Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 21   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?  (Read 87745 times)

Professional

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 309
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2009, 07:25:10 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi!

1) DxO mark is essentially about noise related issues
2) If you really check DxO-mark there is a "screen" and a "print" option, the difference is that "print" option normalizes noise a standard resolution. Screen corresponds to actual pixels whereas "print" corresponds to what would be seen in a print.
3) DxO-mark is based on the "print" option as DxO regards this to be the relevant parameter

DxO mark has nothing to do with sharpness, resolution and so on.


Best regards
Erik

Thanks for that, Erik!

Best Regards,
Tareq
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2009, 01:44:42 pm »

If you search the forums for "DXO" +  "medium format"  you'll find many sage posts explaining why DXO's measurements don't make a valid comparison between DSLR files and MFDB.  The crux is that most MFDB back makers handle noise processing outside the camera in the RAW software while most DSLR makers do noise reduction on the chip - before you even get the RAW file.  This results in an apparently cleaner DSLR file and better DXO numbers than MFDB.  But once the MFDB file is run through the software the same work is done to it.  Hence, without using the recommend software,  its easy for the wrong conclusion to be made.  If one goes to the trouble to develop the RAW files in the proprietary MFDB software then a much better result for MFDB files will be seen and the comparison to DSLR is much more fair (since they already had their noise reduction and file handing done).    Since DXO does not make RAW handling software for MFDB cameras, I would guess they don't care to correct their mistake since this is not important to them and in fact even helps them by falsely showing some DSLR's to be better cameras than they are.  Another way that DXO numbers are not useful is in the DR measurement - they use a standard that's technically correct for signal processing, but not very useful to photographers.  Where they to use a different and perhaps more appropriate threshold the results would be much different.    But again I'm not posting to get into a discussion or prove anything.  If you are curious about this, do your own research.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 01:48:42 pm by EricWHiss »
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2009, 06:11:00 pm »

Quote from: EricWHiss
If you search the forums for "DXO" +  "medium format"  you'll find many sage posts explaining why DXO's measurements don't make a valid comparison between DSLR files and MFDB.  The crux is that most MFDB back makers handle noise processing outside the camera in the RAW software while most DSLR makers do noise reduction on the chip - before you even get the RAW file.  This results in an apparently cleaner DSLR file and better DXO numbers than MFDB.  But once the MFDB file is run through the software the same work is done to it.  Hence, without using the recommend software,  its easy for the wrong conclusion to be made.  If one goes to the trouble to develop the RAW files in the proprietary MFDB software then a much better result for MFDB files will be seen and the comparison to DSLR is much more fair (since they already had their noise reduction and file handing done).    Since DXO does not make RAW handling software for MFDB cameras, I would guess they don't care to correct their mistake since this is not important to them and in fact even helps them by falsely showing some DSLR's to be better cameras than they are.  Another way that DXO numbers are not useful is in the DR measurement - they use a standard that's technically correct for signal processing, but not very useful to photographers.  Where they to use a different and perhaps more appropriate threshold the results would be much different.

You might be correct, but this has never been demonstrated by anobody in a convincing way using real world sample images (or test images for that matter).

The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.

But again, no need to speculate, I would prefer to stick to facts and convincing real world images shot in the same conditions, at the same time on the same subject would be good enough for me.

Cheers,
Bernard

gdwhalen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173
    • http://www.gdwhalen.com
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2009, 06:17:24 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You might be correct, but this has never been demonstrated by anobody in a convincing way using real world sample images (or test images for that matter).

The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.

But again, no need to speculate, I would prefer to stick to facts and convincing real world images shot in the same conditions, at the same time on the same subject would be good enough for me.

Cheers,
Bernard


Not to be mean or anything but anyone that would buy a lens based on a DxO report or other lens chart is out of their minds.  Too many resources within the industry to not try a piece of equipment out personally and make a judgment for yourself.  Relying on others to make decisions for you is a recipe for failure.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2009, 06:42:59 pm »

Bernard,

For some reason that never seems to happen. We don't have any P65 owners with access to a D3X or Canon D1sIII or Sony ALpha 900 and a balcony with a view?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
You might be correct, but this has never been demonstrated by anobody in a convincing way using real world sample images (or test images for that matter).

The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.

But again, no need to speculate, I would prefer to stick to facts and convincing real world images shot in the same conditions, at the same time on the same subject would be good enough for me.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2009, 06:44:33 pm »

Dunno, MTF charts say a lot, but there are other parameters and also sample variation. Lens choices are not unlimited, probably just a few lenses for your needs.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: gdwhalen
Not to be mean or anything but anyone that would buy a lens based on a DxO report or other lens chart is out of their minds.  Too many resources within the industry to not try a piece of equipment out personally and make a judgment for yourself.  Relying on others to make decisions for you is a recipe for failure.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 06:46:01 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2009, 06:45:32 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The shadows of these DSLRs measures at 13 stops DR by DxO don't show any sign of smearing and it is difficult to imagine how software based noise removal could do a significantly better job.
That's not the point. The point is that MFDB files are measured without an equivalent NR so that the comparision on DXO is pointless.


Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2009, 06:46:08 pm »

Quote from: gdwhalen
Not to be mean or anything but anyone that would buy a lens based on a DxO report or other lens chart is out of their minds.  Too many resources within the industry to not try a piece of equipment out personally and make a judgment for yourself.  Relying on others to make decisions for you is a recipe for failure.

Even if one were to believe that measurements done by others reflect reality, these measurements typically show various weaknesses, and only the user can know which one is impacting for his applications and make a decision based on that.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2009, 07:29:13 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
That's not the point. The point is that MFDB files are measured without an equivalent NR so that the comparision on DXO is pointless.

Well fine, show me another comparison that prooves your point. Let's end these discussions once for all with facts that don't require a trained eye.

Cheers,
Bernard

asf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
    • http://www.adamfriedberg.com
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2009, 08:58:46 pm »

Or just ask people with sensitive eyes
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #70 on: September 14, 2009, 09:23:55 pm »

Quote from: asf
Or just ask people with sensitive eyes

Absolutely, same shooting conditions, P65+ vs D3x, same raw converter (or raw file) and we can all use our trained eyes. What is to be feared?

Cheers,
Bernard

Jim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
    • http://
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #71 on: September 14, 2009, 09:26:29 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Absolutely, same shooting conditions, P65+ vs D3x, same raw converter (or raw file) and we can all use our trained eyes. What is to be feared?

Cheers,
Bernard
I fear that I don't have a D3X nor P65+
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #72 on: September 14, 2009, 09:29:54 pm »

Quote from: Jim2
I fear that I don't have a D3X nor P65+

Oops...

Doug or somebody from Phaseone, any way you can put me in touch with a P65+ owner in Tokyo?

Cheers,
Bernard

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #73 on: September 14, 2009, 09:38:15 pm »

Quote from: asf
Or just ask people with sensitive eyes


Lets give helpful hint; By chance have there been many pros with a 22MP or higher Leaf, Phase One, Hassy or Sinar advocate that image quality of 20+MPs DSLRs have reached the same levels of image quality at low ISO???? E.g. Frank Doorhof still uses his 22MP Aptus 22... + last I read on his site he now uses the Mamiya RZ, which of course is more or less given away on Ebay and other places due silly claims of DSLRs being higher image quality than they actually are...

It is very simple, to spend $$$ one need make certain; thus I advise anyone to make a very detailed demo, to make absolute certain.

If still not see, consider a Leica M9 for much weight savings in bag.  

Regards
A
Logged

lisa_r

  • Guest
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2009, 09:45:18 pm »

i agree with gwapdf or whatever his name is. Do not listen to the theorists, do the tests yourself. It'll cost you $300 in a weekend of rentals and save you a little more that that ;-)
I recently posted links to some images from a German Vogue shoot where the photographer used a 1Ds3 and a 40mp phase interchangably (Canon for the wide angle shots and the Phase for the longer ones) and there is ZERO difference in IQ between them in print. I have the issue sitting right here. (The photog was Greg Kadel fyi.) Here is the particular story I am talking about.

I also have an issue of Wallpaper where one story was shot with a 4mp 1D Canon and a 12mp 1Ds Mark 1 used interchangably - and the rest of the magazine was probably shot with RZs and Hassys and such. Again, no difference in the print quality between his 4mp 1D and his 12mp 1Ds images, nor is there a printed difference between those and the rest of the issue with other photographers work. I have that issue sitting right next to me too. They all look like what you'd expect from a high end, well printed magazine.  (Melvin Sokolsky.) Look on his site and find the Wallpaper story under the Fashion link, the one with the newspapers and balloons flying everywhere down in SOHO.

I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2009, 09:50:41 pm by lisa_r »
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2009, 09:48:02 pm »

Quote from: Jim2
Assuming (and please confirm?) that MFDB would have a much better DR than 1ds3 or future 1ds4 (speculative?), would the edge in DR show up in prints with the current technology?
I don't really understand how this question comes up. IF camera A has a greater dynamic range than camera B, THEN it is simply the question of the image processing to make the difference perceivable, no matter on what medium.
Logged
Gabor

asf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
    • http://www.adamfriedberg.com
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2009, 10:08:53 pm »

Quote from: lisa_r
i agree with gwapdf or whatever his name is. Do not listen to the theorists, do the tests yourself. It'll cost you $300 in a weekend of rentals and save you a little more that that ;-)
I recently posted links to some images from a German Vogue shoot where the photographer used a 1Ds3 and a 40mp phase interchangably (Canon for the wide angle shots and the Phase for the longer ones) and there is ZERO difference in IQ between them in print. I have the issue sitting right here. (The photog was Greg Kadel fyi.) Here is the particular story I am talking about.

I also have an issue of Wallpaper where one story was shot with a 4mp 1D Canon and a 12mp 1Ds Mark 1 used interchangably - and the rest of the magazine was probably shot with RZs and Hassys and such. Again, no difference in the print quality between his 4mp 1D and his 12mp 1Ds images, nor is there a printed difference between those and the rest of the issue with other photographers work. I have that issue sitting right next to me too. They all look like what you'd expect from a high end, well printed magazine.  (Melvin Sokolsky.) Look on his site and find the Wallpaper story under the Fashion link, the one with the newspapers and balloons flying everywhere down in SOHO.

I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.

So don't ask lisa then ...
Logged

Jim2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
    • http://
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2009, 10:15:18 pm »

LOL I am still confused  All I want is to make sure that the images I take will produce the best possible image on print whether it be now or 5 years later when the printing technology gets better. As someone pointed out, you only get one shot for when that moment happens and for when you were there to take the shot. I just want to make sure that my recording is done in the best possible way and captured by the best possible technology available today.

I still have a lot to learn about landscape photography and still have not taken enough images as I would like to. I just went through 40+ images that I 'picked' from 1.5 years of shooting and not many are 'print worthy'. It makes me wonder a lot about whether I am good enough to worry about using an MFDB / view camera anyhow.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2009, 10:40:07 pm »

Quote from: lisa_r
i agree with gwapdf or whatever his name is. Do not listen to the theorists, do the tests yourself. It'll cost you $300 in a weekend of rentals and save you a little more that that ;-)
I recently posted links to some images from a German Vogue shoot where the photographer used a 1Ds3 and a 40mp phase interchangably (Canon for the wide angle shots and the Phase for the longer ones) and there is ZERO difference in IQ between them in print. I have the issue sitting right here. (The photog was Greg Kadel fyi.) Here is the particular story I am talking about.

I also have an issue of Wallpaper where one story was shot with a 4mp 1D Canon and a 12mp 1Ds Mark 1 used interchangably - and the rest of the magazine was probably shot with RZs and Hassys and such. Again, no difference in the print quality between his 4mp 1D and his 12mp 1Ds images, nor is there a printed difference between those and the rest of the issue with other photographers work. I have that issue sitting right next to me too. They all look like what you'd expect from a high end, well printed magazine.  (Melvin Sokolsky.) Look on his site and find the Wallpaper story under the Fashion link, the one with the newspapers and balloons flying everywhere down in SOHO.

I have many other examples where all you can tell is whether the photographer did a good job or not - and you absolutely can not tell from the final image what cameras were used - be it digital, film, etc.

Lisa,
We also have Michael's comparison between the P45+ and the Canon G10 on A3 size prints. The only noticeable difference was the shallower DoF of the P45. I still wonder, if the DoF had been equalised, which would have meant using the lens on the P45 at F22 instead of F11, would the G10 shot have then appeared sharper?

Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that anyone who's in the business of producing very large art prints in excess of 24"x32", would see an obvious qualitative advantage to the high pixel-count DB image with its smoother tonality and higher resolution at such large print sizes.

I think perhaps the issue is clouded by the fact that some photographers, when trying to get into the commercial game and make a quid, will tend to buy the same equipment used by their professional mentors, or others they aspire to be like.

I vaguely recall some story about one of David Bailey's photographic assignments for a magazine whereby the client, being very impressed with the quality of 4"x5" format, probably because he'd recently been awestruck by a huge print of the Grand Canyon from a 4x5 plate, specified that this format should be used for the shoot.

Realising that 4x5 was totally inappropriate and unnecessary for the job, David Bailey apparently ignored his client's request and shot everything in 35mm. The client apparently never noticed. I imagine, when the client saw the results in his magazine and was pleased with the results, he probably thought to himself, "I'm sure glad I requested that David use 4x5 format. That's made a huge difference."  
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Is the difference of DR on MFDB vs 35mm dslr discernible on print?
« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2009, 12:46:52 am »

Quote from: Jim2
LOL I am still confused  All I want is to make sure that the images I take will produce the best possible image on print whether it be now or 5 years later when the printing technology gets better. As someone pointed out, you only get one shot for when that moment happens and for when you were there to take the shot. I just want to make sure that my recording is done in the best possible way and captured by the best possible technology available today.

You can look at this from both additive and substractive standpoints.

On the plus side, the P65+ certainly offers the best single frame image quality in the world right now.

On the negative side:
- Perfect focus in the field is not always easy (depending on what camera you will use the back on),
- The Rugdness of the system, battery life,... make it less usable in the wild (like the real wild at -10C without power plugs for a few days),
- MF has less DoF than 35 mm which is mostly a problem for landscape,
- You are much more limited in terms of focal lenghts,
- The gap of image quality is small compared to the best DSLRs (how small will not be settled unless somebody does a pixel peeping type of comparison),
- There are much cheaper ways to achieve much higher resolutions as soon as stitching is considered a valid technique,
- ...

Finally, and most importantly, what works for me and my applications will probably not work for you so trying out the systems yourself is key.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 01:05:06 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 21   Go Up