
I need to pull down the 60mm tests, as that is a lens I use a lot, and I can't figure out why it did not work as well as it does on the 80MP tests, since it's a back with similar pixel pitch.
When I look at the the LCC's for the 250 on the 40mm, they look good to and don't show excessive color cast, and but the room being shot is a pretty big challenge, with all the various lighting.
I agree the 260 shots (at least with the 32mm) appear to be excessively noisy, especially on the shifts and as Doug mentioned there was no Center filter being used and I am pretty sure that would have helped to clean some of the shifted noise up. Overall the details from the 32mm are impressive to me. If you look at the center shot only of the 260, the noise is not as bad as it is on the shifts. It's not up to par with the 250 in the shadows, but not sure the 260 will ever get there.
Torger, your shot from raw therapy is most interesting. I am very surprised to see that much noise at only a 6 second shot at iso 50. I thought the dark frame would remove most of this, as that is why I always felt it was used by Phase One. The long exposures I have taken with the P45+ and developed in Capture One don't show anywhere near this much noise. When I opened the 260 shots, Capture One sets the what it feels is the correct noise reduction/sharpening for the raw image based on the back. Even with the defaults on, there are a lot stuck blue pixels that show up in most of the shadows and even if you take the "single pixel noise" slider all the way to 100%, not all of them are removed. I am going to setup my 260 this evening and take a few longer exposures and see what I get in the deeper shadow areas.
I guess the denser pixel size of the 250 creates less aliasing? The 250 is pretty much clear of it.
I am pulling down the 80MP tests later this morning to see how well that back did in the shadows also.
Long term, I am wondering who will make a full frame CMOS chip and when? No doubt to me that Sony has CMOS figured out, but this was clear 2 years ago with the early testing of the D800. I know that Sony has a patent on a 54MP chip for the 35mm format, but that is most figure a year away from production and even Sony has stated it will not be a inexpensive chip/camera solution. I am sure Dalsa is working on a CMOS solution, but it will be their first (at least in this market) that I am aware of and I have to wonder if it will have the same DR as the Sony designs. I wonder if Phase One can get to a full frame CMOS in a year, and if so what the size/MP rating of the chip will be.
Paul C.
-
The problem with stitching is depth of field. You can focus stack but that's a hell of a lot of complication, especially if you're shooting outside and there's any wind at all - or waves etc. And the longer the lens, the smaller the DOF. Tech cam lenses have startling depth of field - once focused on the hyper focal distance, I rarely change focus for any shot - I know that virtually everything is in focus in a single shot. It has saved me a lot of time.
Re. the IQ250, I'm stunned by the lack of noise and the resolution, but I really need more information about the colours. They are dramatically different between the two backs here but I can't tell if that's a white balance issue. Nature, especially greens, is very demanding on colour fidelity so landscape shots should be interesting. I sold the D800 because I couldn't get accurate nature colours out of it (amongst other issues) - I hope the IQ250 doesn't suffer similarly.
-
The problem with stitching is depth of field. You can focus stack but that's a hell of a lot of complication, especially if you're shooting outside and there's any wind at all - or waves etc. And the longer the lens, the smaller the DOF. Tech cam lenses have startling depth of field - once focused on the hyper focal distance, I rarely change focus for any shot - I know that virtually everything is in focus in a single shot. It has saved me a lot of time.
Re. the IQ250, I'm stunned by the lack of noise and the resolution, but I really need more information about the colours. They are dramatically different between the two backs here but I can't tell if that's a white balance issue. Nature, especially greens, is very demanding on colour fidelity so landscape shots should be interesting. I sold the D800 because I couldn't get accurate nature colours out of it (amongst other issues) - I hope the IQ250 doesn't suffer similarly.
True, it doesn't work for all subjects equally easily.
As far as colors go, WB can be challenging to get perfect on the D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The problem with stitching is depth of field. You can focus stack but that's a hell of a lot of complication, especially if you're shooting outside and there's any wind at all - or waves etc. And the longer the lens, the smaller the DOF. Tech cam lenses have startling depth of field - once focused on the hyper focal distance, I rarely change focus for any shot - I know that virtually everything is in focus in a single shot. It has saved me a lot of time.
I agree, with the wides, once you have the hyperfocal figured out, the shifting is great. I love to shift, 2nd main reason I use the tech camera in landscape situations, 1st being the quality of the wide lenses compared to the comparable DF+ mount wides, (28mm, 35mm 45mm etc)
Paul C
-
Regarding stitching and DoF:
You could tune the hyperfocal to your taste on your manual focus DSLR lens and put a tape there so you can find the setting. Then it becomes no different from tech cam lenses in terms depth of field. Of course, if you define CoC related to pixel pitch and you stitch a 500 megapixel image with a long focal length you're going to have DoF issues, but also more resolution. If you stitch to get the same resolution as with the tech cam system you have no more or less DoF issues.
You do get a DOF advantage with the tech cam stitching in scenes where tilt is applicable though. However I've done multi-row DSLR stitching and when tilt is applicable it often works out to stitch the lower row on a closer distance and the longer farther away. You really need to be focused when doing this type of stitching though, there's no room for mistakes.
With spherical stitching you also get a curvature of the depth of field, while a tech cam lens might be flatter, which in some instances might be better.
The attached wide image is a stitch I made few years ago (before I got my Linhof Techno), it was made with a Canon 7D (18 megapixel APS-C) using a 50mm lens, I used a closer focus distance for the lower row, the finished image is about 90 megapixels. The square image is also a Canon 7D multi-row stitch made on a nodal ninja click-stop head but the closest distance is past hyperfocal so I could focus on infinity. Since I got the Techno I have so far not stitched a single image.
-
Regard IQ250 aliasing. I see quite a lot of aliasing in the 32HR image I've looked at, look at the metal bars in front of the books, lots of false colors. But there's no particular problem of the back, this is what happens when shooting with f/9 with a very sharp lens at this pixel pitch.
-
Regarding colors I find color accuracy to perhaps be the least important in landscape photography, but color separation is important, and high dynamic range is good to have. Color accuracy is near impossible anyway as the light conditions (ie the illuminant) is so far away from where the camera was profiled that you can't get accurate. During winter up here close to the polar circle the light conditions are so special that the concept of white balance partly breaks. Color becomes interpretation in post-processing. I generally strive for a natural look, but profiles generally won't help much.
Color separation helps though and I think the IQ250 should have CFAs designed for that to a stronger extent that the D800.
-
Regarding stitching and DoF:
You do get a DOF advantage with the tech cam stitching in scenes where tilt is applicable though. However I've done multi-row DSLR stitching and when tilt is applicable it often works out to stitch the lower row on a closer distance and the longer farther away. You really need to be focused when doing this type of stitching though, there's no room for mistakes.
I totally agree, the advantage of adding just 1/2 of a degree of tilt can often give you up to 5 more feet of sharp, not smeared image right to the corner of the shot when using a tech camera. In my environment the light is changing constantly or the wind is blowing and working by your 2nd method of switching focus just won't work many times. plus the issue parallax comes into play unless you are level with a nodal stitch setup, but even then with a 35mm MF and a nodal stitch, it won't always lineup perfectly or close to perfect without a good bit of warping which most of the software tools do very well now.
Paul C.
-
I've found that some DSLR lenses - including some M645 lenses - play very nicely and have a very useable HFD. Canon 17-40 (at the 40 end) and 50 1.2L (ok but not great), and M645 55AF (especially good) come to mind. But others - latest Phase 80LS, or the 75-150 - seem to have far less DOF, even using the HFD. I'm guessing that some lenses are designed for sharpness/DOF and some for bokeh, but I'm no expert on lens design.
So, I shoot single row panoramas with the 55AF and IQ260 and the HFD DOF is extremely good - best of any camera/lens combo I've tried. I used to have to focus bracket with the old 55MF. Multi row I haven't tried though I suspect it would work well with this lens. Previous attempts with the 1DsIII and 50 1.2L weren't so successful - stitching multi-focused rows was not successful.
Regarding stitching and DoF:
You could tune the hyperfocal to your taste on your manual focus DSLR lens and put a tape there so you can find the setting. Then it becomes no different from tech cam lenses in terms depth of field. Of course, if you define CoC related to pixel pitch and you stitch a 500 megapixel image with a long focal length you're going to have DoF issues, but also more resolution. If you stitch to get the same resolution as with the tech cam system you have no more or less DoF issues.
You do get a DOF advantage with the tech cam stitching in scenes where tilt is applicable though. However I've done multi-row DSLR stitching and when tilt is applicable it often works out to stitch the lower row on a closer distance and the longer farther away. You really need to be focused when doing this type of stitching though, there's no room for mistakes.
With spherical stitching you also get a curvature of the depth of field, while a tech cam lens might be flatter, which in some instances might be better.
-
I've never heard that a specific lens design can have more DoF than another, seems to defy physics. But as DoF is subjective I guess that say if a lens renders with better local contrast one could accept more out-of-focus blur and thus get an impression of more DoF. The bokeh and how it transitions from sharp to out of focus can probably also affect the impression of having more or less DoF. Interesting indeed, could be something for me to investigate.
-
I would be interested in seeing a long exposure comparison between the 250 vs 260. Something is the range of a minute or more.
-
Not sure what is going on with the 260 as after looking at the full jpg provided the noise is much better at the top stitch, maybe more light as it got to the ceiling, but on the completed image is combined as a strange blob.
Paul C.
-
Thanks a lot Doug for that good piece of work.
Very interesting ! One thing that is definitely not expected (well I suspected it, but now there is proof) - the CMOS beats the CCD´s in about any aspect besides that the IQ280 is bigger.
The IQ260 is a disappointment, grainy, bad shadow details, color noise and actually less quality than the 50 Mpix at 100 ASA though it was shot at 50 ASA. The IQ280 is on 35 ASA and just reaching the level, probably better with more light and less critical brown tones (compliment Doug for this honesty. It is the ultimate test - brown with lowlight shows everything !)
One hint: the standard settings in C.O. 7.2 are oversharpened (for all 3) and the 260 needed addition of moire.
This needs to settle down a bit, but in my brain it already forms a BIG question: if the CMOS is SO much better, who will stil buy a CCD ?
? ? ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
Not sure what is going on with the 260 as after looking at the full jpg provided the noise is much better at the top stitch, maybe more light as it got to the ceiling, but on the completed image is combined as a strange blob.
The IQ260 images in the shoot seem to vary a lot in noise level. So what you see is a low noise image stitched together with a high noise image. Stitching algorithms don't do straight seams so it may look like a random noise blob but if you look carefully you can follow the seam also outside the dark area.
Why the images vary in noise I don't know. Maybe there was different exposure times and/or ISO shots made and those where mistakingly stitched together. Only Doug can answer that. Something is wrong though. Too much noise for an IQ260, and way too large variation.
-
Hi,
Chris Barret has posted a comparison of IQ 260 vs Sony Alpha 7r, and the IQ 260 was quite noisy compared to the A7r, so it comes as little surprise. That comparison was at 100 ISO, however.
It was known for long that CMOS with on sensor converters has much lower shadow noise than CCD. But CCD friends have always stated that CCDs have some magic properties, like the emperor's new cloths. So we just found out that the emperor has no clothes and a lot of underbody fat.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks a lot Doug for that good piece of work.
Very interesting ! One thing that is definitely not expected (well I suspected it, but now there is proof) - the CMOS beats the CCD´s in about any aspect besides that the IQ280 is bigger.
The IQ260 is a disappointment, grainy, bad shadow details, color noise and actually less quality than the 50 Mpix at 100 ASA though it was shot at 50 ASA. The IQ280 is on 35 ASA and just reaching the level, probably better with more light and less critical brown tones (compliment Doug for this honesty. It is the ultimate test - brown with lowlight shows everything !)
One hint: the standard settings in C.O. 7.2 are oversharpened (for all 3) and the 260 needed addition of moire.
This needs to settle down a bit, but in my brain it already forms a BIG question: if the CMOS is SO much better, who will stil buy a CCD ?
? ? ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
That is a bit of revisionist history. CCD used to be better than CMOS. There is a reason all the high end astrophoto cameras were CCD. The kodak kaf8x00 is still sold with -50oC cooling based on that was about as good as it got for low light low noise photography. If you look up the specs they are quite open about 16 e- noise floor. Now CMOS is at 2 e- according to BJL (I have not seen the spec sheets). That does not mean that it was that way when everyone was using 6-10MP cameras!
-
I sold my P65 as I was never 100% happy with the results when shooting interiors, especially considering all the hoops you had to jump through. Doug's test confirmed my feeling that while the CCD's deliver beautiful results in well illuminated conditions, in challenging lighting they never lived up too their price IMO.
The IQ250 has shocked me at how good it is and Doug's test images look wonderful. Over sharpened yes, but that is easily addressed. Just a big shame the cost of the IQ250 is still so high especially considering the smaller (which does't bother me) size chip.
-
I've never heard that a specific lens design can have more DoF than another, seems to defy physics. But as DoF is subjective ...
Different lens designs can produce somewhat different perceived DOF at the same focal length and f-stop; I understand that this is mainly due to different position of the aperture diaphragm. Some lenses produce a "circle of confusion" (out-of-focus blurring of the light from a single point) that is brightest at its center, with brightness decreasing distinctly towards the edge of the CoC, whereas others give more uniformly brightness, or perhaps are even brightest at the edge of the CoC. The former give a sense of more DOF (and generally nicer, softer bokeh) while the latter is allegedly better for the sharpness of in-focus details, so macro lenses tend to go in that direction.
The standard DOF formulas just look at the radius of the CoC for an object at a given distance in front of or behind the plane of focus, not the brightness distribution within that disk. (Yes, the "circle" of confusion is properly called a disk!)
Back on topic: thanks for all concerned for the tests and the careful scrutiny and discussion of them; it seems that a lot of myths and misconceptions about sensor types are being dispatched.
-
That is a bit of revisionist history. CCD used to be better than CMOS. There is a reason all the high end astrophoto cameras were CCD. ...
I am not sure who you are accusing of revisionist history, but I agree with your basic point: the early CMOS sensors were used as a cheaper (and less power hungry) but inferior alternative to CCDs, mostly in small, low cost cameras. But the development of the active pixel approach and Canon's refinements already pushed CMOS ahead in most respects (while NOT being cheaper for DSLR-sized sensors!), and further developments like on-chip column parallel ADCs have opened the performance gap.
Note also that one reason for many specialized applications staying with CCDs is that it apparently is (or was) less expensive to put a new, low volume design into production with CCD that with active pixel CMOS. But astronomy and other custom-designed sensors are moving towards CMOS; check out Teledyne-Dalsa's website.
-
Hi Stefan,
You are an engineer, so you are not supposed to understand this…
Best regards
Erik
This needs to settle down a bit, but in my brain it already forms a BIG question: if the CMOS is SO much better, who will stil buy a CCD ?
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
-
CCDs are still larger. But when full-frame CMOS arrives I think those that want the best will want that, but Phase One has clearly indicated with the current IQ250 pricing that full-frame CMOS will be more expensive than the current full-frame CCD.
So those that want to save some money and don't need the superior CMOS performance may buy a CCD back instead.
Then we have the relatively poor tech cam performance due to poor wide angular response, I think this test masks the color cast issues a bit since it's hard to see slight shifts in the colorful ceiling but I'm quite sure they're there. Just compare the colors in the ceiling of the IQ260 32 HR image with the IQ250 32 HR image. Current CCDs are clearly better in this aspect, but I don't know if it's an inherent problem of CMOS or if it's just about pixel size. If large CMOS gets the backside illuminated manufacturing process we could see a drastic improvement in angular response. I hope for that.
My guess from the current result is that the 32HR is barely usable if you need color stability when shifted, but that the 40mm Rodenstock could be okay. So a full-frame CMOS with the current sensor technology and pixel pitch would not be able to go wider than 40mm with shifting. For me as a landscape photographer that would be okay, but an interior photographer I would guess would want the 32 to work well too.
Color will also be a factor, there's a lot of mythology and mystery around the magic of "CCD color", if the CMOS CFAs + profiling won't turn out as pleasing as the current CCDs, CCDs may still have a chance, but then mainly in portrait I think, not in tech cam space. At some point CMOS will take over of course, just as it has taken over in DSLR space. I hope it's sooner rather than later so it can trickle down the second hand market to my hands within reasonable time :-).
(I'd rather want a 48x36mm sensor that works with the SK35mm, I find that to be a more balanced system, I think about more values than just resolving power, but I don't think we'll see such a thing, as I think resolving power is the main selling point for these type of cameras.)
-
Question to me is when a full frame CMOS Arrives will it be by Sony? What a lot of people seem to think is the results are just because it's CMOS vs CCD. Other companies current CMOS chips if sized to MF I feel you would be seeing a lot more noise in the shadows along with color splotches and harsh noise in the shadows.
My point being Sony has a excellent track record with CMOS and high DR since the D800. If when the full frame comes out next year or later this year, it may not be a Sony chip. Sony is hard at work on their 54 Mp chip for 35mm and Sony has commented that they are planning on on 2015 release. This is no rumor it's in several Sony press releases.
If the next chip comes out and it a Dalsa then it's up in the air as to what they will supply. They are a huge fab company but I don't know if they have anything in CMOS in the 35mm or larger market. Lots of things may different like how the current live view on the Sony works, which us as good as it gets but Sony does know a bit about live view. Can Dalsa or another company get to the level of where Sony is?
It will be interesting.
Paul C
-
I sold my P65 as I was never 100% happy with the results when shooting interiors, especially considering all the hoops you had to jump through. Doug's test confirmed my feeling that while the CCD's deliver beautiful results in well illuminated conditions, in challenging lighting they never lived up too their price IMO.
The IQ250 has shocked me at how good it is and Doug's test images look wonderful. Over sharpened yes, but that is easily addressed. Just a big shame the cost of the IQ250 is still so high especially considering the smaller (which does't bother me) size chip.
Yes, but I reckon your P65 is just fine for shooting landscape exteriors! Just don't try a 10 second exposure in low light like I did this evening - ughh. Definitely CMOS territory.
;)
-
"So those that want to save some money and don't need the superior CMOS performance may buy a CCD back instead."
hang on? if you have been drinking the kool aid like everyone else then surely CCD is the pinnacle of imaging fidelity?
::)
-
So the IQ250 is just a bigger D800e...
With the new profile in Capture One we will get the same results pr. pixel from the Nikon?
-
Hi,
Yes, the small size of the sensor may be a bit painful. On the other hand, I would think small size may be interesting for Harblei HCam and Alpa FPS shooters who can use Canon's T&S lenses. In some situations live view may be very helpful and clean shadows are also nice.
The price tags is pretty high for a small sensor, but as you say, it may push some decent size CCDs in the second hand market.
Best regards
Erik
CCDs are still larger. But when full-frame CMOS arrives I think those that want the best will want that, but Phase One has clearly indicated with the current IQ250 pricing that full-frame CMOS will be more expensive than the current full-frame CCD.
So those that want to save some money and don't need the superior CMOS performance may buy a CCD back instead.
Then we have the relatively poor tech cam performance due to poor wide angular response, I think this test masks the color cast issues a bit since it's hard to see slight shifts in the colorful ceiling but I'm quite sure they're there. Just compare the colors in the ceiling of the IQ260 32 HR image with the IQ250 32 HR image. Current CCDs are clearly better in this aspect, but I don't know if it's an inherent problem of CMOS or if it's just about pixel size. If large CMOS gets the backside illuminated manufacturing process we could see a drastic improvement in angular response. I hope for that.
My guess from the current result is that the 32HR is barely usable if you need color stability when shifted, but that the 40mm Rodenstock could be okay. So a full-frame CMOS with the current sensor technology and pixel pitch would not be able to go wider than 40mm with shifting. For me as a landscape photographer that would be okay, but an interior photographer I would guess would want the 32 to work well too.
Color will also be a factor, there's a lot of mythology and mystery around the magic of "CCD color", if the CMOS CFAs + profiling won't turn out as pleasing as the current CCDs, CCDs may still have a chance, but then mainly in portrait I think, not in tech cam space. At some point CMOS will take over of course, just as it has taken over in DSLR space. I hope it's sooner rather than later so it can trickle down the second hand market to my hands within reasonable time :-).
(I'd rather want a 48x36mm sensor that works with the SK35mm, I find that to be a more balanced system, I think about more values than just resolving power, but I don't think we'll see such a thing, as I think resolving power is the main selling point for these type of cameras.)
-
So the IQ250 is just a bigger D800e...
With the new profile in Capture One we will get the same results pr. pixel from the Nikon?
No. The color filter array (CFA) is different in the IQ250 sensor. It's supposed to be optimized for color fidelity, while it's said that Nikon D800 has compromised it a bit to get better high ISO. And the color profiles in Capture One are different, probably with different design goals.
And I just noticed you get the MF sensor centerfold(tm), but it's horizontal rather than vertical on this sensor (it's weak though, so don't worry) :)
-
Ok. Thank you Torger!
Would be interesting if someone could test them against each other using the same profile.
-
Hi,
Maybe, may be not. I have not seen any real evidence supporting this. As far as I can recall, DxO data is a bit to the contrary. I am a bit skeptical, but I have no experience with Nikon, only Sony and Phase One P45+.
Comparing the two, I know the Sony Alpha 99 I have is more accurate on the ColorChecker than the P45+ I have, and I also know that the P45+ with C1 is the least accurate on the ColorChecker of the converters I have tested. That is what I know. But I also know that accuracy on the ColorChecker is not the whole truth. My SLT 99 (with LR 5.3) has twice the accuracy of my P45+ with Capture One 7.1.3.
I would also argue that if you cannot reproduce a ColorChecker, your colour reproduction is not accurate, but it may still be nice, good or pleasant.
Digital Translation does repro work and they have created according to their info they have created profiles for one of the Phase One cameras they use with a DeltaE (average) of around 2.0, almost twice as good as my SLT99 with LR 5.3. So it is absolutely clear that Phase One backs can do very good reproduction, using the right profiles.
Just to make clear, I enjoy my P45+. It is a good MF digital back and I enjoy working with it. But I don't think it is a silver bullet.
Best regards
Erik
It's supposed to be optimized for color fidelity, while it's said that Nikon D800 has compromised it a bit to get better high ISO.
-
Maybe, may be not. I have not seen any real evidence supporting this. As far as I can recall, DxO data is a bit to the contrary. I am a bit skeptical, but I have no experience with Nikon, only Sony and Phase One P45+.
DxO shows less good values for Kodak sensors, a bit better for the Dalsa. Many think the Dalsa has better color. Sony has a few models that score very well, the A99 and the A900 I think it was, others are in the middle of the pack.
I have also not seen any real evidence on that these tradeoffs are made, but I think Doug's article on the matter is correct, that Phase One had a choice when they ordered the sensor from Sony how to optimize the CFAs. What can be seen on DxOmark is that the same sensor technology can have quite different color responses, so CFA filters can change while the underlying sensor is the same. So that it will be different color response than the D800 is guaranteed, but if it's better and will please current Dalsa users is a different question...
-
The Phase one profile for the IQ250 at first glance does fine on the d800e files I tested it on. I am hoping to do a bit more detailed work this weekend.
I never liked the phase one default profile for the d800e.
Paul C
-
I might just have the impression that Phase One put little effort on a competitors file?
If IQ250 CFA design is different from D800 CFA design the IQ 250 profile should not work well with the D800. Either way it seems that C1 did a bad job on the D800.
Best regards
Erik
The Phase one profile for the IQ250 at first glance does fine on the d800e files I tested it on. I am hoping to do a bit more detailed work this weekend.
I never liked the phase one default profile for the d800e.
Paul C
-
I might just have the impression that Phase One put little effort on a competitors file?
;D
It does come into mind.... but on the other hand, what would I do if I where Phase One? I wouldn't cry if the D800 profile didn't turn out too well.
The accuracy probably not too good if using the IQ250 profile on the D800 due to the different CFAs. However the global sensitivity of the channels are compensated for through the white balance constants embedded in the raw file which should even out the differences, so it's not too suprising that good results can be had anyway. And while I'm sure the CFAs are different, the difference maybe is smaller than they would have been if the sensors came from different manufacturers.
-
When viewing 2 image, one with the Capture One D800e and the other with the IQ250 on a D800e file, the differences are subtle, but for me the sky has a better look. This is a quick side by side two image taken with seconds of each other during a hand held pan.
left image I used the IQ250 profile right image I used the Generic D800e profile. They are very close and neither has serious problem, i.e. purple shadows, or color miss matches.
Paul C
-
When viewing 2 image, one with the Capture One D800e and the other with the IQ250 on a D800e file, the differences are subtle...
As is the difference between an "Outdoor Daylight" IQ250, IQ180 and IQ280 profile when applied to a D800E landscape photo NEF, in my opinion. The IQ180/IQ280 profile are one and the same?
-
Hi,
I wouldn't call that difference subtle…
Best regards
Erik
When viewing 2 image, one with the Capture One D800e and the other with the IQ250 on a D800e file, the differences are subtle, but for me the sky has a better look. This is a quick side by side two image taken with seconds of each other during a hand held pan.
left image I used the IQ250 profile right image I used the Generic D800e profile. They are very close and neither has serious problem, i.e. purple shadows, or color miss matches.
Paul C
-
Hi,
I have no Nikon D800 so I don't know about it's colour, so I cannot say. But it seems that it is a bit fishy if the IQ 250 profile works much better than the D800 profile for a D800. If even Q260 and Q280 profiles work better than D800 profile it is even more fishy. Could be the "Image Professor" had a bad day?
But colour rendition is not the main reason I am not using Capture One, the main reasons are:
- I prefer LR 5 from workflow and I don't want to have a lot of TIFFs in my library
- I prefer DNG to propriatery raw formats
- C1 processing doesn't work for me. I prefer Adobe's highlight compression to C1-ones. C1 one just gives boring images.
- Same goes for shadow detail
But, I am a Lightroom user since 2006 and very much addicted to parametric workflow.
Best regards
Erik
;D
It does come into mind.... but on the other hand, what would I do if I where Phase One? I wouldn't cry if the D800 profile didn't turn out too well.
The accuracy probably not too good if using the IQ250 profile on the D800 due to the different CFAs. However the global sensitivity of the channels are compensated for through the white balance constants embedded in the raw file which should even out the differences, so it's not too suprising that good results can be had anyway. And while I'm sure the CFAs are different, the difference maybe is smaller than they would have been if the sensors came from different manufacturers.
-
C1 has a history of bad profiles for dSLRs.
I don't know why this is because there is a CAMSPECS (http://www.image-engineering.de/iq-products/dingus/measurement-devices/camspecs-express) gadget you can buy for $12K or so from Image Engineering that will spit out profiles computed from the sensor spectral sensitivity.
In the case of Adobe, at least one can assume that their color renderings correspond to what they wish to offer consumers, which of course is very different from what pros would rquire.
Edmund
-
How does capture nx2 render iiq files?
oh wait...
-
MF is a system, a workflow, not just a back or a camera. Potential buyers look at the end result. If noone really makes profiles for the DSLRs to suit the studio professionals then they have a workflow disadvantage. If neither Phase One or Adobe is doing it MF can continue to keep an edge just based on software. The difference in cost between a high resolution DSLR and an entry level MF camera is not huge for a professional, and if the MF workflow will make you spend less time in post-processing it's an easy choice.
-
MF is a system, a workflow, not just a back or a camera. Potential buyers look at the end result. If noone really makes profiles for the DSLRs to suit the studio professionals then they have a workflow disadvantage. If neither Phase One or Adobe is doing it MF can continue to keep an edge just based on software. The difference in cost between a high resolution DSLR and an entry level MF camera is not huge for a professional, and if the MF workflow will make you spend less time in post-processing it's an easy choice.
True.
And yes, I spend a lot less time post processing MF files than I do DSLR files. This was a huge reason for me to switch to MF.
-
Hi,
Nikon doesn't sell NX2 as a general purpose product for a wide range for cameras.
Phase One markets Capture One as a professional tool for a wide range of cameras, including Nikon and Canon and therefore they should provide adequate and accurate profiles for the cameras they pruportedly support.
Best regards
Erik
How does capture nx2 render iiq files?
oh wait...
-
Hi,
Nikon doesn't sell NX2 as a general purpose product for a wide range for cameras.
Phase One markets Capture One as a professional tool for a wide range of cameras, including Nikon and Canon and therefore they should provide adequate and accurate profiles for the cameras they pruportedly support.
Best regards
Erik
I bought my C1P license for less than what Nikon charges for CNX2.
Even without the IQ 250 profile, a custom preset created with a color checker in C1P delivers better colors than LR for Nikon files.My friend who shoots Canon says the same.
Haven't processed enough Sony files to give a definite verdict on that.
-
C1 has a history of bad profiles for dSLRs.
???
Capture One has an excellent reputation for color rendering for dSLRs.
Color is subjective so of course you're neither right not wrong if you say YOU don't like c1's color engine, but if you ask 100 people who have used c1 or you look back through posts on c1, and you'll find its likely the #1 reason stated for why people like c1.
-
Erik,
Could be the "Image Professor" had a bad day?
It was known for long that CMOS with on sensor converters has much lower shadow noise than CCD. But CCD friends have always stated that CCDs have some magic properties, like the emperor's new cloths. So we just found out that the emperor has no clothes and a lot of underbody fat.
Your sense of humour is on fire these days. ;D
I have no Nikon D800 so I don't know about it's colour, so I cannot say...
I recently trialled Capture One and compared results from it to Capture NX2, the latter of which I am very familiar with, and which cost me nothing. For my part, I prefer the colour I get from Capture NX2 to that from Capture One by far, regardless of profile.
Regards,
-
???
Capture One has an excellent reputation for color rendering for dSLRs.
Color is subjective so of course you're neither right not wrong if you say YOU don't like c1's color engine, but if you ask 100 people who have used c1 or you look back through posts on c1, and you'll find its likely the #1 reason stated for why people like c1.
No worries. Some of the folks on this forum are never happy, never satisfied in regards to anything photographic. (unless something is free, then they can't complain much, at least not about cost ;D )
-
Ken R,
Some of the folks on this forum are never happy, never satisfied in regards to anything photographic.
Instead of talking around folk, why not demonstate some strength of character and name those you criticise?
-
Hi,
I just tested Capture One on my Sony Alpha SLT 99. On the ColorChecker, deviation in Capture One 7.1.3 is almost twice compared with LR 5.3.
It is well possible the profile is good, but not accurate. To be more specific, it may be that it produces pleasant skin tones in studio conditions but the colours are less accurate.
The targets were illuminated with two Elinchrome D-lite 400 flashes with soft boxes on each, and WB taken on second left gray field on the colour checker. Exposure corrected. -0.41 EV in LR5.3 and -0.93 in C1.
| C1 7.2 | LR 53 profile 131225 | LR 5.3 AdobeStandard | LR 5.3 Adobe RGB (D65) |
| Delta E | 6.99 | 3.55 | 4.1 | 3.86 |
| Sigma | 7.69 | 3.87 | 4.52 | 4.18 |
This is pretty similar to the results I got with my P45+.
For completeness, I used a camera specific profile generated automatically by Adobe DNG Profile Editor. Adobe Standard values in third column.
Note! As pointed out by Bart van der Wolf in another posting, the files have different white points. This depends on me using Prophoto RGB in LR5.3 and Adobe RGB in Capture One (as Prophoto RGB is not a recommended output colour space in C1). I rechecked the results exporting from LR 5.3 in Adobe RGB. There was a small difference. Most thankful for Bart pointing out the issue.
As a small side note, I am aware the we are shooting real world subjects and not test charts, but test charts have a couple of advantages. They designed to measure certain parameters and they are pretty reproducible.
Best regards
Erik
???
Capture One has an excellent reputation for color rendering for dSLRs.
Color is subjective so of course you're neither right not wrong if you say YOU don't like c1's color engine, but if you ask 100 people who have used c1 or you look back through posts on c1, and you'll find its likely the #1 reason stated for why people like c1.
-
I just tested Capture One on my Sony Alpha SLT 99. On the ColorChecker, deviation in Capture One 7.1.3 is almost twice compared with LR 5.3.
Hi Erik,
Just an observation on the Imatest Charts, D65 versus D50 ?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
Thanks for observing this!
I have no explanation, except that in LR 5.3 I exported the file in Prophoto RGB and from Capture One I exported as Adobe RGB, as it doesn't have Prophoto RGB as an option. I am not aware of any colour space setting I may have done. The flash I use is about 5100K.
Exporting the file from Lightroom 5.3 in Adobe RGB sets it to D65 with Delta E 3.86 and Sigma 4.18, so the results are similar in Adobe RGB for both.
I guess that Imatest assumes D65 for Adobe RGB and D50 for Profoto RGB.
Incidentally, the values I have seen on my P45+ were similar. LR5.3 was about twice as accurate as C1 7.1.3.
I only have the P45+ and Sony cameras so I cannot say about Nikon or Canon. But, it has been posted on these forums that Capture One gives 'better' colour with say IQ-250 profile than with D800 profile on D800. Now, I guess that may have to do with the ICC profile being applied after colour conversion to the internal colour space in C1 (whatever that may be). So the colour conversion matrix is probably applied before the ICC profile, in which case the ICC profile may be just a tweak on the colour conversion previously done?
I leave the figures as they are, right now and fix them tomorrow. As said the deviations are very similar weather Prophoto RGB (D50) or Adobe (D65).
Yeah, I found out: Prophoto RGB uses D50 white point while Adobe RGB uses D65, see below:
http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/rommrgb.xalter
http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/adobergb.xalter
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Just an observation on the Imatest Charts, D65 versus D50 ?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Capture one can export as pro photo rgb.
I'm starting to get a good idea about why you complain about c1 so much...
-
Ken R,
Instead of talking around folk, why not demonstate some strength of character and name those you criticise?
Because Ken is a gentleman :)
Please, kids, play nice!
Edmund
-
Yes,
It can export Prophoto RGB, but it is not 'recommended'. If it is using a smaller internal working space than Prophoto RGB than Prophoto RGB doesn't matter. I did consider exporting in ProphotoRGB but Imatest handles both Prophoto RGB and Adobe RGB.
It matters very little as all colours in the ColourChecker fit comfortably with Adobe RGB.
Anyway the main reasons I dropped Capture One are:
- My workflow is LR 5.3, it is either one or the other, I think C1 is capable of parametric workflow so it could replace LR, but it essentially means that I would loos all complex adjustment for all images.
- As I will always have the images in LR. Using C1 would mean generating TIFFs. I avoid TIFFs as it breaks parametric workflow.
- Lightroom has some magic features in handling highlight compression, similar to local adaption. Generally I don't like magic and I would like a bit more control, but it works for me.
- Lightroom also has some tone mapping on shadows
- If I have a wide scene luminance range, some tone mapping is needed to reduce it to something usable on print and screen and I want to do it without resorting to Photoshop. As said I want to have a parametric workflow.
- C1 doesn't really support DNG, and my workflow has been based on DNG since 2006. Also I am strong supporter of DNG and I am deeply against proprietary RAW.
- I want to use RawTherapee as alternate processor and it supports DNG but IIQ (as far as I can see). DNG opens some doors and close some others.
- To make a switch, partial or full, C1 would need to offer significant benefits. The only significant benefit I have seen is that it avoid some moiré and moiré reduction has somewhat less side effects than LR. But, RawTherapee has some coding that suppresses both moiré and other colour aliasing effects well and with less side effects. So I decided on RawTherapee as alternate raw converter.
- RawTherapee, is open source and some guys I respect take part in its development. That matters a lot for me.
- Availability of easy to use colour calibration tools. You can use Adobe DNG Profile Editor or Xrite Passport software or QPCard to generate DCP profiles. Those DCP profiles work with LR5, Iridient Raw Developer and RawTherapee.
- PhaseOne uses ICC profiles for camera calibration, but that may not be a correct approach. My understanding is that they are applied to a converted image.
- The comment by Esben HR here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82891.msg672308#msg672308 says essentially: forget about calculating ICC profiles. Esben is maintaining the colour engine of C1 at PhaseOne, so I guess he knows how things work. The whole thread is worth reading
- So when Phase One says that it uses ICC profiles it is correct, in a sense, but it doesn't give you the tools to generate those profiles, and using them seems to be far more complex than usually suggsted.
- In those cases I had opportunity to test Adobe Standard profiles were more accurate than Capture One profiles, but may have been less correct. Adobe gives me the tools correct my profiles.
All the reasons I can recall right now, there may be some more.
The major deal breakers are poor DNG support, how "HDR sliders work", ICC profiles. And most importantly that I have not found any benefit significant enough to switch workflow from LR to C1.
I don't hate Phase One, if I did I wouldn't buy their back, but I deeply distrust they marketing. I am also deeply opposed to the idea that you need a manufacturers software to handle that manufacturer raw converter. Quite a lot of ideology involved, and it matters lot for me. Let's put it this way, I am for openness, free competition and so on.
Best regards
Erik
Capture one can export as pro photo rgb.
I'm starting to get a good idea about why you complain about c1 so much...
-
Hi,
Yes Ken is gentleman I have deep respect for his views, even if they differ from mine.
That applies to most posters on these forums actually.
Best regards
Erik
Because Ken is a gentleman :)
Please, kids, play nice!
Edmund
-
Hi,
This is my impression from this test:
- The IQ-250 works as expected, it is a Sony sensor yielding the DR Sony sensor normally deliver. Works as expected.
- Well possible that it does not perform as well CCD cameras with shift. Doug and Torger have good insights in this.
- Much less shadow noise from the CMOS sensor than from the CCD, but that has been expected.
- The test says little about colour rendition. My guess is that it is pretty good.
I also note that the camera produces a lot of moiré, colour aliasing and aliasing in general in this setting, but that is expected from combination of excellent lenses, relatively large pixels and no OLP filtering. Nice that image processing theory still works! ;-) Note: this needs to be rechecked, I may have mixed up images with other backs.
My take is that CMOS is probably a good thing for MFD. Personally I use live view a lot for accurate focusing. If it was not for live view I would still shoot my Sony Alpha 900 from 2009, but it is now retired.
I would say that the camera is quite expensive for 1.3X crop, but it is beyond my means anyway. Phase One obviously feels they have chosen a correct price point for the camera, that is their decision.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Bart,
Thanks for observing this!
I have no explanation, except that in LR 5.3 I exported the file in Prophoto RGB and from Capture One I exported as Adobe RGB, as it doesn't have Prophoto RGB as an option. I am not aware of any colour space setting I may have done. The flash I use is about 5100K.
Hi Erik,
Capture One does have the capability to export as ProPhoto RGb (see screencapture attachment).
I guess that Imatest assumes D65 for Adobe RGB and D50 for Profoto RGB.
That's correct, those are the native Illuminants for those colorspaces.
Yeah, I found out: Prophoto RGB uses D50 white point while Adobe RGB uses D65, see below:
http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/rommrgb.xalter
http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/adobergb.xalter
Correct.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Yes I am aware of that. But it doesn't list it as a recommended colour space. I also know that Capture One has something they call Profoto which may or may not be RIMM, and they list all ICC profiles installed on the system. I felt that using Adobe RGB (which is one of the recommended ones) was the safer bet.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
CCapture One does have the capability to export as ProPhoto RGb (see screencapture attachment).
Bart
-
I also know that Capture One has something they call Profoto which may or may not be RIMM
there's no such output profile. Output profiles contained in C1 are sRGB, AdobeRGB and 3 different Phaseone greyscale profiles. (Of course you can also convert to any icc profile installed on your system ... as you've mentioned.)
I felt that using Adobe RGB (which is one of the recommended ones) was he safer bet.
???
-
Sorry,
What is your point? I used Adobe RGB, What should I use instead for proper comparison. ProPhoto RGB is not recommended.
And, I actually don't think it matters at all.
Best regards
Erik
there's no such output profile. Output profiles contained in C1 are sRGB, AdobeRGB and 3 different Phaseone greyscale profiles. (Of course you can also convert to any icc profile installed on your system ... as you've mentioned.)
???
-
What is your point?
1.) your statement about C1 containing an output profile that is "something they call Profoto which may or may not be RIMM" is incorrect.
2.) By default C1 only displays a "short list" of profiles (input profile embedded, AdobeRGB, sRGB). It doesn't necessarily mean that any of these icc profiles are preferred. It's just an idiot-proof list of profiles (well, it would be really idiot-proof if they would would leave out "embed input profile" of this short list... but that's a different story). When you click on "show all" C1 displays all the icc profiles installed on your system and of course C1's CMM converts to these color spaces just like any other (ICC aware) imaging software. Why would you think that AdobeRGB is a "safer bet"?
In fact, when you read C1's documentation you will find Phaseone recommends to use ProPhoto RGB.
-
Hi,
This is my impression from this test:
- The IQ-250 works as expected, it is a Sony sensor yielding the DR Sony sensor normally deliver. Works as expected.
- Well possible that it does not perform as well CCD cameras with shift. Doug and Torger have good insights in this.
- Much less shadow noise from the CMOS sensor than from the CCD, but that has been expected.
- The test says little about colour rendition. My guess is that it is pretty good.
- I also note that the camera produces a lot of moiré, colour aliasing and aliasing in general in this setting, but that is expected from combination of excellent lenses, relatively large pixels and no OLP filtering. Nice that image processing theory still works! ;-)
My take is that CMOS is probably a good thing for MFD. Personally I use live view a lot for accurate focusing. If it was not for live view I would still shoot my Sony Alpha 900 from 2009, but it is now retired.
I would say that the camera is quite expensive for 1.3X crop, but it is beyond my means anyway. Phase One obviously feels they have chosen a correct price point for the camera, that is their decision.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Eric
Thanks for the detailed color testing results were interesting.
On your summary of the 250 you mentioned color aliasing issues, I felt the 250 did much better then the 260 shot in regards to the color aliasing. Do you feel the 250 still has issues here?
Thanks
Paul C
-
Hi Paul,
Thanks for raising the issue. I may have mixed up some pictures. I will review my observations, but it may take some time.
You are probably right.
Best regards
Erik
On your summary of the 250 you mentioned color aliasing issues, I felt the 250 did much better then the 260 shot in regards to the color aliasing. Do you feel the 250 still has issues here?
Thanks
Paul C
-
Hi,
I recall a long discussion about that profile, but I cannot find it. I will correct my text on the issue.
Regarding #2, in the export dialog you three options are shown. "Embed camera profile, Adobe RGB and sRGB" in addition there is an option "show all", if you choose that, the bottom line says shows recommended, which takes you back to the original dialog with three options.
The interpretation I have made is that those profiles that are shown when click on recommended are the recommended profiles.
Best regards
Erik
1.) your statement about C1 containing an output profile that is "something they call Profoto which may or may not be RIMM" is incorrect.
2.) By default C1 only displays a "short list" of profiles (input profile embedded, AdobeRGB, sRGB). It doesn't necessarily mean that any of these icc profiles are preferred. It's just an idiot-proof list of profiles (well, it would be really idiot-proof if they would would leave out "embed input profile" of this short list... but that's a different story). When you click on "show all" C1 displays all the icc profiles installed on your system and of course C1's CMM converts to these color spaces just like any other (ICC aware) imaging software. Why would you think that AdobeRGB is a "safer bet"?
In fact, when you read C1's documentation you will find Phaseone recommends to use ProPhoto RGB.
-
I recall a long discussion about that profile, but I cannot find it. I will correct my text on the issue.
the respective discussion was about an input profile, not an output profile.
The interpretation I have made is that those profiles that are shown when click on recommended are the recommended profiles.
a similar recommendation like: "use sRGB for a monitor and use AdobeRGB for print". It's a recommendation for useres completely unfamiliar with color management. Nothing more and nothing less.
-
OK,
That explains it. In the context it matters very little. Both LR5 and Capture One are a bit more accurate in Prophoto RGB than in Adobe RGB. But whatever colour space, LR 5 is almost twice as accurate as C1, under studio flash conditions.
Regarding the profile, I just recalled seeing the discussion and it made me a bit insecure. Anyway all the fields in the ColorChecker fit within Adobe RGB, so Adobe RGB is appropriate for the intended use.
Best regards
Erik
the respective discussion was about an input profile, not an output profile.
a similar recommendation like: "use sRGB for a monitor and use AdobeRGB for print". It's a recommendation for useres completely unfamiliar with color management. Nothing more and nothing less.
-
I quit using Prophoto over a year ago. The Epson 9900 can't fully print to Adobe 1998 and Prophoto is way out there. I got tired of being out of gamut to my printer, especially on matte canvas, which seems to have the tightest gamut anyway.
I realize that 16bit printing is possible on the MAC, but I windows based. Also I don't that the Epson 9900 can begin to handle the full gamut of 16 prophoto color space. I just decided to convert to a more manageable color space.
And the web still runs on sRGB pretty much.
Paul C.
-
Regarding the profile, I just recalled seeing the discussion and it made me a bit insecure. Anyway all the fields in the ColorChecker fit within Adobe RGB, so Adobe RGB is appropriate for the intended use.
Hi Erik,
Which just means that the CC colors are not as saturated as some real world colors might be. Especially flowers can exhibit extremely saturated colors (e.g. Red is high, while Green (or Blue) is near zero). Perhaps (Bruce Lindbloom's) BetaRGB is a safer Colorspace than Adobe RGB, unless you know that the particular scene is sufficiently encoded with the Adobe RGB gamut.
The take home lesson is to use the smallest although large enough colorspace, to preserve small quantization steps for a large enough gamut, for one's output files.
Cheers,
Bart
-
the respective discussion was about an input profile, not an output profile.
a similar recommendation like: "use sRGB for a monitor and use AdobeRGB for print". It's a recommendation for useres completely unfamiliar with color management. Nothing more and nothing less.
I think users completely unfamiliar with color management is a good description of most working pros without science degrees.
Frankly, setting everything in sight to sRGB and letting the color management fly itself on autopilot and autothrottle may be the smartest thing which a photographer can do.
If you go to web, sRGB is expected, if you do your own prints you can get decent color that way with the vendor drivers which are first rate these days, and if you are going to press, people downstream are responsible for what happens.
Edmund
-
Most people are pretty comfortable with ARGB. Why not go ARGB all the way to output, then switch to sRGB if it is for monitor/web?
-
I quit using Prophoto over a year ago. The Epson 9900 can't fully print to Adobe 1998 and Prophoto is way out there. I got tired of being out of gamut to my printer, especially on matte canvas, which seems to have the tightest gamut anyway.
I realize that 16bit printing is possible on the MAC, but I windows based. Also I don't that the Epson 9900 can begin to handle the full gamut of 16 prophoto color space. I just decided to convert to a more manageable color space.
And the web still runs on sRGB pretty much.
Paul C.
prophotoRGB is very much an intermediate color space; not an output one, kinda like the prores format is for video editing. Finish all your edits in prophotoRGB, use the convert to profile dialog box in Photoshop, chose "Perceptual" and output to whatever your preferred output colorspace is.
This has worked really well for me so far.
-
Most people are pretty comfortable with ARGB. Why not go ARGB all the way to output, then switch to sRGB if it is for monitor/web?
This is a perfectly good strategy - in fact it is what I mostly do myself. However you'll have to remember to convert any image you externalize in some way. If you don't chances are that the next person in the work chain will foobar the image by losing the profile and using a workflow that assumes untagged=srgb. A typical situation where this will happen will be in legacy web browsers.
If you just adopt sRGB, you lose slightly in gamut, but everything just works. In some case it might even work better, because sRGB is basically what has been hard-coded into most of the consumer architecture, but I'm not going into this today.
Edmund
-
Hi,
It depends on the output. Many printers can print outside Adobe RGB, so for printing it makes a lot of sense staying within Prophoto RGB.
For web display sRGB is the best choice, but that may change with 4K which has a much wider colour space.
In my case it is easy, as I normally work in Lightroom which uses a colour space with Prophoto RGB primaries, do everything in Prophoto RGB and export as needed.
But, this discussion started about accuracy of colour rendition. What I have seen is that exporting in Adobe RGB reduces colour accuracy in both LR 5.3 and Capture 1.
Best regards
Erik
prophotoRGB is very much an intermediate color space; not an output one, kinda like the prores format is for video editing. Finish all your edits in prophotoRGB, use the convert to profile dialog box in Photoshop, chose "Perceptual" and output to whatever your preferred output colorspace is.
This has worked really well for me so far.
-
Hi,
You are absolutely right, I mixed up the images! Very little colour aliasing in the IQ-250 shot!
Best regard
Erik
Hi Eric
On your summary of the 250 you mentioned color aliasing issues, I felt the 250 did much better then the 260 shot in regards to the color aliasing. Do you feel the 250 still has issues here?
Thanks
Paul C
-
Hi,
You are absolutely right, I mixed up the images! Very little colour aliasing in the IQ-250 shot!
Best regard
Erik
I'm a bit surprised there's not been more discussion about this.
The 250 absolutely blows the 260 and 280 out of the water.
What's going on here?
-
Concerning color aliasing bit I'd guess it's about the smaller pixel size of the IQ250 so you get a tad more lens blur and thus less color aliasing. I would not expect that large difference, but perhaps it by luck happened to hit some magic threshold value where the demosaicer makes a significant better job (color aliasing is much affected by how the demosaicer work).
The IQ260 would have gained from being shot at f/11 in this scene, the lens is just too sharp for the sensor :)
Edit: oh... it was the IQ280 not IQ260... hmm... pixel size difference is not so large there right?
-
Concerning color aliasing bit I'd guess it's about the smaller pixel size of the IQ250 so you get a tad more lens blur and thus less color aliasing. I would not expect that large difference, but perhaps it by luck happened to hit some magic threshold value where the demosaicer makes a significant better job (color aliasing is much affected by how the demosaicer work).
The IQ260 would have gained from being shot at f/11 in this scene, the lens is just too sharp for the sensor :)
Edit: oh... it was the IQ280 not IQ260... hmm... pixel size difference is not so large there right?
Yup - very little difference. IQ250 FF sensor would be 75MP IIRC.
-
Tried both files in rawtherapee, there I can't see a small difference but not that kind of difference in aliasing. Color aliasing artifacts depend a lot on demosaicer. It also depends a lot on the exact positioning of the pixels in relation to the object.
My theory is that there's a very slight difference in offset where the "pixel grid" comes over the bars, and the IQ280 just got unlucky and got in a worse position than the IQ250, and this got enlarged by the demosaicer.
So I don't think the IQ280 is any worse in this regard. I haven't analyzed it in detail though.
-
Hi,
I think fill factor and microlenses may also pay a major role. Increasing the fill factor reduces aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
Tried both files in rawtherapee, there I can't see a small difference but not that kind of difference in aliasing. Color aliasing artifacts depend a lot on demosaicer. It also depends a lot on the exact positioning of the pixels in relation to the object.
My theory is that there's a very slight difference in offset where the "pixel grid" comes over the bars, and the IQ280 just got unlucky and got in a worse position than the IQ250, and this got enlarged by the demosaicer.
So I don't think the IQ280 is any worse in this regard. I haven't analyzed it in detail though.
-
I think fill factor and microlenses may also pay a major role. Increasing the fill factor reduces aliasing.
Good point, it could be it.
-
OK I order last week ;D
-
thekeko, Did you order the 250 or 260, either way, please pass on your thoughts after you receive it.
Thanks
Paul C.
-
OK I order last week ;D
Hi,
If you order the IQ250 please test skin tones. If you can include an african american model too will be great.
Even so any information of using the camera with people will be great.
Thanks,
J. duncan
-
I order IQ 250H will receive it mid april
-
I order IQ 250H will receive it mid april
Sweeet!
-
so pricing has been announced for the Hblad 50c and it's going to be the same as the ordinary H5D-50 at $28790