Can Stitching 1DsMk3 files = Med Format Quality?

[pookipichu]

Daniel Buck from FM did a series of stitched photos using the 1DS2 and 85mm f/1.2, wide open.  It had an amazing 3D feel to it.   The wider FOV and narrow DOF gave it a MF "look".

[snickgrr]

Nature as in shooting pictures of birdies in trees or flowers?  Well I can see getting rid of the MF and going smaller.
I'm an experienced professional commercial photographer..26 years now shooting in SF and I would negate one your statements by saying "Buying my medium format digital system was the best thing I ever did".

[Ken Doo]

Buying both a MFDB and a 1Ds Mark III was the best thing that I ever did.

 

[Andy M]

Daniel Buck from FM did a series of stitched photos using the 1DS2 and 85mm f/1.2, wide open.  It had an amazing 3D feel to it.   The wider FOV and narrow DOF gave it a MF "look".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You you by any chance have a link?

[Panopeeper]

The so-called 3D look is not the product of DoF, but the wide angle view coupled with rectilinear projection. Most panoramic images are made with cylindrical projection, which is better for details, but it has a different effect. Plus, I guess thouse without a TS lens regard the perspective distortion as 3D effect as well.

[Mort54]

I recently did a side-by-side comparison of the Hasselblad H3D2 with 39 MP back and my Canon 1DsMk3.

Hello Henry. Were you at the Frans Lanting seminar in St. Louis back in March? I think we may have exchanged pleasantries. Or maybe it was the Art Wolf seminar last year.

Anyway, I will probably get flamed by others on this forum for saying this, but there is some merit in what you are saying. I've done my own comparison between my D3 and my P45+ on my Mamiya 645AFD II. Using different focal lengths to ensure that I got the same number of pixels on the same field of view, I compared "pixel quality". I was fully expecting the P45+ to blow away my D3 at the pixel level, but it didn't. The P45+, at the pixel level, was better (crisper, mostly), but not dramatically so. In 14-bit mode, the D3 has tremendous ability to pull clean detail out of the shadows without suffering posterization and other artifacts. In that regard, I'd say it's on a par with my P45+. And the D3 actually has a little more highlight headroom than my P45+, so in that sense, the D3 is actually a bit better (tho again, the difference is slight). If the D3 sensor didn't have an AA filter, I'd say the pixel level quality would be a wash. I can't speak to the 1DsIII, but I would expect it to be similar.

Now, having said that, there are of course caveats. Obviously, if I were using both systems from the same place and shooting the same composition, the higher resolution of the MFDB is going to blow my D3 (and even your 1DsIII) away. Given that pixel quality is comparable, however, you could stitch and get almost the level of quality AND resolution of the MFDB. But stitching always makes life more complicated. Much more post processing. Difficulty with dealing with things moving in the frame between stitch shots. And there's the time factor - catching that fleeting light when you have to take a bunch of shots is obviously pretty difficult. All in all, stitching can get you a lot, but it comes at a high price, and many times just isn't practical. For all these reasons, I won't be giving up my P45+. And for landscape shooting, I would never use the D3 if I have the P45+ available, even if stiching were an option (remember, I can also stitch with the P45+ for even higher resolution).

The bottom line is that modern 35mm DSLRs with low noise sensors and true 14-bit low noise A/Ds deliver very very good pixel quality. Shadow detail retrieval is excellent. Color is very comparable. I feel that if it weren't for the AA filter, the latest high-end DSLRs would essentially match the pixel quality of MFDBs. The two big advantage MFDBs still have over high end DSLRs is resolution (due to the MPs) and crispness (due to the lack of an AA filter). For me at least, those two advantages, plus the issues with stitching, makes the P45+ a no-brainer for those high detail shots.

Regards,
Mort.

P.S. I should point out that I use my P45+ for landscapes. I am a resolution and crispness junkie, and if I had the patience, I'd be shooting 8 x 10 view cameras. So my D3 (and probably your 1DsIII) would always be lacking for me, even with stitching. If I were a studio shooter, with optimal lighting and high speed strobes, which I think might play to MFDBs strong points, or if I were shooting better glass than the Mamiya stuff I have (35 AF, 55-110, 80 AF, and 150 AF), I expect I would see a greater difference between my D3 and P45+ at the pixel level in favor of the P45+. This is one reason I am mulling switching my P45+ to Alpa or Cambo bodies and Rodenstock HR lenses.

[TechTalk]

Simply put, with regard to image quality comparison, stitching images only increases the number of pixels. All other image quality differences that are seen in unstitched images will remain the same (with the possible exception of noise).

[hdomke]

I asked Kevin Sink, a successful nature photographer in Kansas City what he thought about this thread. Here is his email to me.

"Anyway, all of it is interesting but I think a bit silly.  Shouldn't all you people be out shooting or working on images?  Just kidding, sort of.  For me, it comes down to just a ludicrous amount of money to spend on a camera.  I mean really, how many trips to Patagonia could you take for the difference in price?  All the arguments point to slightly better detail in the MF shadows, but shouldn't we all be griping to the manufacturers about how much these backs are? 

Its just gotten so extreme I've lost my taste for the sharpness bleeding edge.... it all comes down to image capture anyway.  Sometimes I feel like a manipulated gerbil - if you pay us this much more, you'll be a better photographer!!!  Its about the craft of the artistic process, not chasing technology into bankruptcy!!  Too harsh??"


Note: He has used Medium Format for years and is now using a Phase One Digital back.

[TechTalk]

I asked Kevin Sink, a successful nature photographer in Kansas City what he thought about this thread. Here is his email to me.

Note: He has used Medium Format for years and is now using a Phase One Digital back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please modify your post above as the quote appears to be from me WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT! Thanks.

[DesW]

This is one reason I am mulling switching my P45+ to Alpa or Cambo bodies and Rodenstock HR lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201573\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Hi there,

I have tested side by side on landscapes/foliage/ etc

H2 Blad /35/80/120 lenses Phase P45

Canon 1Ds II and III  with Canon WA's and Leica WA's
( the Leica 19 MM  leaves the Canons in the dust here!)

Mamiya 645II with 28/35/80 lenses Phase P45+

Both single frame and Stitched files in Realviz

Against

Alpa SWA with P45+ and 24/35/47/90/180 Schneider Apo Digitars

Both single frame and Stitched files in Realviz

All  files processed out in C1 or RAW Dev

Output to 200CM on our in house Lightjet Printer/ Fuji Archival Paper

The Schneiders blow the others away--period

Des W

[hdomke]

Please modify your post above as the quote appears to be from me WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT! Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

TechTalk,
Sorry. I did not mean to suggest it was you. I don't know how to edit my post. Tell me how to do it and I will change it.

[TechTalk]

TechTalk,
Sorry. I did not mean to suggest it was you. I don't know how to edit my post. Tell me how to do it and I will change it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Click the "Edit" button on your post, remove my name and then click "Submit Modified Post"  button below. Thanks.

[Ray]

Simply put, with regard to image quality comparison, stitching images only increases the number of pixels. All other image quality differences that are seen in unstitched images will remain the same (with the possible exception of noise).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't believe that's quite right. Stitching not only increases the number of pixels but effectively increases the size of the sensor since each single image that is part of the resulting stitch is the product a sensor of a specific size.

Larger sensors usually have the advantage of greater dynamic range because they have a larger light-gathering area. That advantage disappears in comparison with a stitched image fom the smaller sensor.

Not only that, the reverse can be true when exposure is on automatic mode. Whilst conventional advice dictates that one use the same exposure for each shot to be stitched, one can increase dynamic range by using the camera in aperture priority mode so that dark parts of the scene receive a greater exposure and the brighter parts, such as a sky, receive less exposure.

This approach requires greater preparation of the images before stitching but is quite workable with modern stitching programs.

[Nick Rains]

Larger sensors usually have the advantage of greater dynamic range because they have a larger light-gathering area. That advantage disappears in comparison with a stitched image fom the smaller sensor.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, it's not the sensor size that matters, but the size of the photosites within the sensor. MFDBs have bigger photosites and thus need a bigger area to contain whatever number of them. This is what gives them the DR advantage, not the overall dimensions of the sensor.

[EricWHiss]

Those DR tests are done with the standard ISO definition of Dynamic range which while technically accurate are not useful for photographic comparisons.  You'll see tons of tests all over the internet that show the 1D3 to have almost 12 stops too seemingly more DR that MFDB but in reality their useful DR is more like 9 stops.
If you want to believe a magazine article go ahead but I've tested this myself with Imatest software and a tranmissive step wedge.   I have not tested the 1Ds3 personally but its reported to have less DR than the 1D3 which I did test - a trade off for more pixel density.     Even the older phase backs from 2005 have more than 2 stops of useful DR and in some cases closer to 3 stops advantage over the 1Ds3.    As is the case with the forums there will always be a Ray that wants to argue without testing - discarding other posters real information for their own speculation. I'm not going to go out of my way to do more tests or post endlessly - I'm just saying I've tested it myself with a controlled and rigorous test and there is a significant difference between the top DSLR's and even older MFDB in terms of DR.  And actually the differences in color - smoothness of subtle color are just as big or bigger.   On top of that you have the different lenses and magnification factors that also change the look.  

There will still be the Ray's that will continue to argue - and there may be a few scenes/circumstances where you will get the same result but its only a few and i'm confident that in the majority of shots that a Stitched DSLR image is not going to equal a MFDB image.   A low contrast scene without any movement that can be shot at f/8 or wider ... maybe something like that it will work.  But anyone with a MFDB could also shoot the same scene and stitch their shots too and end up with a better file.  

If you are still skeptical go rent a MFDB and shoot some different scenes and see for yourself.

[Ray]

Ray, it's not the sensor size that matters, but the size of the photosites within the sensor. MFDBs have bigger photosites and thus need a bigger area to contain whatever number of them. This is what gives them the DR advantage, not the overall dimensions of the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick,
That might be partly true if we make a distinction between pixel size and pixel pitch. The pitch of the pixel relates to the number of pixels on the sensor. The pixels on Canon's first DSLR, the 3mp D30, were larger than the pixels on its 3rd DSLR, the 6mp D60, yet the dynamic range of the D60 was not less as a result.

The pixel pitch of the Phase One P45+ is very similar to the pixel pitch of the 1Ds3. Stitch two 1Ds3 sensors together and you have basically a P45+ in terms of both sensor size and pixel count.

I don't have any information on the DR differences between a single P45+ CCD pixel and a single 1Ds3 CMOS pixel. All else being equal, one might expect the P45 pixel to have a higher DR because the photoreceptor is a CCD with a greater fill factor than the smaller photodiode of the 1Ds3, which has to make room for other processing devices under the one microlens.

However, the very presence of other processors next to each photodiode is the strength of the CMOS sensor, and that is partly responsible for its low noise, which in turn affects dynamic range.

One could easily test this by taking two shots, one with a 1Ds3 and one with a P45+ using the same focal length lens from the same position. The P45 sensor is 48x36 and the 35mm sensor 24x36. One could turn the 1Ds3 vertically for the shot, then crop the P45 image in two. One could then compare the two images which effectively are from the same size sensor and consist of the same number of pixels.

It might be the case that the P45 image, cut in half, still has a slight DR advantage as a result of the greater exposure afforded by its lower base ISO of 50. It would be interesting to see the difference.

Nevertheless, setting aside such differences between the CCD and the CMOS design, the light gathering capacity of the sensor is largely dependent upon sensor size rather than pixel size, all else being equal.

[BernardLanguillier]

Ray, it's not the sensor size that matters, but the size of the photosites within the sensor. MFDBs have bigger photosites and thus need a bigger area to contain whatever number of them. This is what gives them the DR advantage, not the overall dimensions of the sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which is why I' rather stitch with a Nikon D3 than with a P45+...

Besides, PTgui Enfuse algo implementation makes DR limitations pretty much a thing of the past. Just shoot 3 frames at each location of your pano and you can reach results that even the best 22MP MFDB cannot dream of achieving in terms of highlight and shadow detail.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Nemo]

12 bit:   4,096 shades of grey per channel.
14 bit: 16,384 shades of grey per channel.
16 bit: 65,536 shades of grey per channel.

16 bit will lend itself to greater shadow detail

Noise destroys much tonal detail in the shadows. I think a 16 bit 39MP camera cannot provide a diferent result than a 14bit 39MP camera. Maybe there is a difference in a MF 22MP camera at very low ISOs. I doubt it.

Read this superb document about noise:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...oise/index.html

R.

[eronald]

Ok, that's the theory - now how about you check that it is really so in practice ?

I've tested the 1Ds3 and found that cropping *pixel to pixel* (same image features on same pixels) my Mamiya beat it. Not only on file quality (color and DR) but also on actual detail !

The Canon sensor is a compromise design - CMOS, microlenses, low-pass filter, small cells, NR etc all suck detail and DR away.

Edmund

I think some MFDB users in this thread still haven't grasped the relationship between sensor size and resolution.

The fundamentals with regard to resolution, DoF and even dynamic range are the same in the sense that a P45 is basically two 1Ds3 sensors joined together.

If the resulting image comes from two sensors stitched together, or two images from the separate sensors stitched together, the result is basically the same, provided the same lens is used

Whilst it's true that a P45 has 16 bit processing, considering all the puzzlement about the expected improvement of 14 bit over 12 bit in recent 35mm DSLRs, it's doubtful that the 16 bit of the P45 compared with the 14 bit processing of the 1Ds3 would be noticeable.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[hdomke]

Noise destroys much tonal detail in the shadows. I think a 16 bit 39MP camera cannot provide a diferent result than a 14bit 39MP camera. Maybe there is a difference in a MF 22MP camera at very low ISOs. I doubt it.

Read this superb document about noise:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/te...oise/index.html

R.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nemo,
Thanks for the link to the article. It looks very impressive! However, it is a bit overwhelming for someone who is not an academic deeply versed in statistics. Perhaps you (or someone else) could summarize the take-home points from this article. After skimming the article, here are some specific questions:
1. In the real world, will prints from a 16-bit capture show more dynamic range than from a 14-bit capture?
2. What are the implications of this paper on "Expose to the Right"?
3. What are the implications of this paper on selecting the right ISO in low-light situations?