Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?  (Read 10216 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2013, 03:22:34 pm »

Yeah, and it is as bad on Capture One, I promise.

I would add it is a very good argument to go for a high res MF back.

Best regards
Erik


This is definitely debayering error. Promise.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2013, 04:11:07 pm »

Hi,

I checked a bit. The lightning conductor is about one pixel wide. The color shifts on the lightning conductor itself, but not on surrounding pixels. I have tested with:

- Lightroom 5.3 RC using PV 2012 (original sample)
- Lightroom 5.3 RC using PV 2003, this has much reduced color aliasing but it is still there
- Capture One 7.1.3 as bad or worse as 5.3 RC using PV 2012

Raw Therapie doesn't open IIQ file.

I am pretty sure this is color aliasing. I have a long experience of optics, having something like 25 lenses (Minolta, Sony, Pentax 67, Zeiss) I have never seen an aberration exactly one pixel wide in two orthogonal direction.

I have tested another of the images. It cleaned up well on LR 5.3RC with PV 2003, but was quite soft. On C1 it was pretty ugly. I have tested that image in RawTherapy and it was best of the bunch. C1 version below.

Best regards
Erik





I am fairly sure I opened a IIQ sample you provided before of a grassy area with a tree line then mountain background in raw therapee. Maybe it is convert IIQ to DNG first.
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2013, 04:16:09 pm »

Yes, IIQ is supported.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2013, 04:32:49 pm »

Hi,

Yes, I am aware of that. I prefer DNG but Capture One does not handle P45+ DNGs well.

I may ditch C1 altogether and go DNG. I see some advantages with C1, but DNG support for P45+ is bad. I am also negative on user interface, handling of white balance, default setting and HDR facilities.

But, I have been with LR since beta 3 in 2006, also before LR arrived I was considering to write a program which would be quite close tom LR in most aspects, data base based and parametric editing based on raw. So LR and me made friends immediately.

Best regards
Erik

I am fairly sure I opened a IIQ sample you provided before of a grassy area with a tree line then mountain background in raw therapee. Maybe it is convert IIQ to DNG first.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2013, 04:52:18 pm »

Mind sending me the original raw?

DNG??? Why? What problem are you solving?

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2013, 05:07:59 pm »

Hi Doug,

I will post a link to the raw files in a couple of days. I try to post raws for most images I discuss, but have problems to keep up with my ambitions.

Just to make clear, I am much interested in imaging theory and I really have an engineering view on things. But I am also a serious amateur landscape photographer. Aliasing is a long time interest for me, going back to 2005 or so.

Regarding DNG, I am pretty sure that it is a recommended archival format (by UGRA? Cannot find the link), IIQ is not. I found that some of the images I discuss process best in RawTherapy and it won't read IIQ but works well for DNG. DNG is well documented, are IIQ details published? Who will support IIQ on Mac OS X.11 if Phase One goes defunct?  Anders Torger recently developed a HDR tool, and he feels strong about DNG. If Lightroom supports DNG, like Raw Developer from Iridium and almost any other vendor except DxO, while cannot C1 do it?

I don't user ARW either. You sure IIQ will be around in 20 years?

Best regards
Erik



Mind sending me the original raw?

DNG??? Why? What problem are you solving?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2013, 05:11:48 pm »

Sorry Bart, I find that very unlikely. First of all if the software was having problems debayering, why would it only be on a small part of the image? It is not logical. Second of all if everyone was having to correct all their images they would have abandoned ship to other software long ago.

It is far more likely that it is an issue with the lens.

"Debayering" color moiré artifacts are, unfortunately, rather common with MF backs. Everybody who used these should know and especially fashion photographers who have extended problems with fabrics. So: no, it is not always a small part of the image and: no, even if it is annoying people are not abandoning the ship.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2013, 05:36:23 pm »

Hi Doug,

Most of the raws discussed are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing/RawSamples/

I also added an image of the feather shot with my Sony Alpha 99 SLT (all images with 150mm at f/8 or f/9 at 3.5 m). My main concern in the feather image is not colour artifacts, but:

- Cross hatch pattern at the lower end of the feather and strains bending the wrong way.
- Discontinuous strains.
- Images indicate that small pixels are good.

I normally post raw images, full scale JPEGS and miniatures for easy  navigation, but I don't have time and energy right now.

I know that there is a moiré brush in both LR and Capture One, but it has side effects, so it needs to be applied with care. Removing colour artefacts still leaves monochrome artefacts, like non continuos waves and broken strains on feather.

Raw Therapee, Amaze and false color supression (1-2 steps) gives best results.

Best regards
Erik



Mind sending me the original raw?

DNG??? Why? What problem are you solving?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2013, 05:53:54 pm »

Regarding DNG, I am pretty sure that it is a recommended archival format (by UGRA? Cannot find the link)
UGRA certainly not!

You sure IIQ will be around in 20 years?
Are you sure DNG will be around in 20 years?

The only future proof image file format is TIF... AFAIK.
Then again... as long as you store a current version of DNG Converter in your long time archive you can just as well use IIQ today and convert to DNG in the future if need is. You can also store a current computer with a current OS and a current RAW software.

Personally I store "flat" developped TIFs (full histogram preserved, 16bit, P1 camera profile assigned, no sharpening applied) from my RAWs in my long time archive (along with the respective RAW files). In addition I also store a current computer with current OS and the respective software to be able to open my RAW files in the future.


« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 05:56:44 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2013, 06:13:54 pm »

Hi,

Pretty sure that DNG will be around for 20 years, as the specification is open. DNG is a TIFF format by the way. But, TIFF is not raw. The data is demosaiced and converted to a different working space and gamma.

You may be aware that programs that work today may not work on a new generation of hardware, Hardware moves forward and software goes with it.

But, I agree that TIFF is safe. On the other hand, DNG can contain original raw. DNG is also small, about same size the raw file. Converting to TIFF increases image size about up to 6 times, so you have 4-6 times the data with less information.


The document I was referring to was not UGRA but UPDIG, sorry! It is here: http://www.updig.org/pdfs/updig_photographers_guidelines_v40.pdf

A shot discussion of raw formats is here: http://www.updig.org/guidelines/ph_file_formats.html

Best regards
Erik

UGRA certainly not!
Are you sure DNG will be around in 20 years?

The only future proof image file format is TIF... AFAIK.
Then again... as long as you store a current version of DNG Converter in your long time archive you can just as well use IIQ today and convert to DNG in the future if need is. You can also store a current computer with a current OS and a current RAW software.

Personally I store "flat" developped TIFs (full histogram preserved, 16bit, P1 camera profile assigned, no sharpening applied) from my RAWs in my long time archive (along with the respective RAW files). In addition I also store a current computer with current OS and the respective software to be able to open my RAW files in the future.



Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2013, 07:45:32 pm »

Regarding DNG, I am pretty sure that it is a recommended archival format (by UGRA? Cannot find the link)
format is one thing, software that converts to DNG is another thing... there were enough bugs and changes in Adobe DNG converter along the way in terms what data read off sensors were preserved and what data were not...
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2013, 11:35:41 pm »

Hi,

The way I am set up I use DNG as the archival format, but it contains the original raw image. On the Phase One I use IIQ, as I want to have the option to use C1. Converting to DNG, I could still extract the IIQ file, of course but it is not really convenient.

I would say that I regard DNG support to be mandatory. Interestingly enough, Capture One handles DNGs for P45+, but does it badly while it works fine with DNGs coming from Sony ARW.

Best regards
Erik


format is one thing, software that converts to DNG is another thing... there were enough bugs and changes in Adobe DNG converter along the way in terms what data read off sensors were preserved and what data were not...
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2013, 11:48:40 pm »

Thanks,

Last time I used it I couldn't find the images I was looking for, so I was jumping conclusions, sorry. Thanks enlightening!

Best regards
Erik

Yes, IIQ is supported.

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ondebanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2013, 06:04:11 am »

Hi Erik,

It is simply colour aliasing, due to imaging a <= 1 pixel wide high-contrast object, onto a sensor without an AA filter.

You should be reassured really: seeing this effect confirms that you are in perfect focus and your lens is really sharp at the f-stop used!  :D

It is unquestionably NOT due to any sort of aberration - chromatic or spherochromatic. Aberrations throw light out of focus, and spread it over multiple pixels.

I would also hesitate to call it a "debayering error". One cannot expect a deBayering algorithm to perform well on incomplete data, which is what we really have here, as I'll explain.

I get this effect also with my 9-micron pixel DB, in the right circumstances. I am glad to show you a sample:



This a 100% crop. No sharpening, no denoising.
ISO 400, 80/1.9 at f2.8, 60 seconds. Central area of Orion, for those who are interested.

This shows that my Mamiya 80/1.9 is already a critically sharp lens at f2.8. As each star image drifted over the sensor, virtually all of its light was focussed into a single pixel in the RGBG Bayer matrix. Most of the motion is horizontally left -> right, so each star spent a good while going R-G-R-G-R-G-R-G-R-G, or B-G-B-G-B-G-B-G-B-G - i.e. its focused PSF was so sharp that it was confined to one row of pixels and it missed one Bayer pixel colour entirely. (With information from the star only being recorded on 2 of the 4 Bayer matrix group pixels, this is why I don't regard it as deBayering "error"..."artefact" would be a fairer term). Hence, it shows as a short trail with either a cyan or a yellow colour bias.

But there is also a slight upward drift as the sky turned, which meant that every so often, the star transitioned from being mainly on RG pixels, to split more equally across RGBG pixels, and then mainly on BG pixels. Thus, each trail alternates between yellow, briefly whiteish, cyan, briefly whiteish, yellow again...

Reprocessing this with moire reduction goes a long way to removing the aliasing. Although to be honest I don't really dislike the effect; it adds interest in my view, emphasising the different underlying colours of the stars, and only looking a bit odd with one's nose up pressed against the print.

There is some longitudinal chromatic aberration present too - the blue halos around the very bright, overexposed stars. Note how the chromatic halos are several pixels wide, and they do not change colour with star drift.

Ray
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2013, 11:55:44 am »

That is a convincing argument Ray.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Do you think this would be spherochromatism?
« Reply #35 on: November 28, 2013, 03:02:11 pm »

Hi Ray,

Thanks for making that clear. I was pretty sure it was colour aliasing, but I am open to other explanations, that is the reason I posted the question.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

It is simply colour aliasing, due to imaging a <= 1 pixel wide high-contrast object, onto a sensor without an AA filter.

You should be reassured really: seeing this effect confirms that you are in perfect focus and your lens is really sharp at the f-stop used!  :D

It is unquestionably NOT due to any sort of aberration - chromatic or spherochromatic. Aberrations throw light out of focus, and spread it over multiple pixels.

I would also hesitate to call it a "debayering error". One cannot expect a deBayering algorithm to perform well on incomplete data, which is what we really have here, as I'll explain.

I get this effect also with my 9-micron pixel DB, in the right circumstances. I am glad to show you a sample:



This a 100% crop. No sharpening, no denoising.
ISO 400, 80/1.9 at f2.8, 60 seconds. Central area of Orion, for those who are interested.

This shows that my Mamiya 80/1.9 is already a critically sharp lens at f2.8. As each star image drifted over the sensor, virtually all of its light was focussed into a single pixel in the RGBG Bayer matrix. Most of the motion is horizontally left -> right, so each star spent a good while going R-G-R-G-R-G-R-G-R-G, or B-G-B-G-B-G-B-G-B-G - i.e. its focused PSF was so sharp that it was confined to one row of pixels and it missed one Bayer pixel colour entirely. (With information from the star only being recorded on 2 of the 4 Bayer matrix group pixels, this is why I don't regard it as deBayering "error"..."artefact" would be a fairer term). Hence, it shows as a short trail with either a cyan or a yellow colour bias.

But there is also a slight upward drift as the sky turned, which meant that every so often, the star transitioned from being mainly on RG pixels, to split more equally across RGBG pixels, and then mainly on BG pixels. Thus, each trail alternates between yellow, briefly whiteish, cyan, briefly whiteish, yellow again...

Reprocessing this with moire reduction goes a long way to removing the aliasing. Although to be honest I don't really dislike the effect; it adds interest in my view, emphasising the different underlying colours of the stars, and only looking a bit odd with one's nose up pressed against the print.

There is some longitudinal chromatic aberration present too - the blue halos around the very bright, overexposed stars. Note how the chromatic halos are several pixels wide, and they do not change colour with star drift.

Ray
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up