PhaseOne P25 ISO test. 200/400/800

[amsp]

Here's a shot from this afternoon with the Rollei 6008 / p20  handheld at ISO 800 forget the shutter but around 1/125.  I made no adjustments to the file other than changing the color noise to 71 and the luminace nose slider to 6 (defaults are 58 and 25) in C1 4.1

Honestly I am really surprised!   I had been holding off from even ISO 200 before seeing this post, and getting blurry images because I was afraid to bump the ISO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looking great! I'm glad my post could inspire you to start experimenting. Did you try and develop it in C1 3.8 too? If not, you should try it and see which one you like best. I played around with your photo a little, hope you don't mind. It's quite a nice capture, I especially like it in B/W.

[attachment=6703:attachment]

[attachment=6704:attachment]

[Graham Mitchell]

The fact that 35mm DSLRs seem to do a better job at high ISO (albeit starting off from a lower quality base) must be of concern to users of MFDB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please show me the DSLR which produces better IQ than this ISO 800 sample from a MFDB.

This is at 100% which is not a true comparison, because the image size of the MFDB is so much larger:

[attachment=6705:attachment]

And this is a 100% crop when reduced to 16MP (more like a high end DSLR):

[attachment=6706:attachment]

NO noise reduction used in either sample.

Honestly I couldn't ask for more at ISO 800 and I hope this kills the prevailing "MFDB can't compare to DSLR at high ISO" myth. It used to be true but not any more.

[Guy Mancuso]

I just got back from doing my workshop in San Juan and Lance from Capture Intergration was there with all the backs for me to play with and our attendees. These are not hard core tests but i can assure you the P30 Plus can do high ISO' very well , the whole fashion shoot we did I shot at ISO 400 and there very clean plus some other casual testing. Read this thread

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1896


I also got the chance to shoot the P25 NON plus and again ISO 400 was pretty darn good and I expect better from the PLus back which BTW i am sitting here waiting to be delivered . I bought the P25 plus with the new Phase Body and Lens plus the Horseman SWDII with 35mm digitar. Feel like a kid in a candy store but i was really impressed with the high ISO's even from the P25 and I want , need a back that can at least give me a clean ISO 400 but the P30 plus was even pretty clean at 1600 and maybe with some NN software it would clean up better or better with working with C1 with the correct settings. I was more guessing on what those maybe. I will do more formal testing when it comes . It was hard doing hard tests when your teaching a workshop but it was enough for me to buy.

here is the P25 thread

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1921

[shutay]

As I'm sure everybody else did too, I did a lot of research before buying a digital back, and based on what I had read, I felt that I had been led overwhelmingly to believe that ISO 400 was so horrendous (see also the ISO 400 shot in bright daylight in the Luminous Landscape review of the older Ixpress 96 back) one might only use it in an emergency. So I braced myself to not be able to use ISO 400 unless absolutely necessary. However, when I got the 96C version of the back finally, and did my own testing, I have found the results to be quite usable and not at all as bad as I imagined it would be. Presumably, between the writing of that review and now, there have been numerous firmware updates, which have undoubtedly improved IQ. Here's a 100% crop taken at ISO 400. The light was window light only, and I was forced to shoot at lower shutter speeds and higher ISO than I would have liked, but I am pleased with the result.

Bronica Zenzanon-S 150mm f/3.5 lens & Ixpress V96C @ ISO 400, 1/60th sec, f/3.5, mounted on a tripod. It was a little tricky as he was talking while I was shooting. Sorry for the rather stern look on his face and the nose hair is certainly not as appealing as Frank Doorhof's models, but the stern look seems to capture this guy's essence...
[attachment=6719:attachment]

(Edit:) I forgot to mention that I didn't do anything to the shot other than adjust black point slightly, output to JPEG and crop then post. No noise reduction or anything. FlexColor 4.8.4

[BJL]

ISO is a standart for film/sensor sensitivity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, ISO is an organization (the International Organization for Standardization?) that produces a great many standards, including
1) A scale of units for describing Exposure Index, used for example for both items (2) and (3): roughly a measure of what shutter speed goes with a particular combination of light level and aperture ratio to get appropriate mid-tone handling.
2) A film speed measurement (adapted from ASA/ANSI standard) based on adequate _shadow_ handling: roughly the _highest_ exposure index at which shadows are handled well enough.
3) a "base exposure index" definition for sensors, based on adequate _highlight_ handling: roughly the _lowest_ exposure index at which highlights are handled well enough.

These days, when people talk about "ISO" for digital cameras they are most often referring to the exposure index scale (1), as used in a camera's "ISO" settings, without necessarily making any claims about how well shadows or highlights or noise are handled at the various exposure index settings. This may be confusing to us old timers who think of ISO (or even ASA) as a measure of film speed based on shadow handling and such, but it is not totally incorrect.

That is why it is useful to have tests of cameras at various exposure index levels, like the ones that started this thread, and using "best development practice" rather than "standard development" makes sense for high end cameras.
So my thanks to the OP.

[Panopeeper]

I think some misunderstandings need to be eliminated, for they are causing some confusions.

The ISO standard referred to often on these forums does not represent any sensitivity regarding digital imaging, but gain. BJL has posted this just above without spelling it out in cleartext.

Sensor gain is not identical to "pushing the exposure" in post processing. Higher gain is supposed to add details in the dark areas compared to a lower gain with equal exposure.

Therefor underexposing a shot by 3 EV and adjusting the lightness in the raw processing does not make ISO 800. It speaks a lot for some MFDBs, that they can produce high quality images with low exposure even though they do not offer higher ISO; the Sinar back is one such. (Note, that the PhaseOne backs do have higher gain, at least those I have analyzed.)

My observation is, that many MFDB photographers do not know the characteristics of their camera enough.

For example they believe, that they expose a shot properly, while heavily underexposing it; unfortunately some raw processors actively contribute to such misunderstandings. Or the photographer exposes lower than it would be ideal, because (s)he mistakenly believes, that the ISO gain will make up for that.

A further source of misconception is the belief, that no sharpening took place yet. For example the image posted just above by Graham has undergone noise reduction, but (I guess) the software did not tell about that.

Unfortunately, paternalizing and misleading the user is a quite common habit of raw processors.

[Paul2660]

Guy,  
I hope you will post some examples from the Horseman either here or on your site!

Thanks
Paul C

[EricWHiss]

Looking great! I'm glad my post could inspire you to start experimenting. Did you try and develop it in C1 3.8 too? If not, you should try it and see which one you like best. I played around with your photo a little, hope you don't mind. It's quite a nice capture, I especially like it in B/W.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No don't mind at all and thanks! Would not have tried this were it not for your post.  

I did just now try the same image in C1 3.8 DB  The B&W conversion using the B&W film looks and also using the panachromatic color profile looks good, but I think now seeing both I can say the noise handing of C1 4.1 is better.   There is are a few vertical bands in the image in 3.78 DB that I didn't notice in 4.1  

amsp, which do you prefer  3.78 or 4.1?

[Ray]

Please show me the DSLR which produces better IQ than this ISO 800 sample from a MFDB.

This is at 100% which is not a true comparison, because the image size of the MFDB is so much larger:

[attachment=6705:attachment]

And this is a 100% crop when reduced to 16MP (more like a high end DSLR):

[attachment=6706:attachment]

NO noise reduction used in either sample.

Honestly I couldn't ask for more at ISO 800 and I hope this kills the prevailing "MFDB can't compare to DSLR at high ISO" myth. It used to be true but not any more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Graham,
The new king of the block with regard to high ISO performance is the Nikon D3 with an effective, analog-gain based ISO up to ISO 6400 plus a couple of more 'false' ISO settings up to 25,600, which are basically ISO 6400 underesposed by one or two stops.

It would be interesting to compare the image quality of identical scenes with identical exposures, using a DB and the Nikon D3, because that's the only way one could get a meaningful comparison.

As one moves up the ISO scale, deterioration of image quality is always first noticeable in the shadows. If you choose your subject well, have lighting which is even, no deep shadows or bright highlights, it's often possible to get surprisingly good results at high ISO, with any camera.

Another issue, which I alluded to earlier, is the fact that at base ISO the DB produces images with greater dynamic range than any 35mm DSLR. If we consider that the DR of the Nikon D3 is 9 to 10 stops, then the DR of a Phase DB is probably 11 to 12 stops using the same measurement standard, ie. about 2 stops more.

As a consequence of this fact, it is reasonable to suppose that one should be able to raise ISO on a DB by 2 stops above base ISO and still get image quality which is no worse than that from a 35mm DSLR used at base ISO, with regard to tonality and shadow noise. If the DB has substantially more pixels than the DSLR (which is usually the case), then resolution in the brighter parts of the scene should still be better than the DSLR.

The issue here, as I see it (let's pretend I know something), is how the camera handles that underexposure. From my own experience with cameras such as the Canon 20D and 5D, it is clear that image quality is significantly better at high ISO than the same exposure used at low ISO. Ie. Image quality at ISO 800 is significantly better than at ISO 100 using the same exposure, which means underexposure by 3 stops.

As I understand it, this improvement at high ISO (in Canon DSLRs) is not due merely to software manipulation, but is hard-wired into the sensor's electronics. I get the impression that such technology is possible (or at least easier to implement) in the CMOS type sensor rather than the CCD sensor of the DB.

If you want to do a meaningful experiment, try comparing an image from your DB underexposed at base ISO, with the same scene at the same exposure but correctly exposed at a higher ISO. Is there any improvement in image quality at the higher ISO setting after appropriate post processing? Edmund found there wasn't.

[thsinar]

Dear Panopeeper,

this is absolutely not true, and I wish to insist on it: there is no NR applied in the Brumbaer "eMotion DNG Converter" tool: we have had this discussion on another forum and I have given you the explanation(s) why it does not happen. Please refer to my post:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1846

But I will let Stefan Hess together with Rainer Viertlböck speak about this, who are both members on this forum, if they wish to intervene, since they are the ones having created this tool together, as such much more able to speak about it.

Also, your second last sentence does suggest that sharpening is taking place somewhere during DNG conversion, if I understand you right. No, that's not the case at all, there is no sharpening done in either Brumbaer's DNG Converter nor in Sinar eXposure.

I wish also to make something very clear here, since it seems to be misunderstood by you:

Although the Brumbaer "eMotion DNG Converter" tool does read, handle and convert eMotion and other Sinarbacks raw files, although I have myself and in many occasions praised and still am praising the quality of the DNGs produced by the Brumbaer, as well as the simple, and most fast and efficient workflow I have ever seen from ANY application in the market, I have to emphasize here that Sinar DOES NOT by any means SUPPORT this tool and it is NOT a Sinar application.

The Brumbaer "eMotion DNG Converter" from Stefan Hess is an application standing on its "own", developed and written by Stefan Hess and Rainer Viertlböck, both members on this forum, for the purpose to be able to handle eMotion files (and now as well other Sinarback files) with the best possible IQ quality and fastest possible workflow when needing to apply "white shadings" (very useful for architecture photography). It is however, though not supported by Sinar, still today the most powerful tool I know, praised by all who are using it.

As a consequence, and even though this Brumbaer toold DOES NOT apply any NR during conversion into DNG, I feel the sentence you have used, "Unfortunately, paternalizing and misleading the user is a quite common habit of raw processors" absolutely wrong and misleading in itself.

I would expect it to be taken away, if aimed at Sinar, for the rightness and truth. And I believe Stefan Hess, as well as Rainer Viertlböck might wish to jump in here to give their own comments about it.

Where I do absolutely agree with you, is when you are saying that many users do not know (without meaning this negatively) the characteristics of the camera/back fully.
Please do not use terms as "paternalizing" and "misleading" when you do not have the full details.

Thanks and best regards,
Thierry

PS: there is much more to say than what is presented here in a very "summarized" explanation, concerning "gain" and "sensitivity", in respect of their respective advantages AND disadvantages and the differences. BOTH have advantages BUT BOTH have disadvantages also.

A further source of misconception is the belief, that no sharpening took place yet. For example the image posted just above by Graham has undergone noise reduction, but (I guess) the software did not tell about that.

Unfortunately, paternalizing and misleading the user is a quite common habit of raw processors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Panopeeper]

I get the impression that such technology is possible (or at least easier to implement) in the CMOS type sensor rather than the CCD sensor of the DB

All pre-D300 Nikon sensors were CCDs, as are many other FFs, with real ISO gain. AFAIK the PhaseOnes have Kodak sensors, which too are CCDs, and those sensors do apply ISO gain.

[Ray]

All pre-D300 Nikon sensors were CCDs, as are many other FFs, with real ISO gain. AFAIK the PhaseOnes have Kodak sensors, which too are CCDs, and those sensors do apply ISO gain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe so, but pre-D300 Nikon cameras were not known for their stellar high ISO performance. Edmund has stated that his Phase P45 is maybe even better when underexposed 4 stops at ISO 50 than it is at ISO 800 with the same exposure.

[Graham Mitchell]

Graham,
The new king of the block with regard to high ISO performance is the Nikon D3

Ray, you seem to be missing something here. If I scale down the e75 ISO 800 image to the same size as a D3 image, the result becomes totally noiseless.

Here is 100% crop:

[Ray]

Ray, you seem to be missing something here. If I scale down the e75 ISO 800 image to the same size as a D3 image, the result becomes totally noiseless.

Here is 100% crop:


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Graham,
I understand quite well if you throw noise away, you don't have any. If you throw away resolution, you also don't have any.

It's probably not true that your sample image has no noise. But let's not quibble. If the noise is not noticeable or not a problem, then for practical purposes it doesn't exist.

Bt downscaling your e75 image to the same size as a D3 image, you've thrown away both resolution and noise. Your e75 image is now no worse than a D3 image, but perhaps no better either. We'd really have to see proper controlled comparisons to determine that.

You should also bear in mind that smaller formats have an ISO advantage over larger formats, provided the lenses for both formats have the equivalent range of apertures.

For example, using the Canon 85/1.2 lens at F1.4 with the 1Ds3 at ISO 400 would allow you to use the same shutter speed and get the same DoF as a 49x37mm DB with a 125mm lens at F2 and ISO 800. So that's the sort of meaningful comparison which should be made.

I'll suspend my opinion on the likely outcome till I see such a comparison.  

[thsinar]

I beg you humbly: please no 16 pages with over 300 replies like in a recent other thread and comparison!

 

Thanks,
Thierry

For example, using the Canon 85/1.2 lens at F1.4 with the 1Ds3 at ISO 400 would allow you to use the same shutter speed and get the same DoF as a 49x37mm DB with a 125mm lens at F2 and ISO 800. So that's the sort of meaningful comparison which should be made.

I'll suspend my opinion on the likely outcome till I see such a comparison. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[EricWHiss]

Ray all you do is take, you never give and you never let up.  You have twice as many posts as Michael himself.  And further still you don't even own or use a MF camera. What are you doing here? The basis of the forums is sharing. Now go to your room and don't come back until you have a MFDB and can add real data to these discussions.

[Ray]

Ray all you do is take, you never give and you never let up.  You have twice as many posts as Michael himself.  And further still you don't even own or use a MF camera. What are you doing here?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm learning, Eric. What are you doing here? It's true that I'm taking. I'm taking knowledge. But I'm also giving some back in return. A lot of my posts contain images demonstrating some photographic principle. Two posts ago I mentioned a principle that many of you MFDB owners appear not to be aware of.

Instead of being thanked, I seemed to get accused of being a troll. Some of you guys definitely have a problem.

[thsinar]

That's the most senseful answer one can expect.

Thierry

But let's not quibble. If the noise is not noticeable or not a problem, then for practical purposes it doesn't exist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

That's the most senseful answer one can expect.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Thierry. However, if any of you do take the trouble to compare DB noise with a 35mm DSLR, it's worth bearing in mind that, just as you wouldn't use the same aperture for same DoF (with same FoV subjects), you also wouldn't use the same ISO for same shutter speed.

I just mention this beforehand because we don't want a repition of the P21/1Ds3 debacle, do we?  

[thsinar]

THIS is clear in case we do such a test and, ABSOLUTELY, we don't want (a repetition)!

 

Thierry

I just mention this beforehand because we don't want a repition of the P21/1Ds3 debacle, do we? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]