better colors from medium and large format...why?

[haring]

Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?

I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?

[Dennis Carbo]

I would think one reason is most Digital Backs are true 16-bit allowing for vastly more colors and better tonality, in the case of multi-shot I believe each color channel gets its own exposure...or something to that effect I am not really clear on that. Most DSLR'S are 12 or 14 bit .  As for film ...not sure why 

[JoeKitchen]

I am pretty sure that this has to do with the larger area which the image is recorded.  Or at least this was the case with film.  I remember when working with a 4x5 and ding some shooting with a 35mm, the same film type would give much better color and gradient flows on the 4x5 as with the 35mm. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?...

For the same reason they have "six stops of dynamic range advantage, visible in a small print from 30 feet"?

[haring]

I am pretty sure that this has to do with the larger area which the image is recorded.  Or at least this was the case with film.  I remember when working with a 4x5 and ding some shooting with a 35mm, the same film type would give much better color and gradient flows on the 4x5 as with the 35mm. 

I agree. There is something about recording on a larger surface, I guess.

[haring]

I would think one reason is most Digital Backs are true 16-bit allowing for vastly more colors and better tonality, in the case of multi-shot I believe each color channel gets its own exposure...or something to that effect I am not really clear on that. Most DSLR'S are 12 or 14 bit .  As for film ...not sure why 

I am sure Canon and Sony would produce true 16-bit chips for their professional DSLR cameras if that would be the only reason. The camera would be more expensive but pros would be able to afford it...

[telyt]

I would think one reason is most Digital Backs are true 16-bit allowing for vastly more colors and better tonality...

In addition to bit depth, I'm guessing that the color filter array on Bayer-pattern sensors can be optimized for either color quality or for high-ISO performance.  It seems that all else being equal, cameras with the best color quality have the poorest high-ISO performance, and those with good high-ISO performance aren't particularly known for the best color quality.  Does anyone know for certain?

[haring]

In addition to bit depth, I'm guessing that the color filter array on Bayer-pattern sensors can be optimized for either color quality or for high-ISO performance.  It seems that all else being equal, cameras with the best color quality have the poorest high-ISO performance, and those with good high-ISO performance aren't particularly known for the best color quality.  Does anyone know for certain?

This would make sense...! Hmmmm!

[Leping]

Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?

I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?

Nature of Bayer sensors.  More than one pixel needed for each fine elements of color information.  When lens under-resolves the sensor colors transitions are smoother and tones look silky.  If someone makes 160MB back the pixels are not waisted because of optics and diffraction.  Same noise at 40MP but much better tonality.

[Doug Peterson]

Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?

I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?

The largeness of the sensor is not the only reason. An old Phase One Lightphase (6mp digital back circa 1998) had a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm and produced gorgeous color, especially compared to early 35mm dSLRs.

It would be really convenient if there was only one reason. But the answer is more complicated.

Here's a partial list of equipment components (not techniques) that effect the technical quality of the image:
[Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both number of bits and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening]

Medium format has always pursued the highest image quality even when it meant other things had to be sacrificed. It's not a surprise then to see the quality is very high.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

[Policar]

I'm not sure why colors would look better on a MF back than on a DSLR.  They use different sensors (Kodak and Dalsa CCDs, not CMOS).  So they certainly should produce a different look, but not necessarily better...

This will get me in trouble, but I prefer film's color rendering to digital's.  At least with some films.  You can get a good look out of both, but portra and velvia 50, in particular, produce noticeably nicer colors than my dSLRs do until the raw files are subjected to tons of correction.  Granted, they're not very accurate colors, but they look great.  Velvia only has 3-4 stops of dynamic range, but it compresses a lot into that so the tonality is pretty good.  Unfortunately it's way too grainy for quality enlargements until you get to 6x7 (really 4x5) but the colors and tonality are great at 4x5.

The other reason is that lens flaws are reduced.  I looked at some of the sample photos here:

http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/examples-color.html

http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/apo.html

And noticed that the colors looked better than I was used to seeing.  I noticed that my slides shot with the apo-sironar-s lenses also had unusually good colors.  I figured it was because both lenses claim to be "apochromatic" (well-corrected).  Turns out it's not the case.  The apo-sironar-s lenses have plenty of bokeh fringing (less than average, but still lots) and low quality bokeh in general, but the large format and high working aperture (f16) cancels it out.  So lens flaws, many of which are color-related and many of which are worse with zooms, etc., are magnified on dSLRs, and I think that's another significant part of it.

[haring]

Thanks Doug!

[Schewe]

Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?

Actually, I'm not sure "colors" are much better from medium format. However, I am convinced the image quality is considerably better for all the reasons Doug mentions. But how much all of that impacts just the color is, I think debatable.

Some software like C1 Pro, can render Phase One files with very good color rendition. Some people think Canon's DPP or Nikon's CNX do better color rendering for their cameras than 3rd party software. But I think Camera Raw and/or Lightroom can have very good color rendering as well, if you know how to use it. I would agree that the camera maker's software is often better at default, but I don't use the defaults.

I don't think my P65+ files are any easier nor harder to get good color from than my 1Ds MIII at base ISO. I think the conditions I often shoot one or the other under will have a big impact on the difficulties.

When I'm shooting the P65+ it's usually under decent lighting conditions either outside or in the studio. When shooting DSLRs, it's often because of either lens selection (super wide or really long) or because the lighting sucks...and when the lighting sucks, it's really hard to get good color.

But I think if you are shooting in reasonable daylight with low ISO, the color rendering you can get from DSLR compares favorably with medium format. There's no question in my mind the potential image quality of the medium format will be better.

High ISO, mixed lighting or even warm tungsten lighting is very different from the lighting I would expect to use medium format for. On the other hand, one can get shots with DSLR at high ISO and fast lenses hand-held that you really can't get with medium format. But those shots will be a challenge to color correct.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I actually don't think that colors are better with MFDBs. On the other MFDBs have some advantages:

- They collect more light
- Lenses are less stressed, so we get better microcontrast (better MTF on small subject detail)
- MFDBs are probably not tuned for good ISO performance, so color filters may be more selective giving more saturation

I believe that MFDBs have better image quality for the reasons listed above. I don't think they have magic properties that cannot be explained by physics.

Best regards
Erik

Actually, I'm not sure "colors" are much better from medium format. However, I am convinced the image quality is considerably better for all the reasons Doug mentions. But how much all of that impacts just the color is, I think debatable.

Some software like C1 Pro, can render Phase One files with very good color rendition. Some people think Canon's DPP or Nikon's CNX do better color rendering for their cameras than 3rd party software. But I think Camera Raw and/or Lightroom can have very good color rendering as well, if you know how to use it. I would agree that the camera maker's software is often better at default, but I don't use the defaults.

I don't think my P65+ files are any easier nor harder to get good color from than my 1Ds MIII at base ISO. I think the conditions I often shoot one or the other under will have a big impact on the difficulties.

When I'm shooting the P65+ it's usually under decent lighting conditions either outside or in the studio. When shooting DSLRs, it's often because of either lens selection (super wide or really long) or because the lighting sucks...and when the lighting sucks, it's really hard to get good color.

But I think if you are shooting in reasonable daylight with low ISO, the color rendering you can get from DSLR compares favorably with medium format. There's no question in my mind the potential image quality of the medium format will be better.

High ISO, mixed lighting or even warm tungsten lighting is very different from the lighting I would expect to use medium format for. On the other hand, one can get shots with DSLR at high ISO and fast lenses hand-held that you really can't get with medium format. But those shots will be a challenge to color correct.

[ErikKaffehr]

Doug,

You are absolutely right about the factors but many of those factors are not related to sensor size. For instance it is quite possible to put a compendium on a DSLR.

In general I'd guess that MFDBs are used in a more meticulous way, giving better results. DSLRs are often used with zoom lenses while MFDBs often go with primes of medium apertures.

Best regards
Erik

The largeness of the sensor is not the only reason. An old Phase One Lightphase (6mp digital back circa 1998) had a sensor which is 36mm x 24mm and produced gorgeous color, especially compared to early 35mm dSLRs.

It would be really convenient if there was only one reason. But the answer is more complicated.

Here's a partial list of equipment components (not techniques) that effect the technical quality of the image:
[Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both number of bits and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening]

Medium format has always pursued the highest image quality even when it meant other things had to be sacrificed. It's not a surprise then to see the quality is very high.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

[Dick Roadnight]

Here's a partial list of equipment components (not techniques) that effect the technical quality of the image:
[Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both number of bits and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening]

Res helps colour as if you do not have res, all the colours are mixed up (by diffraction, OOF un-sharpness, Bayer interpolation, frosted glass windows {I mean AA filters}, and you get low colour micro-contrast, or muddiness in low-tech-speak.

Yes Bayer interpolation/MultiShot res is a major omission in your list.

[paul_jones]

Why is it that the color produced by the medium and large format cameras are better than colors produced by 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. DSLR) cameras?

I don't think it is only that the digital back or the medium or large format film they are using. It also has to do with the size of the film and the digital back... Why are colors nicer, cleaner if they are recorded on a medium, large format media...? I am sure you know it better...Can anybody explain it briefly?

i shoot with a p40+ (previously p25, a22, p45+), and also shoot with a 1dsmk3 and 5d, and since the canons turned 14bit, theres not hardly anything in it. i dont know about dynamic range, but canons have a heap more details in the dark, and medium format seems to have a heap head room in the lights for grading. but that might have something to do with what they set the "idea" iso as. it seems that med format has a bit more latitude.
but when it comes to colour, i haven't seen any difference. and all my shots get graded very heavily, and my retouchers have no problem voicing their opinions.

paul

[PdF]

The color quality does not depend on the sensor surface, but essentially on the 16-bit sampling. Just compare the results of a Nikon or a Canon next to an "antique" 24/36 format digital back to be convinced. Even when images are made with the same lens (Nikon, in this case), the result is always better with de digital back, especially in multishoot. Already in mode 1 shot, the soft tones are more detailed.

With a larger back, there is a huge difference.

PdF

[bcooter]

i shoot with a p40+ (previously p25, a22, p45+), and also shoot with a 1dsmk3 and 5d, and since the canons turned 14bit, theres not hardly anything in it. i dont know about dynamic range, but canons have a heap more details in the dark, and medium format seems to have a heap head room in the lights for grading. but that might have something to do with what they set the "idea" iso as. it seems that med format has a bit more latitude.
but when it comes to colour, i haven't seen any difference. and all my shots get graded very heavily, and my retouchers have no problem voicing their opinions.

paul

I'm with Paul on this.

I don't see "better" colors with medium format.  I do see more sensitivity to color such as any blotchiness on the skin, or ambient color from a room or a practical light source.

So I think my Medium Format backs are more color sensitive, but since I shoot people I love to see the color a little more dumb, or slightly less sensitive.

Though at the end of the day it doesn't matter that much because nearly every image goes through layers of corrections, regardless of capture device and from processing to post photoshop work everything gets changed to your liking.

IMO

BC

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

… With a larger back, there is a huge difference...

Care to demonstrate?