Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sarahcharles on May 01, 2009, 07:34:55 pm
-
I tested the P45+ ISO, the quality image is perfect at 50 and 100 iso. At 200 iso it's still acceptable... but no serious work at 400 iso!
Anyone know if the new H3DII-50 is better for hight ISO ???
Thanks,
-
I tested the P45+ ISO, the quality image is perfect at 50 and 100 iso. At 200 iso it's still acceptable... but no serious work at 400 iso!
Anyone know if the new H3DII-50 is better for hight ISO ???
Thanks,
A little while ago we had a discussion about "real ISO" vs "fake ISO"- real being the actual analog amps used prior to A/D just like in DSLR's
and fake being just a post A/D software manipulation - more like increasing exposure in post.
H3DII only has one real ISO of 50. I heard that P45+ has real ISO's above 50.
Personally I've tested both at up to 200 and both looked pretty good. Maybe P45+ was a little better at 200...
-ilya
-
I tested the P45+ ISO, the quality image is perfect at 50 and 100 iso. At 200 iso it's still acceptable... but no serious work at 400 iso!
Generally speaking, it would be interesting to see a real pixel peeping comparison at various ISO between backs of the latest generation.
Phaseone has become significantly more expensive than the competition, and we have zero information whether it makes sense to be spending so much more for a P65+ vs a Leaf/Sinar/Hassy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Generally speaking, it would be interesting to see a real pixel peeping comparison at various ISO between backs of the latest generation.
Practically impossible to do on a level playing field. You would have to shoot the same subject with exact same lighting and lens using various backs.
Then there is the problem that some software applies noise reduction and perhaps other tweaks 'behind the scenes' whereas other software gives you the untouched file for you to process to your own taste. So you can't compare output even at default settings!
The closest thing to a fair comparison is to tweak all the files to squeeze the best result out of them (and this is what would happen in the real world anyway) but there is always going to be the issue of operator error/taste intruding on the results.
-
Practically impossible to do on a level playing field. You would have to shoot the same subject with exact same lighting and lens using various backs.
Then there is the problem that some software applies noise reduction and perhaps other tweaks 'behind the scenes' whereas other software gives you the untouched file for you to process to your own taste. So you can't compare output even at default settings!
The closest thing to a fair comparison is to tweak all the files to squeeze the best result out of them (and this is what would happen in the real world anyway) but there is always going to be the issue of operator error/taste intruding on the results.
Hard to do, but not impossible. It would take 4 people with expertise in their own back to spend one day together.
When you think about it, it is odd that people discuss the price gap between an A900 and a D3x, but don't seem to be interested in finding out whether spending 10.000 US$ more on a P65+ makes sense or not. I would understand if these were luxury items like watches, but we are talking about pro tools for photographers, right?
Existing members of the MFDB club probably don't care much for various legitimate reasons, but should all the new entrants get a Leaf?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Generally speaking, it would be interesting to see a real pixel peeping comparison at various ISO between backs of the latest generation.
Phaseone has become significantly more expensive than the competition, and we have zero information whether it makes sense to be spending so much more for a P65+ vs a Leaf/Sinar/Hassy.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard:
I can only speak for the USA, but Phase One products are competively priced - some may be a bit higher, some a bit lower than our competitors. Hasselblad and then Leaf made substantial pricing reductions, and we have followed suit.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Bernard:
I can only speak for the USA, but Phase One products are competively priced - some may be a bit higher, some a bit lower than our competitors. Hasselblad and then Leaf made substantial pricing reductions, and we have followed suit.
Hello Steve,
My information might not be up to date then, how much does a P65+ sell for? Last time I checked it was about 10.000 US$ more than a Hassy 50.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Hello Steve,
My information might not be up to date then, how much does a P65+ sell for? Last time I checked it was about 10.000 US$ more than a Hassy 50.
Regards,
Bernard
I would expect a P645+ to be more, Its full frame, 10 more MP, and has Sensor+. When hasselblad then makes the H3DII-60 then we can compare.
-
I would expect a P645+ to be more, Its full frame, 10 more MP, and has Sensor+. When hasselblad then makes the H3DII-60 then we can compare.
First he was talking about P45+ then P65+, if you talk to compare mp to be equal then i want to see the test ISO comparison between P45+ and Hasselblad H3DII-39, both are at 39mp. Later when that H3D60mp will be available then hope someone will do both 60mb DMF comparison.
-
I would expect a P645+ to be more, Its full frame, 10 more MP, and has Sensor+. When hasselblad then makes the H3DII-60 then we can compare.
Well, that's obviously what the marketing dpts of these companies want us to think, but I would be really interested in looking side to side at 2 A0 prints from these backs. My bet is that absolutely nobody could tell the difference in a blind test. It would seem that I am not the only interested since a major Japanese reseller organized such a comparison event recently... unfortunately I was not able to join.
Rather than saying that there is 10MP gap, the best way to look at the resolution difference between these backs is IMHO to say that one enables you to do a 27.2 inch wide print at 300 DPI, while the other enables you to do a 29.8 inch wide print at 300 DPI. In other words, 50 and 60 MP are basically the same thing. This is IMHO enough of a reason to consider that the H3DII-50 and the P65+ are direct competitors. I could also to the same computation with the leaf and the result would be that you can print a 30 inch wide print at 300DPI with it.
Sensor+ is seemingly considered by most MFDB shooter (but Michael) as being of little importance judging from the reactions left here in a recent thread, which leaves us with a slightly larger sensor.
Is the question really "are these mm worth 10.000 US$", or is there more to it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is not necessary, not even useful to make identical shots (i.e. the same subject, same illumination, same lens, etc.) with different cameras in order to objectively compare the noise/dynamic range characteristics of the cameras.
Look at post #85 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34133&st=80&p=279405&#entry279405)
The reliable mesurement based on the raw data requires only one abstract shot per ISO (another one for measuring the clipping may be necessary).
-
It is not necessary, not even useful to make identical shots (i.e. the same subject, same illumination, same lens, etc.) with different cameras in order to objectively compare the noise/dynamic range characteristics of the cameras.
Look at post #85 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34133&st=80&p=279405&#entry279405)
The reliable mesurement based on the raw data requires only one abstract shot per ISO (another one for measuring the clipping may be necessary).
Gabor,
Noise is subjective - its like cholesterol .... there's the good cholesterol and there's the bad. Can your favorite pet, RawAnalyze, describe which noise looks like friendly film noise and which noise looks like digital noise? I'd much rather make an qualitative assessment than a quantitative one. Real photographers spend time looking at images where they have had problems with other images in the past - they know where to look - not just color chip #5. I doubt very much your analysis of color chart chips will ever reveal important things like posterization in color fields such as sky and flowers, or banding in the shadows of skin tones or or other issues. You're going to get a number, and only a number, and no one can even say if its right or wrong - it will be just a number. A visual comparison of images taken from the same scene with each camera will reveal a lot more, and IMHO be quite a bit more useful. Some kinds of noise don't show in prints while others do.
Eric
-
I tested the P45+ ISO, the quality image is perfect at 50 and 100 iso. At 200 iso it's still acceptable... but no serious work at 400 iso!
Anyone know if the new H3DII-50 is better for hight ISO ???
Thanks,
I personally would be interested in seeing a comparison.
Just shot with my 75S leaf for a portrait in dying light and my god I'm embarrassed to pass it to my client...
I would like to compare image quality between different backs (which includes comparison of noise of course) when shooting a human subject rather than just landscapes or objects.
-
Well, that's obviously what the marketing dpts of these companies want us to think, but I would be really interested in looking side to side at 2 A0 prints from these backs. My bet is that absolutely nobody could tell the difference in a blind test. It would seem that I am not the only interested since a major Japanese reseller organized such a comparison event recently... unfortunately I was not able to join.
Rather than saying that there is 10MP gap, the best way to look at the resolution difference between these backs is IMHO to say that one enables you to do a 27.2 inch wide print at 300 DPI, while the other enables you to do a 29.8 inch wide print at 300 DPI. In other words, 50 and 60 MP are basically the same thing. This is IMHO enough of a reason to consider that the H3DII-50 and the P65+ are direct competitors. I could also to the same computation with the leaf and the result would be that you can print a 30 inch wide print at 300DPI with it.
Sensor+ is seemingly considered by most MFDB shooter (but Michael) as being of little importance judging from the reactions left here in a recent thread, which leaves us with a slightly larger sensor.
Is the question really "are these mm worth 10.000 US$", or is there more to it?
Cheers,
Bernard
Phase One pricing is not based solely on a comparison of resolution or sensor size - though that is part of the equation, to be sure. There are many aspects that a potential buyer might make a decision on, including software workflow, overall image quality, capture rate, flexibility of camera platforms, extra features - like Sensor Plus, etc. Just doing a shoot out and comparing prints does not necessarily determine whether a product is worth the extra investment.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Phase One pricing is not based solely on a comparison of resolution or sensor size - though that is part of the equation, to be sure. There are many aspects that a potential buyer might make a decision on, including software workflow, overall image quality, capture rate, flexibility of camera platforms, extra features - like Sensor Plus, etc. Just doing a shoot out and comparing prints does not necessarily determine whether a product is worth the extra investment.
Steve Hendrix
uh, Steve . . . I think you guys have been working with microsoft too long.
[attachment=13436:imapc.jpg]
-
I tested the P45+ ISO, the quality image is perfect at 50 and 100 iso. At 200 iso it's still acceptable... but no serious work at 400 iso!
I would agree with this. With my P45+, when you get to ASA 400, it gets very risky. I don't mind random noise, but the killer is those vertical lines of noise, that extend down the entire length of the frame, at high ASAs, that get you. No way to clone out. Some people might use the Noise Reduction, but I find that any time I use any of those things, even any sharpening at all in C1, I pay for it in other ways. You end up with illustrative effects in certain areas, rather than pure photographic look. I like everything turned to zero/off/disable.
My opinion with P45+ is nothing higher than ASA 200. Every one of those "features" that's designed to fix something just makes something else worse. There's only so much blood in the turnip -- if you can't shoot the scene at ASA 50 or 100, then you're best to reach for a different camera. Otherwise, there's hell to pay, in post. I'd find that "true ASA" and simply stick with it. (And then buy a Nikon for everything else).
-
uh, Steve . . . I think you guys have been working with microsoft too long.
[attachment=13436:imapc.jpg]
Ah - high praise, coming from the PC evangelist.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
-
Phase One pricing is not based solely on a comparison of resolution or sensor size - though that is part of the equation, to be sure. There are many aspects that a potential buyer might make a decision on, including software workflow, overall image quality, capture rate, flexibility of camera platforms, extra features - like Sensor Plus, etc. Just doing a shoot out and comparing prints does not necessarily determine whether a product is worth the extra investment.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Steve,
Totally agree with that, workflow is probably the most important aspect for commercial shooters and I have no doubt that Phaseone does probably have the best offer outthere once that is factored in.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
With my P45+, when you get to ASA 400, it gets very risky. I don't mind random noise, but the killer is those vertical lines of noise, that extend down the entire length of the frame, at high ASAs, that get you
Do you mind posting a sample raw file exhibiting this phenomenon (yousendit.com)?
Thanks
-
Noise is subjective - its like cholesterol .... there's the good cholesterol and there's the bad
It is even worse; the raw conversion changes the appearance of the noise. For example the "color noise" is not existent in the raw data - the noise is always within a color channel.
Can your favorite pet, RawAnalyze, describe which noise looks like friendly film noise and which noise looks like digital noise?
I have a suggestion to you, Eric. Pls upload raw files with some "good" and with some "bad" noise and we will see if I can "crystallize" the difference on raw level, i.e. before the raw conversion.
I hope we agree on one aspect: in order to judge (and, of course, to quantify, if possible at all) the noise, one needs smooth, unicolored, uniformly illuminated patches. An extreme example for what is useless: you don't want to judge the noise on a multicolored, fine textured area, like a fluffy cloth of mixed color, do you?
As to what I can find in the raw files with Rawnalyze, pls see the A900 noise analysis (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/SonyA900/SonyA900_NR.htm). It explains among others the source of blotchiness.
Qualitative assessments are a must, but they don't answer all questions. Moreover, in order to be able to make subjective comparisons, the sample shots have to be done in identical setting. Half stop higher or lower exposure changes the noise in the very deep shadows a lot.
-
Yesterday I took a snapshot of owner of a gallery where I want to sell my pix, and she wants a copy of the pic: Window light 110 mm max zoom, wide open 1/125th ISO 400, and it looks soft and noisy (on the back of the camera). Would I have got a better picture with a £300 point and shoot?
(Must install phocus and photoshop sometime soon.)
If you want to get together for a comparative test in the UK midlands - contact me.
-
Ah - high praise, coming from the PC evangelist.
Steve Hendrix
Phase One
Electronic photography is so proprietary compared to analog.
Could you ever dream of a board meeting at Fuji or Kodak where people actually made a decision to produce a film that only worked in one or two cameras and had to be processed in one lab?
Can you imagine Hasselblad making a camera that would only use Hasselblad film? (oops sorry, they've done that).
Who would have thought a polaroid proof would be such a difficult process.
Then again how many photographers ever dreamed (or better put had the nightmare) that they would become the lab, the retoucher and pre press house?
Looking at where we are today with digital, vs where we were 7 years ago, I would have thought today would have been a more mature, easier process than it is. I really would have thought that you could just drop in your digital film into any camera and go shoot, but instead it's gone the opposite way.
I'm positive it's way more consuming on the back end to shoot digital than it was film, though I'm also aware the possibilities are greater.
It's still a "roll your own" process. Just naming files can be a chore (see v-4), or some type of automated backup, takes learning a new software and hiring a dedicated assistant just to make sure everything runs well. Actually everything we do in digital photography takes learning a new software.
There is a reason that 99.999% of all retouchers do everything in photoshop, because once you've learned it . . . you've learned it. As a photographer if you own more than one camera you've probably learned about 4 software's just to get to the first proof stage.
As far as being an evangelist for Windows or Vista or any computer I'm not. I have no desire buy anything new unless it is easier, or superior and I know that since Macs are now PC's and PC's are now Macs there should be no reason whatsoever that one has a powered firewire port where the other doesn't and the other has a fast usb where one is slow as an old phone line.
Then again nothing in the electronic world makes any sense. Why a 24mpx Sony camera costs less than 1/2 of a 24mpx Nikon, or why a digital back costs more than new 3 series bmw is beyond my technical knowledge or understanding.
What I do know is that now that photography is a electronic business model where nothing is suppose to last for more than a few years then buying an $800 computer that will make a "polaroid" faster than a $2,500 computer, doesn't require a whole lot of decision making.
B
-
Electronic photography is so proprietary compared to analog.
Could you ever dream of a board meeting at Fuji or Kodak where people actually made a decision to produce a film that only worked in one or two cameras and had to be processed in one lab?
SCALA film.
Though to be fair you can get it processed elsewhere (e.g. dr5.com) most people who purchased it didn't know that.
I feel like there were a few others, but I could be wrong; all my film knowledge is slowly decaying away, except for my love of traditional cyanotypes!
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:[email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
SCALA film.
Though to be fair you can get it processed elsewhere (e.g. dr5.com) most people who purchased it didn't know that.
I feel like there were a few others, but I could be wrong; all my film knowledge is slowly decaying away, except for my love of traditional cyanotypes!
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:[email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
you're wrong with the scala ( and actually it is a dangerous analogy to compare Phase One or any other manufacturer of MFDBs with scala, because you know what happened to AGFA). at least here in germany, we had 5 or 6 labs doing scala development back in time when agfa was still alive. and scala was something special/ different, not EPP or Velvia.
bcooter is right. everybody, me included, was thinking: with digital it will get easier, faster, with time ....but what we got is more time and thought consuming than before and it doesn't seem to change with maturity.
now every camera needs its own lab to get the picture out of the camera. at least E-6 and C-41 were something of a standard.
-
I think we are forgetting about Kodachrome here. I remember at one time maybe 6 labs in the US if that even, all owned by Kodak.
-
after all is said and done, can anyone here pleasseeeeee post a few samples.
I don't care if it's of different scenes...I have yet to see samples from the H3D 50
-
Yesterday I took a snapshot of owner of a gallery where I want to sell my pix, and she wants a copy of the pic: Window light 110 mm max zoom, wide open 1/125th ISO 400, and it looks soft and noisy (on the back of the camera). Would I have got a better picture with a £300 point and shoot?
(Must install phocus and photoshop sometime soon.)
If you want to get together for a comparative test in the UK midlands - contact me.
Softness could be due to movement as well. Or did you tripod it? I have heard and notice myself that the Speed should be atleast the focal length and more. 110 lens zoomed out at low aperture and hand held can look soft for sure at 100%. Even with film I beleive.
Also I feel we have all been duped by the 100% zoom onscreen. Never had that when shooting film. Even when I look at some of my old scans recently I noticed how grainy they were and how they usually WAY oversharpened them for print.
We are all spoiled by the 100% zoom syndrom in monitor. Whether that changes anything or not? Not sure.:+}.
I use to shoot alot or portra film and looking back on some prints, I am no longer so hard on myself with those "soft" images on screen...
Snook