Very poor examples. A two minute exposure can be exceptionally sharp so I think something else is going on. What are they thinking??
Victor
One picture is from Paul Reiffer and he had other thoughts about the picture.
Here is the link CLICK (https://www.paulreiffer.com/2018/08/hands-on-review-launching-phase-one-iq4-150mp-infinity-platform-camera-system/):
Greeting Gerd
There’s been a recent influx of “pseudo medium format” cropped-sensor cameras – from Fuji’s GFX 50S to Hassleblad’s compact X1D-50c, and many more in the works – each using what I consider to be a loophole in the industry to claim that “anything bigger than 35mm is therefore Medium Format”.
LOL at the "pseudo medium format" line in that blog post.
2 raw files can be downloaded HERE (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/XF-Camera-System/IQ4/XF-IQ4-150MP-Camera-System.aspx)
you need to have C1 11.2.1 on your system of course (DB version is free, if needed)
Pretty disappointed in the samples...
LOL at the "pseudo medium format" line in that blog post. Back in my day, we called 645 Pseudo MF! #getoffmylawn
For us without C1, can someone post a small jpegs to show what 2 files you guys are talking about?
2 raw files can be downloaded HERE (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/XF-Camera-System/IQ4/XF-IQ4-150MP-Camera-System.aspx)This should not be a problem.
First one uses the 80mm LS at f16, which is plain silly - hello, diffraction?
This should not be a problem.
On the H series the 80mm goes to f32 and I expect P1 is similar.
I regularly shoot product work at f18 -20. You need this for depth of field.
The thing I noticed was the images were 150-200MB each. I wonder how many professional photographers need 150MP?
Even non pros are buying the 50MP mirrorless MF cameras out now because they are high quality at an affordable price.
50MP is plenty for most people and 150MP is targeting a very small subset of a small market anyway. The price will continue to reflect that.
I was shooting some large travel bags and had the X1D camera set up for that when then the customer bought out some accessories that were very small. Not wanting to move the camera because there were more large bags coming I tried the existing setup and just cropped the results. Even seriously cropping the image I was still able to get great results at the required 2400 pixels wide.
2 raw files can be downloaded HERE (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/XF-Camera-System/IQ4/XF-IQ4-150MP-Camera-System.aspx)
you need to have C1 11.2.1 on your system of course (DB version is free, if needed)
Pretty disappointed in the samples:
First one uses the 80mm LS at f16, which is plain silly - hello, diffraction?
The other uses the zoom with a 2 minute exposure, and is... no surprise, quite soft.
Neither of these are going to show off what 150mp is capable of.
Surely Phase can find people who know what they are doing technically?!
It may also be possible that atmospheric disturbances affect the image.
Best regards
Erik
On the rumor/announcement thread, I've just linked to the Hartblei adapter for Canon tilt/shift lenses for the Fuji. For me it's the Fuji announcement of the show, and it's already happened: Pros are going to want that for product shots and architecture, and they're all gonna get it; 100MP you don't need but SHIFT, now that is really really useful.There is already a Canon to X1D adaptor from Kipon. I got it a couple of weeks ago and it works well.
Btw, I'm sure Stefan could be persuaded to make an adapter for the XD as well, but it looks as if the Fuji has substantially more working shooters.
Edmund
| f/5.6 | f/11 |
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/DoF2/A55_100Macro_small1-5.jpg) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/DoF2/A55_100Macro_small1-13.jpg) |
Let's not go for complicated first. I suggest diffraction.
Edmund
Hi Slobodan,
Here is file one in C1, with no sharpening, at actual pixels.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Could you include your zoom percentage slider on that screenshot?
Given the toolbar sizes, that screenshot would be a 200% crop, not at 100% zoom, showing very different results to a 1:1 pixel comparison? May be wrong, but here's what a 100% looks like at my end on the same 1920 screen dimension you've shared...
Hi,Thanks - very odd!
Screen shot from Photoshop and Capture One.
Best regards
Erik
Something is clearly off! I shoot extensively with the 40-80 zoom (non-BR) on an XF100 and I don't see that much softness at f16.
If you create a new variant - essentially creating an "as shot" file, and you:
- Pull NR slider all the way to zero (as Paul has done)
- Push Sharpening up a bit
- Push Radius up a bit
- Pull Threshhold down to zero
- Check Diffraction Sharpening box
Then, it looks not bad. This is not a 22mp or 39mp image, it is a 150mp image, it will require adjustments to standard sharpening settings.
I still might expect better from what I see here, but keep in mind this is a 2 minute exposure.
There are lots of elements that could impact sharpness on a 2 minute exposure.
But this is just an initial couple images. There will be plenty more real world sample images coming along from multiple sources, including CI.
Steve Hendrix/CI
One of the benefits of having more pixels is that we get a better resolution of fine detail. But, increasing resolution would also make the picture look softer. If we look at an image at 1:1 pixels, it will be more magnified on a 150 MP back than on a 100 mp back.
In the enclosed sample I show a small crop from the harbour image. On the top it is the original image, without sharpening in C1. Left below is same crop, but from the image downsized to 100 MP. Just downsizing the image makes it sharper. The image on the right size is the "100 MP" crop sharpened with focus magic. That is pretty sharp.
Actually a two minute exposure should be almost immune to vibration unless the vibration is constant. Remember the days of shutter vibration? Images were especially sensitive for exposures made at 1/15 - 1/100. Above or below and it was mitigated. And for really long exposures (greater than 30 seconds) it was invisible.
That would be true of mirror slap and/or shutter shock. I was thinking of actual ground or wind induced vibration transmitted through the tripod. It would be easy to rule out if the photographer were to comment on the setup.
What are the file dimensions for the 150Mb back?
14204 x 10652...
Come on guys, you're making excuses for dreadful soft images that should never have made the cut!
It's like you're trying to find ways to justify them. They are simply unacceptable, and as the first images released promoting their new hi-end pro back, a disaster!
Phase One posted a raw file of the Rodi 23mm along with an LCC file. Pretty impressive, although in my opinion C1 default sharpening is still too strong.
Almost no color cast too. Good sign.
IQ4 w 23hr (https://go.phaseone.com/P1-2018-IQ4150MPTechnicalRAWDownload_01CampaignPage.html)
Dave
Dave..... I see a shiny new IQ4-150 with your name on it. :)
Victor
The LCC is very impressive. I hope Phase will also make an IQ4-100 (44x33) back.
Joe, about the under exposure: Did you create and apply the LCC? Once you do, the edges get pretty bright. At first I thought the LCC was over-correcting for falloff. Then I thought, on an angle of view that wide I bet it is a pretty realistic rendering of the sky based on the sun direction. Even without a polarizer the sky is brighter along the sun's axis.
Dave
Edit: If you switch to linear response there is indeed some headroom.
I'm not buying any of the Rody wides due to their excessive distortion which is not so easy to fix in post. So.... a lot of what you mention is very true. The full resolution of the new back is beyond most of my lenses.
On a different note, this kid needs to get off his cell phone and enjoy what is around him.
You may have missed that Capture One has full lens corrections for the 23, 32, 35, 40, 50, 70, and 90 HR-SW. That includes distortion correction, including with movement (though you do have to manually enter the movement amount).
Yes Doug..... but all of that correction comes at a price of loss of 'some' resolution. Regardless of where that correction is made, either at the raw stage or beyond in post it 'does' come at a price.
The sharpness is lovely, but it would have been great to see some shift movement. The images appear to have nothing but rise, and having additional sky is useless for judging sharpness.
I agree, Joe, they should have a working architectural photographer produce a set of images if they really want to speak to tech cam usability.
IMHO,
CB
Yes Doug..... but all of that correction comes at a price of loss of 'some' resolution. Regardless of where that correction is made, either at the raw stage or beyond in post it 'does' come at a price.
Victor
The sharpness is lovely, but it would have been great to see some shift movement. The images appear to have nothing but rise, and having additional sky is useless for judging sharpness.
I agree, Joe, they should have a working architectural photographer produce a set of images if they really want to speak to tech cam usability.
IMHO,
CB