Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800  (Read 83343 times)

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« on: May 20, 2008, 01:43:15 pm »

So, after reading so many posts where ppl are saying DBs are terrible at high ISO and how they are afraid to shoot at anything over 100, I decided to show what it can look like if you process them correctly. These are shot with a regular P25 (non +) at f5.6 and processed in C1 3.8 with ONLY color noise suppression applied. So there is no luminance noise suppression applied at all. Mind you, this is supposed to be the the worst of all the backs at high ISO.



ISO 200:

[attachment=6655:attachment]


ISO 400:

[attachment=6656:attachment]


ISO 800:

[attachment=6657:attachment]
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2008, 01:55:42 pm »

It would be interesting to see them without massive compression and noise filtering applied.  The 800 looks pretty dreadful in the boke areas and on the pots, but I'm not sure if that's the software messing it up or it came out that way.  

I see banding and lots of "grain" at 800.    200 looks pretty decent, though.
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2008, 02:10:43 pm »

Quote
Mind you, this is supposed to be the the worst of all the backs at high ISO.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I expect the Mamiya ZD would be worse.
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2008, 02:22:42 pm »

Quote
It would be interesting to see them without massive compression and noise filtering applied.  The 800 looks pretty dreadful in the boke areas and on the pots, but I'm not sure if that's the software messing it up or it came out that way. 

I see banding and lots of "grain" at 800.    200 looks pretty decent, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dreadful? What a joke. You could print that A3 easy without seeing a single noise grain. As far as compression goes they are 50% size 70 quality JPEG. But whatever you say. The point for me with this post is not really to debate it, but to let ppl see what it can look like and let everyone make up their own mind.
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2008, 02:26:35 pm »

Quote
You could print that A3 easy without seeing a single noise grain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed. That noise might be discernible in a print, but not in a bad way.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2008, 03:26:13 pm »

The noise in the 800 image would never show on a web press.  I really like the noise structure in MFDB files, and frequently try to sharpen the luminance noise so that it will show in a print.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2008, 03:26:23 pm »

I'm super impressed, I never shoot anything other than ISO 200 on my P21 where there is virtually no noise at all, even on a tripod I wouldn't bother shooting at 100 as there is really no advantage you can see in print. I did do a quick dirty test on 400 the other day and that was really good too. As you've shown with your test, by the time you get to 800 theres plenty of noise but it's a nice noise and it still has that lovely thickness and sparkle to it.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2008, 03:27:38 pm »

Quote
The noise in the 800 image would never show on a web press.  I really like the noise structure in MFDB files, and frequently try to sharpen the luminance noise so that it will show in a print.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hmm, sounds like a good trick, i'll try that.
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2008, 03:34:34 pm »

Quote
I'm super impressed, I never shoot anything other than ISO 200 on my P21 where there is virtually no noise at all, even on a tripod I wouldn't bother shooting at 100 as there is really no advantage you can see in print. I did do a quick dirty test on 400 the other day and that was really good too. As you've shown with your test, by the time you get to 800 theres plenty of noise but it's a nice noise and it still has that lovely thickness and sparkle to it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The trick is to use C1, ACR does a much worse job with color noise. It's obvious PhaseOne has some kind of custom noise reduction for their backs implemented. And set the color noise slider function to manual and play with the slider till you're happy. For iso100 & 50 I usually use ACR though.
Logged

woof75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 581
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2008, 03:39:57 pm »

Quote
The trick is to use C1, ACR does a much worse job with color noise. It's obvious PhaseOne has some kind of custom noise reduction for their backs implemented. And set the color noise slider function to manual and play with the slider till you're happy. For iso100 & 50 I usually use ACR though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightroom is really good at ISO 200 on the P21. The C1 version 4 does do better, it's just I can't control color like I want to on C1 which is a pity because the quality of the conversions is really great.
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2008, 03:42:17 pm »

Another side

Any comparison requires at least two participants. Here are examples from the lowly (but not the "lowliest") Canon 40D (a 10 Mpix camera for $1000), ISO 200, 400, 800 and 1600. Shutter between 1/20s (ISO 200) and 1/160s (ISO 1600). Low color noise suppression on 800 and 1600. The JPEGs are full size, from 2.5 MB to 4 MB (the noise of the 1600 shot is observable on the file size as well).

ISO 200 JPEG

ISO 400 JPEG

ISO 400 JPEG

ISO 1600 JPEG

However, I do not trust JPEGs, they do not reflect the camera's capability, for

a. JPEG reflects already the raw processing,

b. the exposure counts more than the ISO in noise, and that can be seen only on the raw image.

So, here are the raw files as well, 11MB to 13MB.

ISO 200 raw

ISO 400 raw

ISO 400 raw

ISO 1600 raw
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 03:44:30 pm by Panopeeper »
Logged
Gabor

samuel_js

  • Guest
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2008, 04:19:11 pm »

Quote
Another side

Any comparison requires at least two participants. Here are examples from the lowly (but not the "lowliest") Canon 40D (a 10 Mpix camera for $1000), ISO 200, 400, 800 and 1600. Shutter between 1/20s (ISO 200) and 1/160s (ISO 1600). Low color noise suppression on 800 and 1600. The JPEGs are full size, from 2.5 MB to 4 MB (the noise of the 1600 shot is observable on the file size as well).

ISO 200 JPEG

ISO 400 JPEG

ISO 400 JPEG

ISO 1600 JPEG

However, I do not trust JPEGs, they do not reflect the camera's capability, for

a. JPEG reflects already the raw processing,

b. the exposure counts more than the ISO in noise, and that can be seen only on the raw image.

So, here are the raw files as well, 11MB to 13MB.

ISO 200 raw

ISO 400 raw

ISO 400 raw

ISO 1600 raw
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I understand this thread, this is not a comparison. We're talking medium format digital noise here. Nothing to do with 35mm.
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2008, 04:21:54 pm »

Quote
As I understand this thread, this is not a comparison. We're talking medium format digital noise here. Nothing to do with 35mm.

Really? The OP wrote

Quote
after reading so many posts where ppl are saying DBs are terrible at high ISO

Do you think "ppl are saying" that DBs are terrible on their own, or in comparison to other cameras?
Logged
Gabor

samuel_js

  • Guest
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2008, 04:22:41 pm »

As I posted yesterday, I think that MFD noise looks terrific when properly processed. Very film-like.
This is how my P20 looks at ISO 800 with a bit of NR. Obviously this can be worked out more...  



/Samuel
Logged

samuel_js

  • Guest
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2008, 04:26:41 pm »

Quote
Really? The OP wrote
Do you think "ppl are saying" that DBs are terrible on their own, or in comparison to other cameras?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196848\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think there's single MFD user here interested in a noise comparison against 35mm at this point.

My vote is still - keep this thread about MFD noise only. Thank you.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2008, 04:41:49 pm »

There's two types of behavior under different conditions: LotsaLite and BadLite.

Usually LotsaLiteis ok at hi-ISO, because the spectrum is well balanced (sun, flash).

But BadLite is low on blue or spiky and gives strange chroma noise.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2008, 04:45:08 pm »

I want to than AMSP and Samuel for bringing this up.  I've just shot some ISO 800 on my P20 today tethered with C1 4.1 and was amazed.   I didn't think my p20 could do this well.

In my tests I used a flash, my 150mm TX lens and 1/1000     C1 4.1 does do a slightly better job with the color noise and indeed as ASMP has suggested using higher chroma noise reduction and low luminance works well.  I'm impressed!  

All my previous tests with the p20 and ISO 800 were with slow shutter so I'm going to do more tests to see if ISO 800 with slow shutter (1/60) are just as good.

Update: The quick answer is no they are not.  And the longer the exposure the bigger the differential between base ISO and ISO 800 gets.   So for me I get the quality ISO 800 files that ASMP and Samuel posted if I am using fast shutter and small aperture.  

Another interesting thing I think could be explored more is noise in OOF regions.  It appears that this is where the noise gets out of control.  If true then why?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 12:15:50 pm by EricWHiss »
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

psorantin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2008, 05:18:52 pm »

What Edmund said is key to the "useability at high ISO" question:

- Shooting with plenty of light will look good on most cameras, low or high ISO; high ISO well exposed can look terrific. This is clearly seen here in amps example.

- Once you get into low-light levels, particularly tungsten-based lighting, the high-ISO challenge hits you hard and fast. This kind of scenario is the proof-of-the-pudding. Chroma noise can get very ugly. Sometimes black-and-white conversion is the last resort.

Peter
Logged
Peter Sorantin
New Jersey

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2008, 08:53:50 pm »

Ah.  So it is the software getting in the way as I suspected.  Fair enough.

I do like how the artifacts and noise are very evenly spread out, very much like pushed film.  This is nothing like you get from a typical DSLR.  Probably because it has no AA filter on it and so any AA or NR you do is a one-time thing when you process it.

Does it look "good" at 800?  No. 200 plainly looks better.   Does it look tons better than any DSLR that I've seen at 800?  Without a doubt.
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2008, 09:13:06 pm »

C1 3.6.x and later are the king of chroma noise removal, IMO.  I think version C14 is terrible with color noise, and I have to use other software to remove it from the converted 16 bit TIFFs, if I were to use version 4.  

I think Lightroom is tied, or second best with color noise removal and control.  Plus, it just gives you clean files, no matter what file you're processing, however, sometimes you need to add in a fine edged sharpen after converted from LR, where in C14, it gives you the control for the radius, amount, threshold, etc, more so than LR does.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 09:14:10 pm by T-1000 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up