Topic: RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+ (Read 124451 times)

203 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2008, 01:43:49 pm »

Here are a couple more files, this time from the H2 with the same Phase P30+ back, and with more comparable cropping.

Canon:

https://download.yousendit.com/781BD1FF45987C57

Phase:

https://download.yousendit.com/12343CDC4F46AFAB

Panopeeper · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2008, 02:40:21 pm »

Quote

Here are a couple more files, this time from the H2 with the same Phase P30+ back, and with more comparable cropping.

There is a serious problem with the back on the H2. Look at the fine histograms; the first one is the P30+ on the H2, the second one is the P30+ on the Mamiya.

I have reason to believe, that this is caused by a faulty connection somewhere. The consequence of this error can be posterization.

Added: and as it is visible, this defect adds horrendeous noise.

203 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2008, 03:18:09 pm »

Here's a C1 conversion (100% crop) of both files, with the 1Ds resized larger to match the Phase...so this is the equivalent of viewing a 9.5 foot print from 12" away - as rendered on your 72 ppi monitor:

TMARK · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2008, 04:42:33 pm »

Quote

Here's a C1 conversion (100% crop) of both files, with the 1Ds resized larger to match the Phase...so this is the equivalent of viewing a 9.5 foot print from 12" away - as rendered on your 72 ppi monitor:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think the Phase file is sharpened at all. When looking at the sharpened Phase file last night I got Moire in the texture of the lizard's skin. Much, much sharper that these crops.

That being said, the ds3 crop looks a little over sharpened, but holds up well.

203 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2008, 04:48:25 pm »

Quote

I don't think the Phase file is sharpened at all. When looking at the sharpened Phase file last night I got Moire in the texture of the lizard's skin. Much, much sharper that these crops.

That being said, the ds3 crop looks a little over sharpened, but holds up well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I saw moire in the Phase too, in the sandbag on the floor, so I didn't want to over sharpen anything. I also found that halos show up pretty quickly, so I backed off the sharpening. (thus the RAW files are posted...) And I think part of the reason the 1Ds look over sharpened is because it has been enlarged to this ridiculous level so the diagonal lines can go a bit jaggy, and we are pixel peeping at 100% ;-)

Anyway, I am doing this testing only because my business model dictates that before I invest in another system, I should see some proof. Proof that it will make my images better somehow, in the real world. Is the resolution or sharpness actually better that my old Leaf back, or my Canons? Will that show in print? How about the D.R. – is that better? How much better? Would $30K be better spent flying around the world shooting images for my portfolios?

RobertJ · « **Reply #25 on:** June 19, 2008, 05:21:52 pm »

Quote

Would $30K be better spent flying around the world shooting images for my portfolios?

Yeah, I actually think it would.

TMARK · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2008, 07:22:47 pm »

Quote

Yes I saw moire in the Phase too, in the sandbag on the floor, so I didn't want to over sharpen anything. I also found that halos show up pretty quickly, so I backed off the sharpening. (thus the RAW files are posted...) And I think part of the reason the 1Ds look over sharpened is because it has been enlarged to this ridiculous level so the diagonal lines can go a bit jaggy, and we are pixel peeping at 100% ;-)

Anyway, I am doing this testing only because my business model dictates that before I invest in another system, I should see some proof. Proof that it will make my images better somehow, in the real world. Is the resolution or sharpness actually better that my old Leaf back, or my Canons? Will that show in print? How about the D.R. – is that better? How much better? Would $30K be better spent flying around the world shooting images for my portfolios?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No question the MFDB files are better than 35mm dig files, to me anyway. But, CMYK web press magazine printed, who cares. DS1, ds2, ds3, 5d, P45 whatever. 14 stops of DR is great but you are always limited to what, a three stop range of ink black and (crappy) paper white in a magazine? I looked at some images I shot with the P30 that were printed on a web press and, well, they could have been shot on 645 film, or maybe good scans of 35mm chromes. What MF offers, and is reproduced on a web press, is the look of MF, the look of the lenses and the larger sensor. That is what's important with an MFDB, to me. (Shoot a girl under hard, contrasty lights and retouch it. That's where you'll see a big difference in file quality). So, in short, I would take the cash and finance some editorials for Mixte or L'Official or French or Dazed etc., have a web site redesign and a party kicking it off at Lit/Fuse, Mars Bar, or 124 Rabbit Club or something. That will make you more money than a back.

Ray · « **Reply #27 on:** June 19, 2008, 07:27:25 pm »

Quote

Why is the file on the left magenta?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since I was pressed for time, I just converted both images in ACR using auto settings and 'as shot' white balance. I've addressed only shadow noise in those crops. I noticed the magenta hue in the P30 crop and I would definitely correct that when assessing the entire image for resolution and other qualities, which I will do later. I would also like to downsample the P30 file to the same size as the 1Ds3 file to see if the noise difference remains the same.

The 1Ds3 image does have slightly more banding in those crops, but it's not significant. I find it necessary to engage in a bit of pixel peeping in order to determine if differences are of pixel-peeping proportions or not. In my view the shadow noise differences in these shots are of pixel-peeping proportions and would not be noticeable even in a large print. A crop at 100% magnification on the avarage monitor is representative of a really huge print.

skid00skid00 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2008, 08:27:17 pm »

Quote

Is anyone able to assess dynamic rance differences from these files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I matched levels across both images (the raws appear to have different tone curves applied to the *raw* data), making white backdrop, grey card, and deep shadows the same brightness.

The DB was obviously shot hotter, *and* had more blacks in the histogram.
That would mean it has LESS DR.

I also think the Canon has a larger DR, since it can go to 3200 ISO, with cleaner shadows. I suspect Canon can easily outspend and outtech the DB makers.

skid00skid00 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 19, 2008, 08:31:04 pm »

Quote

I don't think the Phase file is sharpened at all. When looking at the sharpened Phase file last night I got Moire in the texture of the lizard's skin. Much, much sharper that these crops.

That being said, the ds3 crop looks a little over sharpened, but holds up well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Look at the far right (mac?) keyboard. The Canon is much sharper. Is the Canon backfocused?

skid00skid00 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2008, 08:38:37 pm »

Quote

Also from a purely esthetic look the P30 file has a more real look - check out the red apple on the left side - color is more real in the p30 as there is more detail.
lastly we don't need another forum for DSLR vs MFDB we just need another forum for Ray.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see a slightly more saturated, slightly different hue in the P30, but not much:
[attachment=7113:attachment]

G_Allen · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2008, 09:42:57 pm »

Quote

No question the MFDB files are better than 35mm dig files, to me anyway. But, CMYK web press magazine printed, who cares. DS1, ds2, ds3, 5d, P45 whatever. 14 stops of DR is great but you are always limited to what, a three stop range of ink black and (crappy) paper white in a magazine? I looked at some images I shot with the P30 that were printed on a web press and, well, they could have been shot on 645 film, or maybe good scans of 35mm chromes. What MF offers, and is reproduced on a web press, is the look of MF, the look of the lenses and the larger sensor. That is what's important with an MFDB, to me. (Shoot a girl under hard, contrasty lights and retouch it. That's where you'll see a big difference in file quality). So, in short, I would take the cash and finance some editorials for Mixte or L'Official or French or Dazed etc., have a web site redesign and a party kicking it off at Lit/Fuse, Mars Bar, or 124 Rabbit Club or something. That will make you more money than a back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed, and seldom mentioned.

The real advantage for medium format, in my work, is the difference in "look" or the perspective of the lenses. The differences in resolution and color are not important to me -- most of my work is for print (magazines or advertising) and has plenty of post-production.

I routinely use my 1DsII and the H2/P30+ in the same shoots -- their strengths are in their differences. Different tools, different applications.

The Canon is great in a certain type of morning or late afternoon window light, or open shade. It is predictable and performs extremely well, handles well, and allows me to more more freely with the subject.

With the Phase, I feel more connected to the process of image-making, feeling the image in the viewfinder as I press the shutter. The file are more flexible in post, and I prefer the perspective of the longer medium format lenses. But I find myself focusing on the camera more than I would like -- the whole system is really heavy, and I have to pay more attention to the autofocus. If only the H body had an extra focus point to focus on faces in verticals...

In the studio, and most cases on location, the difference in quality is worth it. But, most of that advantage is only for me to see -- once printed, the only difference that anyone will notice is the difference in perspectives or "look" between medium format and 35mm.

Just as it's always been, film or digital.

JeffKohn · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2008, 10:07:22 pm »

Quote

The real advantage for medium format, in my work, is the difference in "look" or the perspective of the lenses. The differences in resolution and color are not important to me -- most of my work is for print (magazines or advertising) and has plenty of post-production.

<snip>

In the studio, and most cases on location, the difference in quality is worth it. But, most of that advantage is only for me to see -- once printed, the only difference that anyone will notice is the difference in perspectives or "look" between medium format and 35mm.

Just as it's always been, film or digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by the 'look' of medium format, but since you mention the word 'perspective' twice I'm wondering if you're somehow under the impression that perspective has anything to do with lens or format size. Perspective is defined by camera to subject distance, and nothing else. So unless you're talking about shallow DOF, I'm curious what exactly you mean.

If you are talking about DOF, then I suppose that may be a legitimate difference, but only if there is no lens for the 35mm system that will allow you to achieve the combination of perspective, field of view, and depth of field that you get with your MF lens.

Panopeeper · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2008, 10:32:51 pm »

Quote

I'm wondering if you're somehow under the impression that perspective has anything to do with lens or format size

That is a common misconception, but it is more surprizing here, on a "professional" forum, than for example on DPReview.

TMARK · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2008, 10:48:18 pm »

Quote

It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by the 'look' of medium format, but since you mention the word 'perspective' twice I'm wondering if you're somehow under the impression that perspective has anything to do with lens or format size. Perspective is defined by camera to subject distance, and nothing else. So unless you're talking about shallow DOF, I'm curious what exactly you mean.

If you are talking about DOF, then I suppose that may be a legitimate difference, but only if there is no lens for the 35mm system that will allow you to achieve the combination of perspective, field of view, and depth of field that you get with your MF lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

MF looks different. It is the DOF but more the focus fall off. Its different than 35 or a disc camera or 4x5. Its also in the lenses themselves, in that they are better than most 35mm lenses.

But look, I'm not trying to convince anyone. If you can't see a difference in looks in photographs produced by different formats, then don't sweat it. You won't need to get one.

TMARK · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2008, 11:23:10 pm »

Quote

That is a common misconception, but it is more surprizing here, on a "professional" forum, than for example on DPReview.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the tone of your comment was uncalled for.

Frank Doorhof · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2008, 10:27:25 am »

When you closely look at the files and the lizzard you can see that with the MFD the lizzard is more LOOSE from the background while on the other shot it's more part of the background.

This for me is the great appeal for MFD, it gives the pictures a more 3D look and not the flat.

This is even better see when going even bigger to for example a 6x7 camera with film.

James R Russell · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2008, 10:59:34 am »

Quote

When you closely look at the files and the lizzard you can see that with the MFD the lizzard is more LOOSE from the background while on the other shot it's more part of the background.

This for me is the great appeal for MFD, it gives the pictures a more 3D look and not the flat.

This is even better see when going even bigger to for example a 6x7 camera with film.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know what you guys are seeing but throwing focus with medium format digital, especially the medium format lenses that only go to 2.8 or 3.5 is not that spectacular and compared to the 35mm lenses that go to 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 medium format doesn't have that much if any advantage.

[a href=\"http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html]http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html[/url]

Keep in mind that 645 is the smallest of the medium format frames and the sensors we have now aren't even full 645 so you always working at a greater distance from the subject.

If it wasn't for cost, I'm sure there would be a complete rethink of the lenses, given the sensor sizes we have now.

Granted at the same f stop a larger format size will throw more focus, but you can always move the numbers to get a look.

I can give you a lot of reasons to shoot a medium format back, but the "3d look" whatever that means isn't necessarily one of them.

Where medium format does have an advantage is if you shoot to a vertical page, as you don't have to keep walking backwards to fit the page, though this advantage works completely opposite when you go horizontal for double truck.

JR

JR

203 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2008, 11:35:09 am »

Quote

When you closely look at the files and the lizzard you can see that with the MFD the lizzard is more LOOSE from the background while on the other shot it's more part of the background.

This for me is the great appeal for MFD, it gives the pictures a more 3D look and not the flat.

This is even better see when going even bigger to for example a 6x7 camera with film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202564\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?

Snook · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2008, 12:09:57 pm »

Quote

Just out of curiosity, do any of these look "3-D"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

203 Great Shot's..
Specially the second one, the african? girl, Just beautiful!!
The lighting is great..
Is it window light camera left and fill with CT gel?
Looks very nice..
Snook

Author Topic: RAW files: 1Ds3 and Phase P30+ (Read 124451 times)

203

203

203

203

Snook