Testing my CFH-39 back...

[WayneD]

Hey all. I am evaluating an H2 with the CFH-39 back. I am moving up from shooting with a D2X Nikon. I have had some issues with this back and am trying to get a a sense of what to expect from a RAW 3F file in terms of out-of-camera, unprocessed image quality. I realize that capture back files are not processed in camera the same way as smaller format files but these images seem soft (slight halation). I am trying to figure out if this is by design or is this paricular back a little off? I can post some crops if it helps...

Anyone else have any experience with Flexcolor and 3F RAW files? I would appreciate any feedback from those who use or have used Imacon backs on Hasselbalds...

Many thanks.

Wayne

[Chris Gahran]

Okay Wayne,

I'm an Imacon user for 3 years but I have an older back and I am not running the latest software.  (By the way, being primarily a product shooter I live in the four shot mode of this back.)  That said, maybe I can help or at least prevent you from believing that there are no Imacon/Hasselblad users out there.

(I started shooting digital in 1995 with a Dicomed Field Pro, then a Dicomed Big Shot, then a Betterlight 6k-2, now an Imacon 4040 and soon a new Imacon back.)

My experience is that all images need some level of sharpening coming into Photoshop and usually require more USM in PS before being completed as a final image.  I usually set the sharpening between 80 and 160 in Flexcolor depending on the subject.  (This is on a sharpening scale which runs from 0 to 999.)

It is my understanding that many other camera software packages apply sharpening even when you have the software set to zero sharpening.  I advise you to look at the image quality you get with the digital back and not get distracted by where to set the level of sharpening.  Can you under or over sharpen based on the range of setting offered to you in the software?  If you can, you have a workable range of sharpening.

Realize there is no standard amount of sharpening that works for all pictures.  The sharpening applied to a pretty face is different than that applied to a carpet or a glass of beer.

Chris

[WayneD]

Okay Wayne,

I'm an Imacon user for 3 years but I have an older back and I am not running the latest software.  (By the way, being primarily a product shooter I live in the four shot mode of this back.)  That said, maybe I can help or at least prevent you from believing that there are no Imacon/Hasselblad users out there.

(I started shooting digital in 1995 with a Dicomed Field Pro, then a Dicomed Big Shot, then a Betterlight 6k-2, now an Imacon 4040 and soon a new Imacon back.)

My experience is that all images need some level of sharpening coming into Photoshop and usually require more USM in PS before being completed as a final image.  I usually set the sharpening between 80 and 160 in Flexcolor depending on the subject.  (This is on a sharpening scale which runs from 0 to 999.)

It is my understanding that many other camera software packages apply sharpening even when you have the software set to zero sharpening.  I advise you to look at the image quality you get with the digital back and not get distracted by where to set the level of sharpening.  Can you under or over sharpen based on the range of setting offered to you in the software?  If you can, you have a workable range of sharpening.

Realize there is no standard amount of sharpening that works for all pictures.  The sharpening applied to a pretty face is different than that applied to a carpet or a glass of beer.

Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[WayneD]

Chris;

Thanks for your response, I was beginning to wonder if anyone else used Imacon... yes, I agree with what you say about varying levels of sharpness depending on subject matter. I know of course that apparent sharpness is also percieved in different ways for print (or screen for that matter) viewing distance. I would never expect the perceived sharpness of a 30x40 inch print to be the same as an 11x14 inch print given their appropriate viewing distances. I think that since I am used to working with the d2x files at 12mp I have that as my standard for percieved sharpness. A 117mp file perhaps will just not look as "sharp" (apparent resolution, accutance, etc...) since the file size is destined for a much larger output...

This is my train of thought thus far... I will check to see how far along my sharpening continuum I have to move to get a result I am comfortable with.

Thanks again.

Wayne

[Chris Gahran]

Wayne,

Let me go a little further.  If you are currently working with a Nikon portability may be of the greatest importance to you.  If you primarily shoot people or live subjects then the Imacon is an excellent tool.  Some may argue that a Phase or a Leaf has better quality.  Honestly those backs may have a slight edge in single shot mode but I haven't done side by side tests for several years.  

I do know that Imacon has been on a quest to make their back the best single shot solution available.  They developed a new color engine starting with Flexcolor 4.2 which improved color fidelity and skin tones.  If you use Macintosh computers the latest software is Universal Binary so it runs natively on Intel, G4 and G5 Macs.  It also supports multiprocessor machines including Dual G4, Dual G5, Quad G5 and Core Duo Macintoshs.

Imacon has a tremendous advantage in that you can also shoot in 4-shot mode when you capture still life subjects.  In 4-shot mode there is no interpolation when the back captures a scene.  Every point on subject is captured in RGBG (green twice) thus recording true color and no moire.  (On a job I got moire twice when taking 215 pictures.  That's less than a one percent chance of moire showing up.)

Some backs can work in 16-shot mode where it doubles the size of the image captured.  On my back the image goes from about 14 inches square to about 27 inches square.

For me, this makes the Imacon/Hasselblad the most versatile digital back available today.

Chris

[BernardLanguillier]

Imacon has a tremendous advantage in that you can also shoot in 4-shot mode when you capture still life subjects.  In 4-shot mode there is no interpolation when the back captures a scene.  Every point on subject is captured in RGBG (green twice) thus recording true color and no moire.  (On a job I got moire twice when taking 215 pictures.  That's less than a one percent chance of moire showing up.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris,

If I am not mistaken, the multi-shot capability is not built-in the standard CFH-39 back. It is only available i the MS version, that costs another 10.000 US$ or so...

Regards,
Bernard

[WayneD]

That is correct, the CFH-39 back I am testing does not have 4 shot mode, not a problem for me though since my studio days are past and I am using this in the field for landscape work. I was/ am experience some morie issue with dense foliage against a white sky, I am testing a 4.6 Beta version rushed to me from Denmark since I raised a stink about the morie... the new software deals with much of the issue.

I would say at this level of gear many of the difference for my purposes are subtle and it comes down to flexability in the field. I was just happy to see the H2D and the back used the same battery, I travel a lot and one less charger...

Chris, your suggestion to not be afraid to ramp up the USM has been quite helpful thus far...

Thanks.

w

[Chris Gahran]

Bernard,

You're right, that model is the CF-39MS and I wasn't aware of the large price difference.  Apparently that back won't do 16-shot either because the resulting file is considered to be too large.  It will be 936 MByte in 16 bit RGB.  (YIKES.)

If you have ever used one of these backs in 4-shot mode you would fully appreciate the 4-shot mode.  For a friend I copied the front cover of a magazine that featured a picture of some of his relatives.  In single shot the moire from the CMYK dot pattern went crazy.  In 4-shot mode there was not a hint of moire.  Now when I did this I obviously didn't test another back.

Many Imacon users take a single shot and then a four shot image so they can blend in any areas that have moved during the four shot exposure.  A four shot only takes about twenty seconds on a 22mp back.  Shoot the bubbling beer in the glass in single shot then go for the bar scene in four shot.  Works with food too.

(Sinar used to vibrate their chip during exposure to reduce moire.  I thought that was nuts– out of focus image anyone?)

This is my opinion:  Imacon/Hasselblad is the most versatile digital back sold today.

Chris

[voskull]

I have rented the CF-39 back and H2 Camera for a week shoot recently, and also been using Phase one back regularly (from H5 to P25) and on a couple occasion a Leaf. I'll just give you my general opinion and feel of the system
The integration Camera/Back is great, the best among MF backs perhaps. But battery draw can be pretty quick, especially if using the CR123A adapter, maybe just one or two hours of shooting. The screen at the back is decent, but lack of certain clarity for focus check, and could be a bit slow (couple of big seconds.. ) to zoom in for focus checking. Mind you I mostly have used the back in non very friendly conditions (very warm weather 30 to 38 C, extreme dust, night, very little time to set-up.. etc..) and on a couple of occasion, it will hang, and you need to take out the viewfinder of the H2 camera, to access the button needed to release the back from the camera, put it back on, and re-power the whole thing...
Also the backs in my experience runs very hot... and with the fan spinning all the time, i dont' know how hots it runs at room temperature because we always used it on location, but by guess it was around 50 C at times.

Regarding the Flexcolor and the pixels, I'm pretty happy with the quality of the files expect at times it gives a slight Pattern/ moire in the shadow area that can be pretty visible. Also the overexposition of the skin creates magenta and blue pixels, similar to the feel of the Kodak DCS Pro SLR which didn't have the anti alias filter, it a sort of moire i presume, but i'm not entirely sure. It seems to be of one the side of too much details and color noise. the files are rarely "clean"

Also Flex Color isn't as straight forward to use as Capture for me. I find the workflow in capture one better, but that's also a question of choice. The software needs a pretty beffy laptop to shoot on as one could imagine. The ranking and selecting system isn't very intuitive. No way to have side by side, but do all kinds button pushing and menu digging to apply color settings to a batch.

But apart from that, it is a nice combo, and the H2+CF39 works quite interestingly together, feels more integrated than other combo, and has a good feel in hand.
Hope this is helpfull. I have some crops if you need.

Cheers..

[Christopher E]

Hi!

Have been working with the Imacon Ixpress 22mp for a while and I am more than pleased with it - however I do  occasinally get the hysterical moire-effect mentioned. Magazines as well as various suits with a tight woven texture produce violently colourful effects...!! How have you come to terms with this? Focus adjustments??

Regards, // C

Finally I found a forum that adresses this...!! :-D

[Gary Ferguson]

Hey all. I am evaluating an H2 with the CFH-39 back. I am moving up from shooting with a D2X Nikon. I have had some issues with this back and am trying to get a a sense of what to expect from a RAW 3F file in terms of out-of-camera, unprocessed image quality. I realize that capture back files are not processed in camera the same way as smaller format files but these images seem soft (slight halation).

Wayne, I think there's a lot of unrealitic expectation surrounding medium format digital versus top end 35mm digital. I get the impression some photographers expect the results will be orders of magnitude better. Based on my experience of using a 22MP back (including regularly using it on a sliding carraige on a Linhof where it stitches two shots together to give a 40MP+ file) I haven't found this to be the case when I compare the results with a Canon 1Ds MkII (very similar I'm sure to your D2X).

The images from MF digital are better than those from 35mm digital, no doubt about it. But only when the shot's printed to reasonably large dimensions, and even then the improvement is more in areas such as colour fidelity and smoothness of gradations rather than out and out resolution.

You say you're "evaluating" an H2 because of disatisfaction with the results from a D2X. I'd advise going slowly.  If you can try some side by side comparisons, or pick up the LL DVD from their recent shoot out. It may save you from spending a great deal of money to achieve relatively small image quality improvements that may or may not meet your particular needs. IMO the move from top end 35mm DSLR's to medium format digital is less like going from 35mm film to 6x9, and more like the move from 6x9 film to 4x5.