I bought an Ixpress 528C, and I am in shock! :-)

[Theodoros]

So basically the backs are sold by zeiss to leica (add time warp).

e.

I don't believe that you can put a Zeiss back onto a Leica Ed...  But you can put a Sinarback on many different MF bodies that accept an MFDB via an interchangeable adapter plate!  Practically, if one buys new, there is no other "open system" MS back that one may have... The backs all offer an interchangeable adapter, which is the same for all three backs. However, Sinar decided not to support via an adapter the Rolleis (or the Contax which I use), so Eric won't ever be able to experience an E-xact unless he invests on another system  . Lucky me however, I have a friend who has the latest 54m adapter for Contax (which he doesn't need), which is fully compatible with the new series of backs, so if I invest on an E-xact, I'll make Eric jealous. 

[eronald]

I don't believe that you can put a Zeiss back onto a Leica

onto, maybe not until now. inside, certainly.
jenoptik is zeiss JENA. M8, 9, maybe S2 are jenoptik.

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

Yeah, I wish I had a new eXact to play with because I'd really love to see what it can do in 16 shot mode.  But I only have the 54H which is about the same vintage as the CF 528 and if I'm not mistaken uses the same sensor. 

So far the competition between these two venerable old backs may not be fair because I can't figure out how to keep the mirror up between frames on the Sinar, while the CF 528 does this automatically.  It's entirely possible I have the wrong cable or I'm not using the software correctly.  If any one has sinar multishot backs with Rollei 6000 series experience I would love to hear from you.   

Also the seller who sold me the 54H seems to have misplaced the reference file CD which I understand may improve the IQ.  I think a new reference file can be made for it, but a SinarCam2 is needed which I don't have. 

It's hard to believe that a screen could add so much heat as to affect the noise in an image, but I do believe a memory card could.  If you are shooting fast, those do get hot.  So in theory the Sinar backs could produce better IQ with the active cooling and the heat sources removed.

I think the newest Sinar backs have peltier cooling as well.

[Theodoros]

Yeah, I wish I had a new eXact to play with because I'd really love to see what it can do in 16 shot mode.  But I only have the 54H which is about the same vintage as the CF 528 and if I'm not mistaken uses the same sensor.  

So far the competition between these two venerable old backs may not be fair because I can't figure out how to keep the mirror up between frames on the Sinar, while the CF 528 does this automatically.  It's entirely possible I have the wrong cable or I'm not using the software correctly.  If any one has sinar multishot backs with Rollei 6000 series experience I would love to hear from you.  

Also the seller who sold me the 54H seems to have misplaced the reference file CD which I understand may improve the IQ.  I think a new reference file can be made for it, but a SinarCam2 is needed which I don't have.  

It's hard to believe that a screen could add so much heat as to affect the noise in an image, but I do believe a memory card could.  If you are shooting fast, those do get hot.  So in theory the Sinar backs could produce better IQ with the active cooling and the heat sources removed.

I think the newest Sinar backs have peltier cooling as well.

Eric, the recorded colour in a real colour mode is 48bits depth (3x16), the output of 16bits is made later by the software and it is compressed from the original 48bit one. You can't have 48 bits of colour recorded on a card in a 3fr or fff file! The PITA with 54h (as with all sinarbacks)... is the software, ....also, Imacon has a much better (more reliable - better mechanical implementation) piezoelectric mechanism which is totally separate from the rest of the back and has its own heat sinks. On the mirror lock problem you have, I suggest you look at the following...
1. Check if the cable is for Rollei 6008 or for Fuji GX680 (they look like one another) bear in mind that Fuji GX680 can't lock its mirror up permanently which is the behaviour you get on the Rollei. (if it is for Fuji you may sent it to me, I need it!)
2. Check the amount of the delay you've set...

[ynp]

Also the seller who sold me the 54H seems to have misplaced the reference file CD which I understand may improve the IQ.  I think a new reference file can be made for it, but a SinarCam2 is needed which I don't have. 

I bought my 54h secondhand too and without the ref file. I wrote a letter to Sinar and they uploaded the Ref File on their FTP server for me. Maybe they keep the ref files in the archive.

[bpepz]

Anyone got any samples shot with 16x? So far I have never been able to find any true multishot photos anywhere.

[EricWHiss]

Eric, the recorded colour in a real colour mode is 48bits depth (3x16), the output of 16bits is made later by the software and it is compressed from the original 48bit one. You can't have 48 bits of colour recorded on a card in a 3fr or fff file! The PITA with 54h (as with all sinarbacks)... is the software, ....also, Imacon has a much better (more reliable - better mechanical implementation) piezoelectric mechanism which is totally separate from the rest of the back and has its own heat sinks. On the mirror lock problem you have, I suggest you look at the following...
1. Check if the cable is for Rollei 6008 or for Fuji GX680 (they look like one another) bear in mind that Fuji GX680 can't lock its mirror up permanently which is the behaviour you get on the Rollei. (if it is for Fuji you may sent it to me, I need it!)
2. Check the amount of the delay you've set...

Theodoros,  I have no problems with the CF 528 on the Rollei - works perfect. The Rollei does lock the mirror up between shots with the CF 528.    It's the Sinar 54H that is not keeping the mirror up during multishot and its not the camera, it's either the Sinar cable I have is incorrect or the Sinar software isn't smart enough.

Probably you are right about the Sinar software, but Hasselblad software isn't perfect either.   I find it odd that Phocus can only do the 4 shot and if I want to do 16 shot I have to use their older software Flexcolor.  But flex color in many ways is more powerful than Phocus.

Lastly, are you saying that's data depth is the reason why they can't write the multishot sequence to the memory card and let uses take multishot to the card and process later? 

[Theodoros]

Theodoros,  I have no problems with the CF 528 on the Rollei - works perfect. The Rollei does lock the mirror up between shots with the CF 528.    It's the Sinar 54H that is not keeping the mirror up during multishot and its not the camera, it's either the Sinar cable I have is incorrect or the Sinar software isn't smart enough.

Probably you are right about the Sinar software, but Hasselblad software isn't perfect either.   I find it odd that Phocus can only do the 4 shot and if I want to do 16 shot I have to use their older software Flexcolor.  But flex color in many ways is more powerful than Phocus.

Lastly, are you saying that's data depth is the reason why they can't write the multishot sequence to the memory card and let uses take multishot to the card and process later? 

Yes, fff (or 3fr) is a 3x16bit file per shot, which can't be recorded as ONE file on a card... The card should have the ability to record three different files (either in 4x or in 16x mode) and "translate" them into one by itself. To do that, the card should have Flexcolour or Phocus (for 4x only) build in and thus should be able to combine the files... Also, the card should be able to detect possible movement and do all the 16 shots adding, after the 19 (in +mode) or the 21 shots have been shot... This means that the card should be able to do what a computer does. Don't forget that with the original 528c, there was no image recorded in the image bank before the computer would finish the process, this means that the image bank was recording the image after the software has finished the process. 

[EricWHiss]

I don't see the problem in writing the entire sequence of files to the card, then doing the processing when it can be put in a computer.  If you have motion then too bad, but I don't normally have this issue.

[Theodoros]

I don't see the problem in writing the entire sequence of files to the card, then doing the processing when it can be put in a computer.  If you have motion then too bad, but I don't normally have this issue.

What I am saying is different. I suggest to read it back once more.

EDIT: There is NO sequence of shots (as in Raw material).... there is ONE MS file... in true colour! It's the file that is controlled by the software, not a mathematical "translation" of the sequence... that's why you have the pre-shots. That's why you get (or not) a "motion detection" signal for ONE picture, that's why you have the single shot exposure applying to ALL the sequence, it's ONE file...

[eronald]

deleted.

Edmund

[EricWHiss]

Theodoros,
Yes, I know well what you are saying.  What I am saying is each frame collects a new piece of the data and could also be written to the card instead of being assembled on the fly.  It's only data.   Yes, it might require a special format, but that is not to say it isn't possible.

And in any case, its not so important to this thread.  The 528 is a great back regardless if the multishot is tether only.

[Quentin]

I believe this is correct.  I use a 200MS and the biggest gain is 4 shot mode which looks superb.  6 shot is a compromise and works as you indicate.  It does recover more detail than 4 shot, but there is some interpolation going on to get to 200mp.  Either way, its a brilliant back capable of astonishing quality.

I am afraid that this is not the case... 16X mode is a matter of mechanical capability not of software! It seems that the piezzo electric crystal that moves the sensor can retain accuracy when moved at 4.5μm but 3.4μm (half of 6.8μm) that is needed for the 39mp sensor is too small to be accurately controlled! I believe that this is why the 200ms is using a new technique to create a 4x50mp=200mp  file out of a 50mp sensor in which it is moving the sensor only 6 times rather than 16 times that the 528c is using...

Now, I am not sure how exactly that process works, (perhaps Steven Hendrix could enlighten us here) but it seems that the 200ms does the same with 50MS for the first four shots (i.e. moves the sensor by one pixel thus aligning all the Bayer pattern colours on all pixels) and then it adds two more movements of 1+1/2 pixel length in magnitude (obviously to increase the size of the movement) once horizontally and once more vertically so that it then interpolates the presence of 200 pixels....

I haven't tried the 200MS but I think that the result may be impressive but may also be not up to the "real" 16x mode that the 528c can achieve, since there is no interpolation involved there for the 88mp file to be created... That said, I have to say that one must be very careful when comparing his 16x microstep results from his 528c back with anything else. He has to make sure that he has taken the maximum out of his 528c which is not easy to judge at all since one may consider that "because flexcolor detected no fault - the method was done to its perfection" which is rarely the case... My experience out of every day use of the 528's 16X microstep mode has shown to me that the software has some latitude in forgiving mistakes and that if one seeks for perfection there is simply nothing that compare to the result and that a modern 80mp back will pale in detail comparison even if the file is BW converted!

[Quentin]

On another site, I posted this quick comparison between a crop from a single shot 50mp file from my H5D-200MS, rezzed up to the equivalent of 200mp, and a similar crop from a 200mp file.  Please forgive the dull subject matter.

First, the crop from the single shot capture that had been interpolated to 200mp



Next, the crop from the 200mp file

[Theodoros]

I believe this is correct.  I use a 200MS and the biggest gain is 4 shot mode which looks superb.  6 shot is a compromise and works as you indicate.  It does recover more detail than 4 shot, but there is some interpolation going on to get to 200mp.  Either way, its a brilliant back capable of astonishing quality.

Hi Quentin. The 2 more movements happening with 200MS do cover the positions between pixels so that there is real 200mp resolution recorded. The thing is that on those two extra positions, there is no aligning of all the different RGB information happening, so (I believe) the colour is interpolated by the information of the overlapped pixels that has been the result from the 4x action that has pre occurred. I don't see any other way that this could work...

[Theodoros]

On another site, I posted this quick comparison between a crop from a single shot 50mp file from my H5D-200MS, rezzed up to the equivalent of 200mp, and a similar crop from a 200mp file.  Please forgive the dull subject matter.

First, the crop from the single shot capture that had been interpolated to 200mp



Next, the crop from the 200mp file

I believe you mean up-sampled (instead of interpolated) to 200mps for the single shot 50mp file...
MO is that there should be another shot at 4x for the comparison and that the 200mp should be down sampled to 50mp instead of the others been up sampled... In fact I would really appreciate it if you may post such a comparison... Never the less, since the (huge) resolution difference is to be expected, what I find most impressive is the clear and undeniable difference on the DR recorded on the two files (which may be of 2 stops - same as I notice with my 528c)... I would expect the DR to be the same with the 4x file as with the 6x file... but I would like to see the resolution comparison with the 200mp file down sampled to the size of the others... If you have the 120 macro lens, you may decide to use that... Regards, Theodoros.

[Quentin]

I believe you mean up-sampled (instead of interpolated) to 200mps for the single shot 50mp file...
MO is that there should be another shot at 4x for the comparison and that the 200mp should be down sampled to 50mp instead of the others been up sampled... Regards, Theodoros.

Hi Thoedorus

No, I meant interpolated.  Also, given the whole point of a larger file is more detail / ability to crop, it makes no sense to me to downsize a full resolution 200MS shot.  In my view, the point of the exercise is to see if we really need those big files, or can we get away with interpolating the data in the smaller file to the larger file size?

So at your request, here is the test you asked for  

I have taken three identical shots using single shot, 4 shot and full 6 shot capture, and beloew I will post the links to the files for samples taken from each shot.

The lens used was the HC-50 II, tripod mounted (of course).  There are some lighting differences because these images were taken using natural light.  A 0.6 ND grad was used right side side to balance the light, and some shadow / highlight correction used in Photoshop to bring up the shadows slightly.

The single shot capture and the 4 shot multi-shot were each interpolated to the same size as the 6-shot, 200mp image, using Photozoom pro.  No sharpening was applied.  I have only linked to the samples, because of image file size restrictions on this forum

Here is the main shot



Next, a link to the Single Shot Capture sample:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20single%20shot%201.jpg

Then the 4-Shot capture:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%204%20shot%201.jpg

Finally, the big banana, the 6 shot capture

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20Six%20shot.jpg

[Theodoros]

Hi Thoedorus

No, I meant interpolated.  Also, given the whole point of a larger file is more detail / ability to crop, it makes no sense to me to downsize a full resolution 200MS shot.  In my view, the point of the exercise is to see if we really need those big files, or can we get away with interpolating the data in the smaller file to the larger file size?

So at your request, here is the test you asked for  

I have taken three identical shots using single shot, 4 shot and full 6 shot capture, and beloew I will post the links to the files for samples taken from each shot.

The lens used was the HC-50 II, tripod mounted (of course).  There are some lighting differences because these images were taken using natural light.  A 0.6 ND grad was used right side side to balance the light, and some shadow / highlight correction used in Photoshop to bring up the shadows slightly.

The single shot capture and the 4 shot multi-shot were each interpolated to the same size as the 6-shot, 200mp image, using Photozoom pro.  No sharpening was applied.  I have only linked to the samples, because of image file size restrictions on this forum

Here is the main shot



Next, a link to the Single Shot Capture sample:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20single%20shot%201.jpg

Then the 4-Shot capture:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%204%20shot%201.jpg

Finally, the big banana, the 6 shot capture

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9806585/July_2014_onwards/H5D-200MS%20Six%20shot.jpg

Thanks for the post Quentin! Still... sampling a file involves no interpolation! Never the less, if one is to compare two files of different resolution, it's always best to down sample the larger file than up sample the lower rez file, since there is no additional information to be added with the lower resolution.

EDIT:Up-sampling is a tricky process during which it is easy for artefacts to be induced (since information that hasn't been captured is asked to be added in the file).

[Quentin]

By definition interpolation involves guesswork.  The definition of interpolation includes guessing or estimating intermediate values, which is what is happening in software when an image is uspsized, with varying degrees of accuracy, because  data is being added to based upon software assumptions.  I used Photozoom Pro S-Spline Max with sharpening turned off the for the 50mp shots, but other algorithms such as Lanczos sometimes work better.  

I really do not see any point at all in reducing the size of an image to compare it with a lower resolution version.  The point of a bigger file is... its bigger!  The question I want answered is how well the smaller files compare when their sized is increased to match the bigger file.  Some do better than others.  For example, the single shot 50mp capture is riddled with moire once you look closely, as we have become used to with mosaic or bayer type sensors.  Frankly if this was not photography, but something (even) more important, we'd be howling in outrage at such obvious flaws.  This becomes more obvious when its size is scaled up to match the larger file, quite apart from other differences.   Fact is, a 40-80mp single shot file will do very nicely for most purposes - right up to the point you put it side by side with a multishot file  

And this, of course, is why Foveon sensors have a cult following, despite their limitations.

[Theodoros]

By definition interpolation involves guesswork.  The definition of interpolation includes guessing or estimating intermediate values, which is what is happening in software when an image is uspsized, with varying degrees of accuracy, because  data is being added to based upon software assumptions.  I used Photozoom Pro S-Spline Max with sharpening turned off the for the 50mp shots, but other algorithms such as Lanczos sometimes work better.  

I really do not see any point at all in reducing the size of an image to compare it with a lower resolution version.  The point of a bigger file is... its bigger!  The question I want answered is how well the smaller files compare when their sized is increased to match the bigger file.  Some do better than others.  For example, the single shot 50mp capture is riddled with moire once you look closely, as we have become used to with mosaic or bayer type sensors.  Frankly if this was not photography, but something (even) more important, we'd be howling in outrage at such obvious flaws.  This becomes more obvious when its size is scaled up to match the larger file, quite apart from other differences.   Fact is, a 40-80mp single shot file will do very nicely for most purposes - right up to the point you put it side by side with a multishot file  

And this, of course, is why Foveon sensors have a cult following, despite their limitations.

Yes Quentin, interpolation involves guesswork, but it is a process that the guesswork is based on some origin specifically designed for the process to work (like with interpolated colour and bayer pattern). Sampling is different, the maker of the sensor never specified the pixels to be up sampled... so there is no interpolation involved there.

OTOH, a 50mp file can be printed (if one knows what he is doing) as large as 6x8feet which is huge by any standard, so there is no need to up sample it for comparison reasons on a monitor. The artefacts you mention on the single shot file are obviously because the file's colour is interpolated which of course involves mistakes, these mistakes are obviously multiplied when up sampled. The true colour file in contradiction up samples particularly well (its surprising the little difference between the up-sampled 4x file with respect to the 6x one) because there is no interpolation involved in the original. I believe that if pixels where bigger, both the 50mp files would up-sample even better. It leads me to suspect that the 16x file of the 528c which is 88mp, but is created from 9μm size pixels (which is more than twice the size of the pixel "entrance" area) would end up being better than the 6x result, even if up sampled!