Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?  (Read 3245 times)

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1115
Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« on: January 19, 2018, 05:26:32 PM »

Hi all - I'm fortunate enough to own both Phase, Alpa, Canon and Sony systems, but mostly use the Alpa/Phase and Sony systems. They do different things and do them brilliantly. No need to describe the quality of MF output here, you all know it. The A73 is so incredibly clever - with its autofocus face/etc detect really working well, compared to the mk2 body. Silent, 10fpd, quick, great AF, etc, etc.

The thing is after using the IQ100, it is so hard to adjust to the Sony files - the color, resolution, dynamic range all seem very poor in comparison.
This is with good lenses - even with a $4000 Otus, it still lacks something.

so what am I doing wrong here?
  • Maybe nothing, is this just the way it is? the difference is huge, if so.
  • I know C1 reasonably well, but maybe am not processing the files correctly - is there a default Sat/Contrast/Profile I should try that transforms things?
  • Does C1 somehow hobble the camera profile for the Sony, to make themselves look better - maybe not quite as refined/polished as their own backs' profiles? Should I try a different Raw converter?
  • Build my own camera profile? Or buy an alternate one from somewhere?
  • Something else?
I'm prepared to accept the smaller files, that is not the issue, its the quality of those files I'm finding tough to accept. Both are Sony sensors of similar generation, so why the big difference?

Thanks[/list]
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10997
    • Echophoto
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2018, 05:40:43 PM »

Hi,

Could you post some examples with the issues you have, preferably with raw files. There can be quite a few problems, starting with white balance, profiles etc.

But it is hard to discuss issues that you have not seen.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11056
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2018, 06:08:57 PM »

Have you tried using the P1 profiles for your Sony files?

Cheers,
Bernars

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2018, 06:17:24 PM »

Have you tried using the P1 profiles for your Sony files?

Cheers,
Bernars

P1 means... Phase One - or is there some other profile makes confusingly named P1?
I am using Capture One's own Sony profiles.


Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10997
    • Echophoto
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2018, 07:08:02 PM »

Hi,

Bernard has a point. It has been demonstrated earlier by some Capture One users that using profiles for the IQ350 (I think) with Nikon D800 images yielded better colour than C1-s profiles for Nikon D800.

It may be that Phase One is making better profiles for the IQ-series than for Sony for instance.

Making own colour profiles for Capture One is a bit tricky, as they use different math from conventional profiles.

But, Anders Torger has found a way to generate ICC colour profiles for Capture One in his tools DCamProf (free and open source) and Lumariver Profile Designer.

I can try to generate an ICC profile for C1 for the A7rIII based on test images from ImagingResource in the weekend. I never tried it as I am Lightroom user.

But, such a profile may or may not get IQ3100 MP and Sony A7rIII closer. It depends on weather or not they use a similar CFA design. Also, even if the profiles would yield similar results, chance may be that they would not have a Capture One kind rendition.

For some reason I did a comparison comparing three cameras I have at home.

- Phase One P45+ back, known for tricky colour.
- Sony Alpha 900, same generation as P45+ but regarded by some experts (TheSuede and Iliah Borg) to have the best rendition of any commercially available camera.
- Sony A7rII, what I am mostly using now.

I enclose the result. There are four images. Top row is P45+, with two different tone curves. Bottom row is Sony A7rII on the left and Sony Alpha 900 on the right. Note the black boxes on the lime fruits. These were measured with a spectrometer. The limes in the front and the rear and the red pepper has boxes painted in with measured colours. These areas are close but outside the red boxes.

Would be interesting to hear your opinion on how these colours differ.

Best regards
Erik



P1 means... Phase One - or is there some other profile makes confusingly named P1?
I am using Capture One's own Sony profiles.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2018, 08:57:58 PM »

so what am I doing wrong here?

1) comparing 100mp on a bigger sensor vs 42mp on a smaller sensor

2) both sensors are CMOS quite recent generation from Sony,  so no replacement for displacement here = http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Phase%20One%20IQ3%20100MP,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3

3) as for the color - create your own profiles
Logged

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 707
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2018, 09:39:10 PM »

Curious.  Back when the IQ3 100 came out, I spent a day shooting it with Kevin alongside my A7r2.  When you zoom in to 100%, the IQ files definitely look nicer.  I wouldn't say there is a 'huge' difference though.

Both images shot through the Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital 45mm.

IQ3 100


A7r2



CB

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11056
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2018, 09:56:10 PM »

Not too impressed by the blooming around the chandelier...

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10997
    • Echophoto
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2018, 12:34:06 AM »

    Hi,


    • Dynamic range would not be a problem. Clearly, the IQ3100 has an advantage in DR, but it would only have effect when pushing shadows.
    • Resolution on the IQ3100 is obviously better it resolves 100 MP of data while the A7rIII resolves 42 MP.
    • A larger sensor collects more photons so it would have less noise. It essentially means that it should deliver the same noise at 250 ISO as the Sony A7rIII at 100 ISO
    • Color is to a large extent decided by color profiles. Quite feasible that Phase One has spent more effort on profiles for the IQ3100 than on Sony A7rIII.
    • You don't say which lenses you use with the Sony. Your sample of lens may be a bad one. Or do you stop down to far? If you use f/11 on the IQ3100 you would need f/8 at the same aperture.
    • have you disabled image stabilisation when shooting on tripod? You may need to do it on both lens and sensor.

    Best regards
    Erik

Hi all - I'm fortunate enough to own both Phase, Alpa, Canon and Sony systems, but mostly use the Alpa/Phase and Sony systems. They do different things and do them brilliantly. No need to describe the quality of MF output here, you all know it. The A73 is so incredibly clever - with its autofocus face/etc detect really working well, compared to the mk2 body. Silent, 10fpd, quick, great AF, etc, etc.

The thing is after using the IQ100, it is so hard to adjust to the Sony files - the color, resolution, dynamic range all seem very poor in comparison.
This is with good lenses - even with a $4000 Otus, it still lacks something.

so what am I doing wrong here?
  • Maybe nothing, is this just the way it is? the difference is huge, if so.
  • I know C1 reasonably well, but maybe am not processing the files correctly - is there a default Sat/Contrast/Profile I should try that transforms things?
  • Does C1 somehow hobble the camera profile for the Sony, to make themselves look better - maybe not quite as refined/polished as their own backs' profiles? Should I try a different Raw converter?
  • Build my own camera profile? Or buy an alternate one from somewhere?
  • Something else?
I'm prepared to accept the smaller files, that is not the issue, its the quality of those files I'm finding tough to accept. Both are Sony sensors of similar generation, so why the big difference?

Thanks[/list]
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2018, 08:07:29 PM »

Thanks all for suggestions. I don't have the ability to compare the Sony camera/ IQ back with the same exact lens.  My Alpa/XF lenses can't fit the Sony and vice-versa. Yes, there are adapters, but I don't own one at present.

My suspicion is not that Phase deliberately hobbles the A7R3 via a poor profile, but that they simply don't try as hard to refine it. A quick generic profile is created, and that's it.
Which is of course not the case with profiles for their own backs.  But... it's just a suspicion. No evidence of that, save my disappointment.
And some could argue: why should they do more for another manufacturer?

I may try some other converters. Or go hunting for a fresh C1 profile from somewhere,

Logged

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2018, 04:35:54 AM »


My suspicion is not that Phase deliberately hobbles the A7R3 via a poor profile, but that they simply don't try as hard to refine it.

I have no horse in this race but think you do them an injustice. Many times they have stated the reason support for new cameras is delayed because of the exhaustive testing that they perform to produce compatibility and profiles. That they have an agreement with Sony and produce a Sony only version of C1, with some features reduced over the full version, would again point to them having every reason to produce an effective profile for Sony cameras. They did, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away have a version for the Leica M8 so there is history of their collaboration, Nikon would do well to take note, and maybe they have as the D850 seems to have been supplied early to them perhaps with some engineering data?
That you find a big difference in the files is perhaps not surprising given the cost of the two systems you are comparing, if the Sony = iQ100 perfectly then Phase One would not be in business very long making digital backs, that others are satisfied with the Sony is because sometimes good enough is good enough and they may not, like you, have such a superb system to run comparisons with,"ignorance is bliss" Thomas Gray “Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College” (1742) or indeed "Ignorance is strength" – " Nineteen Eighty-Four"George Orwell 1949.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10997
    • Echophoto
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2018, 05:07:02 AM »

Hi,

I have spent some time on generating ICC profiles for the IQ3100 based on sample images from Imaging Resource Phase One. At this stage I am pretty sure that there is a tone curve difference between A7rII rendition and IQ3100 rendition. The IQ 3100 tone curve rolls off in the highlights while the A7rIII curve does not.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks all for suggestions. I don't have the ability to compare the Sony camera/ IQ back with the same exact lens.  My Alpa/XF lenses can't fit the Sony and vice-versa. Yes, there are adapters, but I don't own one at present.

My suspicion is not that Phase deliberately hobbles the A7R3 via a poor profile, but that they simply don't try as hard to refine it. A quick generic profile is created, and that's it.
Which is of course not the case with profiles for their own backs.  But... it's just a suspicion. No evidence of that, save my disappointment.
And some could argue: why should they do more for another manufacturer?

I may try some other converters. Or go hunting for a fresh C1 profile from somewhere,
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 09:23:08 PM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2018, 08:59:23 AM »

When I use medium format digital it's always a shock trying to use 35mm.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4032
    • waynefox.com
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2018, 03:29:42 PM »

Hi,

I have spent some time on generating ICC profiles for Phase One. At this stage I am pretty sure that there is a tone curve difference between A7rII rendition and IQ3100 rendition. The IQ 3100 tone curve rolls off in the highlights while the A7rIII curve does not.

Best regards
Erik
I assume you mean for a Phase One back, and not for Phase One? Just sounds a little odd, perhaps might confuse some?
Logged

madlantern

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2018, 04:50:52 PM »

Why not trying comparing both in Lightroom with the Adobe Standard profile for a more even playing field?
Logged

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2018, 05:59:32 PM »

When I use medium format digital it's always a shock trying to use 35mm.

My worry is that this is the problem. It seems just a huge quality gulf between the two. Quite shocking.
So much so, I'm convinced I must be doing something wrong!
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3764
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2018, 07:56:40 PM »

Why not trying comparing both in Lightroom with the Adobe Standard profile for a more even playing field?

I think the even playing field is to try both cameras in a variety of software that you might otherwise be comfortable with in a normal workflow, and see which combination gives you the results you like most.

When I have clients run their P1 raw files in both C1 and LightRoom 95%+ prefer the rendering in C1. That shouldn't really surprise anyone; the team that makes Phase One hardware and the team that makes Phase One software are down the hall from each other. They go to the bars together. They go on family vacation together. Where most software vendors are stuck reverse engineering the file of a camera days or week after it is produced, the P1 software team is working with the hardware team months before a new piece of hardware is released. They not only get raw files well in advance, they are part of the R+D process itself (no example of this finer than the Trichromatic which started, in part, because of feedback from the profiling/color-science team), providing feedback on what changes/tweaks to the hardware will result in a file that they can best work with on the software/profiling side. The software team works with a huge set of real world images, controlled lab-images, and deep technical knowledge of the hardware, to produce a color profile, detail extraction algorithms, lens corrections, and other factors of "raw file support" and are given nearly carte blanche on resources (time/money) spent on getting the most out of a P1 raw file. They pull all nighters tracing down the cause of image quality defects that even very "detail oriented" photographers would consider trivial. The amount of time the two teams spend fine-tuning the result of a P1 back in C1 is truly impressive.

In my experience you cannot replicate the above by snapping a picture of a target and running it through a color profiling software.

In contrast to the deeply collaborative and intensely pursued software/hardware relationship between P1 and Capture One... in LR, a P1 back is "just another camera" – that's not to say they don't put careful effort into doing their best, but it is a different world entirely.

Bottom line: the Sony is a VERY good small-format camera (and very good from a performance per dollar value perspective). It's small and light and has good video features; it's a tremendous little camera. But I'm honestly a little confused why you'd expect it to match the image-quality performance of your 16 bit full-frame 645 Phase One camera.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 08:01:32 PM by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3764
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2018, 08:10:06 PM »

I'll venture one more analogy...

Re: P1 in LR vs P1 in C1

It's like hearing a song as a cover versus the original artist.

You should always be willing to give it a chance, and occasionally it's even better. But generally it should not surprise you when it's lacking some of the nuance and finesse.

When you try (as you should) the Sony in LR or the Sony in C1 with a 3rd party profile make sure to include a variety of raws shot in a variety of lighting at a variety of ISOs. When you do I think you'll find that Phase One has done a very good job with the Sony profile and that C1 produces the best out-of-camera results. But ultimately a Sony in Capture One (or LightRoom or or) is a cover song, and using profiling software is often like AutoTune – the results can seem better at first blush, but often don't have the depth or wholistic on-ness of a profile crafted by an expert.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10997
    • Echophoto
Here is what I came up with...
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2018, 09:05:30 PM »

    Hi,

    I made a couple of ICC profiles using Lumariver Profile Editor. Here are the results:



Here is a layered tiff: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/C1Stuff/LayeredComparison.tif

File and layer names should be quite obvious.

Best regards
Erik



Hi all - I'm fortunate enough to own both Phase, Alpa, Canon and Sony systems, but mostly use the Alpa/Phase and Sony systems. They do different things and do them brilliantly. No need to describe the quality of MF output here, you all know it. The A73 is so incredibly clever - with its autofocus face/etc detect really working well, compared to the mk2 body. Silent, 10fpd, quick, great AF, etc, etc.

The thing is after using the IQ100, it is so hard to adjust to the Sony files - the color, resolution, dynamic range all seem very poor in comparison.
This is with good lenses - even with a $4000 Otus, it still lacks something.

so what am I doing wrong here?
  • Maybe nothing, is this just the way it is? the difference is huge, if so.
  • I know C1 reasonably well, but maybe am not processing the files correctly - is there a default Sat/Contrast/Profile I should try that transforms things?
  • Does C1 somehow hobble the camera profile for the Sony, to make themselves look better - maybe not quite as refined/polished as their own backs' profiles? Should I try a different Raw converter?
  • Build my own camera profile? Or buy an alternate one from somewhere?
  • Something else?
I'm prepared to accept the smaller files, that is not the issue, its the quality of those files I'm finding tough to accept. Both are Sony sensors of similar generation, so why the big difference?

Thanks[/list]
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Getting the A7R3 files closer to IQ100 back outputs?
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2018, 09:07:19 PM »

I'll venture one more analogy...

Re: P1 in LR vs P1 in C1

It's like hearing a song as a cover versus the original artist.

You should always be willing to give it a chance, and occasionally it's even better. But generally it should not surprise you when it's lacking some of the nuance and finesse.


Thanks for the input Doug. And for Puddles Pity Party, which was great to listen to, but nope, not better!

Have to point out it's moot who's the original and who's the cover version when it comes to sensors and processing. Sony make the sensors, as you very well know. Not Phase. Yes, Phase do great things with them, but Sony is the original manufacturer, and have the engineers & scientists in house. So...

And to clarify: I'm not expecting it to be the same, I just was expecting a smaller resolution version of the MF files, but: nope. That's what's confusing (and saddening) me. These are not competitive products, they complement each other quite perfectly otherwise, I'd love for the output files to be broadly comparable other than scale, but I just can't get there. Sigh.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up