Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X  (Read 10670 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2010, 11:59:09 pm »

Hi,

Diglloyd got some comment from an architecture photographer having issues with Moirés on buildings.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BartvanderWolf
One would assume, yet the importance of a good raw converter is clearly demonstrated, e.g. by the false color artifacting due to moiré when a proper optical low-pass filter (OLPF) isn't used. The lack of an OLPF may cause serious workflow slow-down in postprocessing for subjects that are likely (though not always predictable) to generate such artifacts.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2010, 12:28:05 am »

Hi,

I essentially tried to optimize the S2 image first and than tried to adjust the Nikon image to match. The issue is highly subjective, however.

Lloyd Chamber's (Diglloyd's) review is great reading and absolutely recommended to any potential buyer.

Regarding testing cameras I'd suggest that this article is still an interesting read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml.

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: bjanes
Bart,

Since the two cameras are quite different, as you point out, I would submit that proper testing should be to obtain the best possible image from each camera rather than minimizing the variables by using the same test parameters for both cameras. However, this approach adds complexity to the testing, and some will maintain that the optimum parameters were not used.

To his credit, Diglloyd did provide raw files, but the debate will go on. In the end, it is not surprising that a camera with a larger sensor and state of the art optics will deliver a better result.

Regards,

Bill
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 12:35:44 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Terence h

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
    • Terence Hogben Photography
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2010, 05:24:58 am »

Have to agree with Ray here the differences are not huge , i would just stick with the D3X myself.

Regards
Terence

Quote from: Ray
Hi Erik,


When I examine your small crops of both images on my laptop, I do see fairly subtle differences in resolution. But I've seen greater differences when comparing different models of lenses, and sometimes even when comparing different copies of the same model of lens.

If such resolution differences that you've demonstrated were apparent in an A3+ size print, or even an A2 size print, or even a 24" x 36" print (of the entire image), then I might consider such differences as being significant.

But what you seem to be demonstrating are differences that would only be apparent in a 64" x 90" print, if one were to examine the detail in such prints from the same distance that one peers at one's computer monitor, ie. about 600mm or a couple of feet.

Assuming one were in a position to compare two 64"x90" prints on the wall, by the time you had walked from one print to the other, you would have forgotten the precise nature of those subtle resolution improvements in the S2 print. For all practical purposes the two prints would appear identical from a viewing distance that was sufficient to enable the viewing of both prints next to each other.

Do not apply for a job as a salesman for Leica   .
Logged
Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. ht

ondebanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2010, 08:30:46 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I just published a short article where I look at two images from Lloyd Chambers DAP site.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...a-s2-raw-images

This is a first release of the article I'm planning a few updates in the coming days.

Best regards
Erik

Sorry Erik, but I have to disagree with the very first sentence in your article!:
              "Leica has invented a new kind of camera, a DSLR body with a larger size sensor."
What was the Mamiya ZD, then? Mamiya should get the credit for this "invention", not Leica. I think an amendment is warranted.

Everything else looks great - thanks for putting in this effort.

Ray (the other Ray, not "Ray", but Ray...confused?)
Logged

pcunite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2010, 08:45:28 am »

Quote from: Ray
Assuming one were in a position to compare two 64"x90" prints on the wall, by the time you had walked from one print to the other, you would have forgotten the precise nature of those subtle resolution improvements in the S2 print. For all practical purposes the two prints would appear identical from a viewing distance that was sufficient to enable the viewing of both prints next to each other.

Expertly stated, we have been at this level of camera tech for several years now. Choose your favorite brand and workflow, it does not matter on the output at smallish sizes!
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2010, 10:22:08 am »

Hi,

Sorry, you are absolutely right. I was actually close to buying a ZD so I should have known! Fix it today!

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr


Quote from: ondebanks
Sorry Erik, but I have to disagree with the very first sentence in your article!:
              "Leica has invented a new kind of camera, a DSLR body with a larger size sensor."
What was the Mamiya ZD, then? Mamiya should get the credit for this "invention", not Leica. I think an amendment is warranted.

Everything else looks great - thanks for putting in this effort.

Ray (the other Ray, not "Ray", but Ray...confused?)
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2010, 04:25:29 pm »



Updated 2010-07-22: Reprocessed images and sharpening details now given in the article.


Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2010, 07:46:54 pm »

Is Lloyd's review so far based on using only the Summarit-S 70?
Logged
Eric Chan

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2010, 11:26:33 pm »

Hi,

Yes, that's what he writes.

Erik

Quote from: madmanchan
Is Lloyd's review so far based on using only the Summarit-S 70?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2010, 08:22:37 am »

Quote from: madmanchan
Is Lloyd's review so far based on using only the Summarit-S 70?
Eric,

A bit off topic here, but Diglloyd has reported on the use of deconvolution sharpening with Raw Developer (a Mac only raw converter) to offset the effect of the blur filter on the D3x to the degree that the micro-contrast rivals that of the Leica S2. Unfortunately, he is aware of no way to do this with current Adobe products. Do you have any comments?

Bart van der Wolf and his disciples (myself included) has been promoting deconvolution for some time, but the pundits on this forum always conveniently ignore the topic. The smart sharpen in Photoshop is a convolution technique, but no one seems to know how to use it properly.

Regards,

Bill
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2010, 10:40:28 am »

Quote from: bjanes
Eric,

A bit off topic here, but Diglloyd has reported on the use of deconvolution sharpening with Raw Developer (a Mac only raw converter) to offset the effect of the blur filter on the D3x to the degree that the micro-contrast rivals that of the Leica S2. Unfortunately, he is aware of no way to do this with current Adobe products. Do you have any comments?

Bart van der Wolf and his disciples (myself included) has been promoting deconvolution for some time, but the pundits on this forum always conveniently ignore the topic. The smart sharpen in Photoshop is a convolution technique, but no one seems to know how to use it properly.

Hi Bill,

Guilty as charged, I contacted Lloyd about deconvolution sharpening of the D3x conversion.

There are currently only a few options, but the free RawTherapee one is certainly helpful. For those on a Mac OS platform there is Raw developer (if one develops a Raw). My personal favorite (warts and all) is FocusMagic because as a plugin it integrates so nicely with my workflow. As part of a Photoshop action it can be used on a sharpening layer that uses blend-if functionality to tweak the result, and one can even selectively use masks to avoid sharpening noise in blue skies.

The FM warts are that it hasn't been updated for quite a while (not that it needs it for functionality as a 32-bit plug-in), but there are some incompatibilities with some systems mabe due to memory issues (may well be the OS, not FM, but who knows?). The owners have recently re-confirmed to me that they will work on a 64-bit version, but they've been saying that for a long time, so I'm not too sure about the future. But when it works, it works fine. They did recently update the installer so that newer versions of Photoshop can be found for installation in the correct plugin folder.

Some of the newer Topaz filters supposedly also use deconvolution sharpening. Photoshop's Smart sharpening uses something that looks like deconvolution, but is much less effective than FocusMagic.

Then there are astronomy programs like e.g. IRIS and ImagesPlus that allow to use deconvolution sharpening, and to specify one's own point spread functions. Also a tool like MatLab has a few deconvolution methods as ready to use functions.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 10:40:59 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

ejmartin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2010, 11:30:10 am »

FYI, RawTherapee 3.0 is available for all platforms, though it's currently in alpha.  An alpha build for OSX can be found here (not sure how often it's updated; current one is already a few weeks out of date, though that won't affect the sharpening function which is not currently being worked on).
Logged
emil

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
A closer look at two images from the S2 and the D3X
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2010, 02:03:35 pm »

Hi Bill, sorry I responded in the other thread but didn't see this question till now (just getting caught up ...). Yes, Smart Sharpen, Camera Raw 6, and LR 3's sharpening routines are based (partly) on deconvolution. For SS you'll need to choose "More Accurate" and the "Lens Blur" kernel for best effect. For the latter two you'll need to ramp up the Detail slider. It is very effective for textures and fine detail and should actually work well for Lloyd's mosaic example. For my landscape images with tiny details I will often set Detail to 100, Radius to 0.5, and then adjust Amount to taste. For macro work where the edges tend to be broader I will do the same but set Radius somewhere around 1.5 or so. Hope this helps!
Logged
Eric Chan
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up