Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 65089 times)

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #220 on: March 08, 2013, 04:41:46 PM »

Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

Regards
Stefan
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #221 on: March 08, 2013, 05:21:12 PM »

Hi Stefan,

The future is bright, but it is not here, yet.

Thanks for the link.

Best regards
Erik


Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

Regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 05:24:15 PM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #222 on: March 08, 2013, 06:08:15 PM »

Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

Regards
Stefan

Did anyone mention that photography is light dependent and light happens to be a particle and wavelength? And I really hope the price of storage and processing power goes down because you are getting huge files that really don't reflect the increase in quality.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #223 on: March 08, 2013, 07:09:57 PM »

Hi,

Price of storage and processing power is going down much faster than file sizes are going up, so file sizes are not really a concern of mine. I just upgraded from striped 2 Tbyte disks to single 4 Tbyte disks.

Best regards
Erik

Did anyone mention that photography is light dependent and light happens to be a particle and wavelength? And I really hope the price of storage and processing power goes down because you are getting huge files that really don't reflect the increase in quality.

Stefan.Steib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 454
    • HCam - Hartblei Pro Photography solutions
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #224 on: March 08, 2013, 07:13:01 PM »

Im sometimes really astonished how firm beliefs in "superiority of gear" are.
I really care not much about technology, the only interest I have is in the resulting image.
The way I get there are secondary........ if even that.

And if something is for certain: things change.

Regards
Stefan
Logged
Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #225 on: March 08, 2013, 11:59:39 PM »

Im sometimes really astonished how firm beliefs in "superiority of gear" are.
I really care not much about technology, the only interest I have is in the resulting image.
The way I get there are secondary........ if even that.

And if something is for certain: things change.

Regards
Stefan

??? Are you implying that other here are not interested in the image also?

You do understand as pixel pitch is reduced and the optics try to compensate for the increase in resolution, contrast falls--you can't maintain the amplitude of the frequency as the frequency increases. Pixels need photons and as the pixel size goes down, the few photons they intersect.

But from your same argument the technology does not matter, then change can be irrelevant. One thing I do know, the skill of the photographer will always be a greater factor in whether and image is successful than any technology that can be introduced.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #226 on: March 09, 2013, 01:28:22 AM »

Bieber attacks A list celeb photographer with a canon ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html

These types of Paparazzi are the scum of the earth..... I see them in Malibu quite often.
Actually there needs to be a new name for this video Paparazzi. They mob people even if they are out with their kids.

The Papparazzi of the past were another breed. They had taste and generally received smiles or theatrical pranks.

A while ago on a dangerous downhill road a so called paparazzi  was so damn intent of getting photos of Beibers car, even though Beiber was not there
that when asked to leave by a cop he ran straight for his car probably to grab a longer lens and hit by a passing car. The guy had even parked in a very dangerous place where it is illegal to park right on a blind corner. While it is unfortunate that he was killed he could have caused an even worse accident.

Anyway they are not all the same. The other day I was kitesurfing and a famous actor showed up to surf too.
Some paparazzi shoved kiters out of the way and did the same to the surfers. A couple of surfers put and end to that.
A little later another Paparazzi showed up and waved from way up on the bluff. The actor gave him a greeting wave and smile.
The guy shot his stuff without shoving his camera in anyone's face. The actors kids showed up and the Paparazzi kindly said Ciao.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #227 on: March 09, 2013, 01:31:54 AM »

Hi,

If you reduce size, DoF will increase at comparable apertures and FoV. So larger apertures could be used and the lens can be optimized for those apertures. Some 4/3 lenses are very good, just to mention an example.

Now, as you point out elsewhere, light comes in quanta, called photons and the finiteness of their number and the number of photons a sensor can hold sets a limit to noise. Smaller sensors get noisier than larger sensors of equivalent design.

Stefan has one of those Nokia cell phones with 41 MP and Zeiss lens, here is some insight from that lens:
http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/03/05/nokia-808-pureview-carl-zeiss-science-of-making-the-perfect-lens/

My understanding is that it's five elements , all aspheric, using high refraction glass and probably also AD glass. The small size means that very expensive glass can be used. Also they can probably use molded or hybride aspherics for all elements. So small size makes it possible to use best available technologies.

Another thing is that new technology is first included in small sensor camera. A new technology is BSI (Back Side Illumination) that puts wiring and gates behind the silicon catching the photons. I don't know if it increase Full Well Capacity, though. An increase in FWC would be helpful with noise.

Best regards
Erik



??? Are you implying that other here are not interested in the image also?

You do understand as pixel pitch is reduced and the optics try to compensate for the increase in resolution, contrast falls--you can't maintain the amplitude of the frequency as the frequency increases. Pixels need photons and as the pixel size goes down, the few photons they intersect.

But from your same argument the technology does not matter, then change can be irrelevant. One thing I do know, the skill of the photographer will always be a greater factor in whether and image is successful than any technology that can be introduced.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14672
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #228 on: March 09, 2013, 03:53:20 AM »

Bieber attacks A list celeb photographer with a canon ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html




That Bierber reacted as he did wasn't surprising: he had a gang of gorillas around him creating a shield no sane person would seek to break. How brave said kid would be if he found himself alone is another matter, ego or no ego.

The really surprising thing in all of this is why anyone would care about the antics of a person wearing the crotch of his pants in the wrong place. I can see it endearing, as in a baby with a soiled nappy, but for a 'youth'? But, having said that, the really, really surprising thing is that anyone in the world gives a damn about any of those people to the extent it becomes rewarding to snap a snap.

Rob C

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #229 on: March 10, 2013, 03:16:09 PM »

I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match  ::) I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.

The whole set with the pictures is here. There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.

As expected, the Nikon could get a smaller depth of field because of the much larger aperture (and also because the H3D cannot always use its largest aperture in bright light). The results as to bokeh, on the other end, are less convincing for me, see for yourself if you like them.

The colours are not quite the same, even if the pictures are treated by the same software (and for the flowers the light changed). I did not try to match the colour, I find the difference instructive. On the flower, the D800 focussed on the wrong object (in live view AF mode). I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that.  ;)
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).

People enjoying pixel peeping may download the full resolution pictures using the flickr menus. There is little point, since nothing is really sharp, but I know that some people will want it anyway.

Here an example with the flowers: f/4 on the Nikon versus f/5.6 on the Hasselblad (the pictures are clickable):





I don't think that a bokeh comparison can be made with the image of the flower because your focus plane is not the same
in the images. The Nikon focus is on the grass behind the flowers. When using live view on something like this you need to select the smaller focusing area. Live view defaults to a larger focusing area. IF you use the large focusing area the camera will seek a result with the highers contrast for the whole focusing area.
In this case the foreground subject the flowers has less contrast than the texture of the grass. Choosing a smaller focus area would
make it easier to aim it right at the flower you want. The optical view finder focusing would not have had a problem when using a selected focus point.

When comparing bokeh one should also consider the type of irois used by the lens. Nikon on it's higher end lenses including the normal 50mm 1.4G use a
9 blade iris that produces a nice more natural circle on small specular highlights. Hasselblad use fewer blades (5 if I remember correctly) and Phase One use 5 blade irises in their "Schneider" lenses. This results in unnatural pentagon shapes. Whide open it's not a problem.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 03:43:33 PM by FredBGG »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #230 on: March 10, 2013, 03:48:26 PM »

Hi Jerome,

I did not look deeply in this test, but I look at some of the images and it somewhat confirms what I think I have seen before, namely that MFD lenses by and large perform decently at maximum aperture and have decent bokeh. Large aperture 135 lenses impress less on me. The new Zeiss Distagon 55/1.4 is said to be very good fully open.

Personally, I would only use full aperture at gun point..., or if the lens was perfect and I could use live view MF at 11X magnification.

Best regards
Erik

I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match  ::) I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.

The whole set with the pictures is here. There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.

As expected, the Nikon could get a smaller depth of field because of the much larger aperture (and also because the H3D cannot always use its largest aperture in bright light). The results as to bokeh, on the other end, are less convincing for me, see for yourself if you like them.

The colours are not quite the same, even if the pictures are treated by the same software (and for the flowers the light changed). I did not try to match the colour, I find the difference instructive. On the flower, the D800 focussed on the wrong object (in live view AF mode). I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that.  ;)
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).

People enjoying pixel peeping may download the full resolution pictures using the flickr menus. There is little point, since nothing is really sharp, but I know that some people will want it anyway.

Here an example with the flowers: f/4 on the Nikon versus f/5.6 on the Hasselblad (the pictures are clickable):




Here an example with the tree (same apertures):


jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #231 on: March 11, 2013, 11:24:20 AM »

When using live view on something like this you need to select the smaller focusing area.

I used the smaller focussing area and it pointed on the flowers, as far as I could tell from the limited view of the screen in bright sunlight. You can check the exifs if you like, I think that Nikon saves that information.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #232 on: March 11, 2013, 03:00:43 PM »

I used the smaller focussing area and it pointed on the flowers, as far as I could tell from the limited view of the screen in bright sunlight. You can check the exifs if you like, I think that Nikon saves that information.

Focus point is not recorded in live view mode. It's only recorded in optical view finder focusing mode.

Anyway a limitation of live view focusing is that it is based on achieving the highest contrast in the focus area.
Unlike phase detection it cannot determine if there is something closer or farther away in the focus area.
Most phase detection systems are designed to focus on the object that is closest within the focus area.
While this works most of the time it can actually be a disadvantage too. Sometimes a phase detection
system will focus on the tip of the nose of a person rather than the eyes. That is why it is preferable to have many small focus points
and feature recognition of some sort.


What may have happened is that you did not fill the focus area with the flower and there was too much of the grass texture in the
focusing area. The dry grass and shadows had more contrast than the petals of the flower so the camera settled on the higher contrast of the
grass, leaves and sharper shadows cast by them.

Out of curiosity I did a few tests on some flowers in my garden. I managed to replicate the error you had by pointing at a more flatly light flower, but with a more textured background and with the flower filling only about 1/3rd of the focus area in live view mode. The error was clearly visible in zoomed in focusing mode.

However the same thing on a furry petaled flower did not show this error.

Both the above situations focused perfectly using the optical view finder using any of the focus points.
Even the 3 d tracking option worked. This is where you start with a focusing point and the exposure meter sensor takes a snap shot of the feature in the focus point and changes the focus point if you recompose.

So one should judge the subject to determine if live view will find more contrast in the subject or the background.

It is also worth noting that in the Hasselblad shot there are bees in the shot with much more detail than the flower. Bright yellow and jet black as well as furry texture.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 03:33:12 PM by FredBGG »
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #233 on: March 11, 2013, 07:04:46 PM »

Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html

"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.

DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.

But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.

There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "

and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......

Regards
Stefan

At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is not resolution, dynamic range or noise (those these are certainly still a concern). It is the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded. Except to a small degree, where it might have a slight aesthetic appeal similar to modest film halation, sensor "bloom" is for me one of the more objectionable digital artifacts.
Logged

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #234 on: March 11, 2013, 07:44:54 PM »

At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is not resolution, dynamic range or noise (those these are certainly still a concern). It is the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded. Except to a small degree, where it might have a slight aesthetic appeal similar to modest film halation, sensor "bloom" is for me one of the more objectionable digital artifacts.

Absolutely.  I love the way hot hilights would halate on Tri-X.  From my streetwork, shot on 35mm.

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #235 on: March 11, 2013, 08:54:32 PM »

Absolutely.  I love the way hot hilights would halate on Tri-X.  From my streetwork, shot on 35mm.



The halation effect can even be quite appealing for interior design photography, though perhaps not so much for architectural interiors. :-)
Logged

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #236 on: March 11, 2013, 09:30:26 PM »


The really surprising thing in all of this is why anyone would care about the antics of a person wearing the crotch of his pants in the wrong place. I can see it endearing, as in a baby with a soiled nappy, but for a 'youth'? But, having said that, the really, really surprising thing is that anyone in the world gives a damn about any of those people to the extent it becomes rewarding to snap a snap.

Rob C

Amen.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9851
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #237 on: March 11, 2013, 11:59:03 PM »

At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is not resolution, dynamic range or noise (those these are certainly still a concern). It is the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded. Except to a small degree, where it might have a slight aesthetic appeal similar to modest film halation, sensor "bloom" is for me one of the more objectionable digital artifacts.

I agree that this is important. Just out of curiosity, how do you see the various offerings stacking against each other along this metric?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5683
The worst of digital: handling highlight overexposure
« Reply #238 on: March 12, 2013, 10:41:22 AM »

At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is ... the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded.
I heartily agree: blown-highlight handling is the one place where in practice digital causes me more problems than film, while on the other hand, better handling of shadows and thus greater tolerance for underexposure is one of the greatest gains. To me this suggests that when lighting cannot be fully, reliable assessed ahead of a shot, there should be a shift in practice from what we did with film in the direction of erring more on the side of underexposure and having too much rather than too little highlight headroom.

So it is strange to me that when some cameras default to having more raw highlight headroom than others, they are criticized for this, and accused of misrepresenting their ISO sensitivity by a certain camera testing web-site and some posters in these forums!

And to bring this back to MF: the fashionable emphasis with engineering measures like dynamic range can obfuscate the fact that a larger CCD sensor might have a better SNR than smaller CMOS sensor over the most photographically relevant levels in an exposure (say the top six or eight or ten stops) even if the very deep shadows (say twelve or more stops below highlights) have a better SNR on the smaller CMOS sensor with greater measured DR. In that case the larger sensor could give more latitude to choose exposure levels that avoid blown highlights, at least when the total subject brightness range is not too extreme (say not more than ten stops.)

P. S. One thing that this thread confirms is that debating the future of DMF is not moribund!
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 11:12:02 AM by BJL »
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #239 on: March 12, 2013, 02:11:40 PM »

FWIW, I noticed that for a given iso, aperture and speed, the H3D-31 pictures are a bit darker with less blown out highlights than the D800 pictures.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 16   Go Up