Older MFDB with modern software.... night-day difference

[Theodoros]

 I had a chance recently to try again my Old Sinarback E-motion 22 which I owned until 5 years ago, since the friend that got it off me upgraded to a Pentax Z system and asked me to re-list it for sale (it is listed in the Sales forum by me). I took some shots and then used two processing methods. First, I exported DNG and used LR to process the files, then I used Sinar's latest version of "Capture flow studio 1.3.5" which is a free download but it requires a plug in (it's called the "activation CD") that is unique for every different back (even for the same type backs) and is supplied (again free of charge) by Sinar if one requires it by stating the serial number of the back....

I have to say that the dedicated software, made a night to day difference than using LR, but It also had a night to day difference too from the results I used to get with the same back until 5 years ago.... As the same happens with another friend that uses a Mamiya AFD III with a Phase One P-25+ back, (the back's performance is night to day difference with the latest Capture One versions than if the same files are processed with older Capture One versions of some years back), but the same also applies when I process the files of my Hasselblad CF-39MS with the latest Phocus software, one has to conclude that older backs are very capable indeed if one uses them with the latest software...  In fact I'm not sure at all that IQ of the latest CCD backs is that much different than the one of older backs as to justify the price difference needed.

[Endeavour]

were the old images shot at night, with the new ones in the day?

[pegelli]

Interesting, but not surprising. Even Lightroom 6 does a much better job (mainly sharpness and noise) then Lightroom 1 did on my old KM5D (my last body with a CCD sensor)
In what aspects are the results you are getting better, sharpness, noise, color, .... etc.
Care to post any results comparing old to new software?

[torger]

This thread obviously needs images. I'd expect an improvement on pixel peep level and different noise reduction recipes, but I suppose on a downscaled image there's no difference to be seen?

[Theodoros]

This thread obviously needs images. I'd expect an improvement on pixel peep level and different noise reduction recipes, but I suppose on a downscaled image there's no difference to be seen?

Yes... improvement is clear in noise levels (which other than making 200 ISO usable the Emotion backs leads to even better DR) and on presence of artefacts (which leads to a sharper image)... Unfortunately at the moment one can use Capture flow only tethered with the Emotion backs, if one is processing from the CF card, he has to use Captureshop 6.1.2, which is close and still visibly better than LR, but when one uses tethered and processes the files on both Captureshop and Captureflow, the later leads to another 1/3rd of a stop better ISO performance and even less artefacts.

Interesting thing I found, is that now one can shoot at ISO 400 equivalent (with captureshop - captureflow is even better but only works tethered for the moment) by setting the back at 100 ISO, underexpose 2 stops and then "push" the file back to the correct exposure when processing. If one uses LR to do the same, he ends up  to a stop less (200 ISO equivalent) as to be safe.... but as Pegelli said earlier, the difference is clear with Lightroom too, I remember 6-7 years ago when I was using Captureshop 5.6.3, if I was exporting DNG and processed them in LR (for testing purposes), I was straggling to get a decent result at 100 ISO, but with LR the improvement is obvious even if one redevelops an older file from his DSLR... I recently checked this out by redeveloping some old files out of my ex-D700... quite a difference I must say, clearly better DR, better high ISO and sharper too.... Yes, internet compression can't allow the differences to be appreciated, but they are clear to the user.

[Theodoros]

 Sorry for the misinformation, but Captureflow works just fine with images stored in the card of the Emotion backs. I just found this as the software is still new to me and I'm still trying to know its parameters... What was happening up to now, is that I was getting a completely different tone curve when processing the images from the CF card (which I wasn't when shooting tethered) and export TIFF..., so I thought that the program didn't recognise the in camera conversion from STI to DNG files.... but it does! The problem was a rather simple one of choosing the working profile in the export menu which I thought it was going to be set automatically.... but it doesn't!

I can safely now say that the back makes a night to day difference if compared to the results I was getting with Captureshop 5.6.3... One can safely use the 400 ISO setting on the back now, while DR and sharpness are clearly up to the level  one would expect from a modern (CCD) MFDB. The difference that modern software does to the existing base of older backs is just amazing. There is nothing to compare with the same back used with the old software... nothing at all.

[Graham Welland]

I've had similar experiences reprocessing my Nikon DSLR files from D3s, D200 and D3x through the latest C1 Pro versions and seen the same night & day differences. Essentially those old camera files got the equivalent of a significant upgrade with the newer raw processing engine. Ditto my older P25+, P40+ and IQ160 & IQ260 files with Capture One Pro 9. I only wish that it supported my even older Kodak 645M Pro back files.

Btw, when it comes to comparing digital backs with their native raw converter vs LR or PS, to directly quote the comment from Lau Nørguard of Phase One, "The digital back and raw processing software are designed as an end to end system and only together do they generate the results supported and stood behind by Phase One. Using any other raw processor will not produce the quality of results and should not be used to assess the quality of the images from our backs". That was in person at the IQ3 100 event in NYC back in February.

[torger]

But where are the images? Everybody knows that "night and day differences" to one person may be barely visible to another. It's sounds really exciting but I remain mildly skeptical until I've seen some examples of the effect.

To my taste both Phocus and Capture One use too high levels of base noise reduction and many interpret that as improved image quality, while for my taste it's actually the opposite. While noise is reduced, tonality is hurt too in the process. It would be interesting to see how noise reduction has been changed, maybe they have changed it to more in my taste, or maybe the other way around. In any case the native noise reductions are much more well-tuned than what you get in for example Lightroom.

What they can play around with is noise reduction, demosaicer and color profile and especially the latter can make very large differences in result. There are things like temperature sensors on the back and in the meta data so they can tune the noise reduction to react to what temperature the sensor was at to apply the exact right amount, that could make a difference.

I don't think raw converters are that important though (but maybe example images here would cause me to change my mind), there are differences and native is best but differences are mostly at pixel peep level and color profile-related. In fact I think it's a problem if a back would be so sensitive to raw converter that you really can only use one, which means that raw files are not as future proof as they could have been. This has certainly become the case with recent tech cameras which rely on highly specialized LCC algorithms to get rid of artifacts.

[Kumar]

Theodoros, will CaptureFlow work with the Sinarback 54H?

[Theodoros]

Theodoros, will CaptureFlow work with the Sinarback 54H?

No, unfortunately not! It only works with the multishot backs after 75H and with the Emotion backs, I asked Sinar on this and it seems that for a back to be compatible with Captureflow, there is a need that the back has CPU communication contacts to the camera which the 54H lucks... Therefore one has to use Captureshop 6.1.2 with the 54H... but honestly, I don't think that Captureflow would make any difference in multishot mode, since there are no aberrations to be corrected anyway.... A friend of mine that uses a 75H on Sinar P3, he prefers to use Captureshop when in multishot mode and Captureflow when in single shot mode....

[Theodoros]

I've now finished (I think) learning and familiarise with Captureflow 3.1.5... I found some additional important parameters which I thought of posting here. The Emotion 22 MFDB doesn't record DNGs as many think, but it records STI raw files, the decoding and conversion of the STI files to DNG ones is done automatically by Captureflow after one "grabs" one file (or all together) and "throws" it back to the folder that the STI files where downloaded on. The process is all within Captureshop, one downloads the STI files on a folder, then opens Captureflow, the STI files appear on the contact sheet of Captureflow, one "grabs" them and "throws" them back to the same folder which is shown on the upper left of Captureflow. If one then quits Captureflow and open the folder, he will find that all STI files have been converted (and renamed) to DNGs. What is particularly important though, is that whatever developing conversion one then does on the dng files, the metadada is stored in the dng file and is recognised if one reloads the file back to Captureflow, but that is not all... what is really surprising is that most of the metadada are then recognised by LR too! One can then use sliders of "shadows" and "highlights" of LR to maximise further the DR of the shot without affecting the sharpness of the file at all.