Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: harlemshooter on August 20, 2009, 02:04:11 pm
-
Just played with the Aptus-2 10 for a few hours...but have yet to upload the images.
Would be interested to hear from anyone who has compared this camera with the P65+.
-
Just played with the Aptus-2 10 for a few hours...but have yet to upload the images.
Would be interested to hear from anyone who has compared this camera with the P65+.
We hope to get an Aptus II 10 to look at soon, now that the dust is settling on the Leaf distribution. We're now a Leaf dealer, which for me personally is nice because I've always preferred offering customers a choice of options or at least having the ability to provide the most appropriate option. We've already posted quite a few P65+ tests. I had heard that the Aptus II 10 was from the same wafer as the P65+. It very well could be, so the difference might would come down to the raw conversion (Leaf Capture vs Capture One). There are certainly difference between the two products also - in terms of LCD screen, and how each gets you to a smaller file - cropping in camera with the Aptus II vs full frame resolution reduction with the P65+.
As soon as we get a chance, we'll get some comparisons up.
Steve Hendrix
-
Hi,
I've shot with it during several demos I did for Leaf on Photokina and in Denmark.
I like the 3/2 ratio although I have to admit that for pure portrait work I still like the 4/3 a bit more but heck with that many pixels you can crop.
Quality is amazing although I have to add I was not shooting with a finished product.
I stopped down to f22 on several shots and the sharpness was still more than ok, best is however to stay arround f11-16 I think.
I was promised to shoot with the AFi-II10 in the studio a while ago but than everything with Leaf went the wrong way so that never happened.
Which was a shame, but I hope to do a more thorough test in the studio in the future.
Overal I love the quality of the Leaf products for skintones and the Aptus10 was no exception.
-
My conclusion is that the Phase One has much better overall tonality.
-
I love how this myth of Leaf having better skintones refuses to die. Why is it so hard to understand that if you calibrate digital cameras there is very little to no difference in color between them? If you think the default profile of a RAW converter is somehow the inherit color of your digital camera you're obviously stuck in a film mentality.
-
I love how this myth of Leaf having better skintones refuses to die. Why is it so hard to understand that if you calibrate digital cameras there is very little to no difference in color between them? If you think the default profile of a RAW converter is somehow the inherit color of your digital camera you're obviously stuck in a film mentality.
The "Myth" refuses to die because it is largely true. No color is not as different as it was in the days of film, but different ccd and backs DO see color differently. The right profiling can bring them close but it is not the same. Backs also use different IR filters which has a profound effect on the ability to reproduce color. Take for instance the 22mp CCD from both kodak (P25) and Dalsa (, they have notable problems when it comes to reproducing green. You will not see the same issue with say a P45+, the green reproduction is quite good.
P65+ and Aptus II 10 on the other hand should have similar skin tone qualities since the CCD are similar and from Dalsa. The only real differences would come from specific profiling, processing algorithms and in-back processing.
-
I tried several backs and somehow always liked the Dalsa chip more for what I do.
But the light has to be good and than it really shines.
I think there is a constant change in performance so I would love to test the new P45+ of course
-
The "Myth" refuses to die because it is largely true. No color is not as different as it was in the days of film, but different ccd and backs DO see color differently. The right profiling can bring them close but it is not the same. Backs also use different IR filters which has a profound effect on the ability to reproduce color. Take for instance the 22mp CCD from both kodak (P25) and Dalsa (, they have notable problems when it comes to reproducing green. You will not see the same issue with say a P45+, the green reproduction is quite good.
P65+ and Aptus II 10 on the other hand should have similar skin tone qualities since the CCD are similar and from Dalsa. The only real differences would come from specific profiling, processing algorithms and in-back processing.
I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.
-
I do fully second that.
Thierry
I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.
-
I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.
There is nothing theoretical about it. Take a Leaf 22mp back and shoot a garment that is olive green. It will be grey on screen. Sure you can do all the post you want and get whatever result you want, but the point here is that the camera inherently produce images with different starting points for color. If a back is giving you the skin tone you like out of the box, then it requires less post and saves time and money.
-
There is nothing theoretical about it. Take a Leaf 22mp back and shoot a garment that is olive green. It will be grey on screen. Sure you can do all the post you want and get whatever result you want, but the point here is that the camera inherently produce images with different starting points for color. If a back is giving you the skin tone you like out of the box, then it requires less post and saves time and money.
Now you're just way off. Digital cameras by nature have no significant built in "out of the box" look, it's all dependent on in-camera processing and what software you are using. Open a RAW file in different converters and it will look different in each one. That's why you have to do a calibration for each camera and specific software. If you're judging a camera's colors by the default settings in your software you are either an amateur, lazy or ignorant. This is true for other parts of a color workflow as well, monitors, printers, etc.
-
I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.
Then I suggest you quickly sell your calibration methods to Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Adobe, and the moving film industry, who are at present desperately trying to solve this very problem. You lucky and soon to be very rich man, I admire your accomplishment, when I think of all these interminable ICC meetings I have sat through where idiotic so-called color-scientists droned on and on about their ongoing attempts at camera calibration. Why have you waited so long to announce this? But, by the way, have you tested your color vision and compared it to that of some young female of our species ?
Edmund
-
Then I suggest you quickly sell your calibration methods to Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Adobe, and the moving film industry, who are at present desperately trying to solve this very problem. You lucky and soon to be very rich man, I admire your accomplishment, when I think of all these interminable ICC meetings I have sat through where idiotic so-called color-scientists droned on and on about their ongoing attempts at camera calibration. Why have you waited so long to announce this? But, by the way, have you tested your color vision and compared it to that of some young female of our species ?
Edmund
This just made my day. Thanks!
-
Problem with theoretical BS (sorry for the expression) is that it's theorie.
YES in theorie a well calibrated digital camera will give you similair results.
But in practice it simply is not.
As mentioned here it's indeed true that several RAW convertors will give you different results, mostly due to the way of the calculation of the colorspaces and the interpretation of the engine.
And there lies the problem.
Also in the camera there is an engine running, also not all sensors are equal.
A very simple example.
I tested a Hasselblad and a Mamiya ZD at app the same time.
Both were calibrated with a Gretag setup.
Both had wonderful skin tones compared to my calibrated 5D which was always a bit too redish in the magenta and orange (yellow) parts.
Still the look and feel of the Mamiya ZD won.
Problem with the ZD was that it was not evenly in color, when shooting a white piece of paper there were a lot of colorcasts.
And there were some more problems with the back (long story).
But the overal look was amazing.
I changed the ZD for a Leaf Aptus 22 with also a Dalsa censor.
The funny thing was that this back gave me a different (more accurate toning especially in the deep reds en deep greens) and was 100% correct in coloruniformity (as far as you can speak on 100% correct).
Although I have to say that especially with MF cameras the canned profiles are much better than most DSLR profiles you can yield profit by calibration.
HOWEVER to say that all cameras are the same after calibration is not understanding the fundamental basics of how ICC profiling and cameras work (sorry I don't mean this the wrong way).
I'm also an ISF calibrator and when we compare different displays with the same setting options like CMS and grayscale and gamma one would say that all those displays would look the same.
When we compare the calibration reports after the calibration and see they all are within a dE of 3 we would without a doubt say they are all exactly the same.
HOWEVER when we look at the displays there is a distinct difference between all of them, although they look very very similair.
For example a plasma will give you a totally different "look" than an LCD which is again different from a LED LCD.
So in the end, there is so much more going on than just making one ICC profile for a camera to make it look perfect.
I don't mean this to attack some posters, it's my personal experience and would like to also be read as that without flames.
-
I don't know why I even bother
-
Frank,
Actually theory says that perfect camera calibration is impossible. Problem is there are 3 color filters in a Bayer sensor, and they usually do not coincide with the cone sensitivity curves in the human eye, nor with a linear combination thereof. Thus mathematics alone indicate that such a bionic 3 sensor eye will be subject to metamerism effects when compared to a human eye - Bionic Woman will be disadvantaged compared to Human Woman. Of course, when cameras and bionic eyes become multispectral, with more channels, humans will lose their advantage here
In practice, calibration will help as long as you don't expect perfection, have easy subject matter with low IR reflecttivity (!) and are male and cannot see color well. I have found that only the best portrait and fashion photographers usually have good color perception - most photographers are happy with whatever their system gives them. Clients, be it in fashion (women) or in art reproduction (professional painters) may see the results very differently from the photographer and tend to be very vocal about it.
Calibration ends to work best on digital back sensors because these are engineered for color accuracy at the expense of sensitivity -more orthogonal filters, lower ISO- while14 bit data has also helped, historically.
BTW Frank, I helped Xrite design their new calibration target for Raw - I helped them with the photo aspects, not the color technology, there. I hope you like it.
E
Problem with theoretical BS (sorry for the expression) is that it's theorie.
YES in theorie a well calibrated digital camera will give you similair results.
But in practice it simply is not.
I don't mean this to attack some posters, it's my personal experience and would like to also be read as that without flames.
-
Perfect is always impossible (except my wife and son they are )
We use for the calibrations the Progressive labs microspec XL spectrum radio meters comparable to the minolta C2000.
There is a huge difference between perfect and perfect for the eyes
I did not yet see the target, I'm more aimed at highend calibration not the monitors or profiles (still use the old target for that).
You can always send me one for review
-
Now you're just way off. Digital cameras by nature have no significant built in "out of the box" look, it's all dependent on in-camera processing and what software you are using. Open a RAW file in different converters and it will look different in each one. That's why you have to do a calibration for each camera and specific software. If you're judging a camera's colors by the default settings in your software you are either an amateur, lazy or ignorant. This is true for other parts of a color workflow as well, monitors, printers, etc.
Not to argue but I have always noticed that Leaf Files are totally different than Phase One files. Are you saying you can get the Leaf and Phase to look the same if you process them both in CS4 for example? I was under the impression that yes different Backs produce different colors.
Not sure but that is what I always thought.
I have always noticed that leaf has the Orangy skin tones that are so obviuos maybe maybe I am wrong here.
When ever anybody post Leaf files here I can tell right away they are leaf. They usually look a little plasticy and orangy warm compared to Phase.
Again might just be my view. I though it was more than likelly the Back along with the software converting it but I do not think you can shoot a portrait with Leaf and one with Phase with same camera and lens and get the same skin tones..
Correct me if I am wrong please..
Thanks
Snook
-
Are you saying you can get the Leaf and Phase to look the same if you process them both in CS4 for example?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A calibration for ACR should get them fairly close to each other, the rest you can easily tweak in the converter. Surely you must have noticed the abundance of tools in ACR that lets you change skintones to your heart's content? Of course, if you just pull the files into ACR and use the default profile they will have a certain look, just like my P25 had terrible red skintones pre-calibration. If people want to think they're stuck with some kind of look just because you bought X or Y camera that's fine by me, I'll just happily keep shooting my different cameras getting the exact skintones I want every time
-
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A calibration for ACR should get them fairly close to each other, the rest you can easily tweak in the converter. Surely you must have noticed the abundance of tools in ACR that lets you change skintones to your heart's content? Of course, if you just pull the files into ACR and use the default profile they will have a certain look, just like my P25 had terrible red skintones pre-calibration. If people want to think they're stuck with some kind of look just because you bought X or Y camera that's fine by me, I'll just happily keep shooting my different cameras getting the exact skintones I want every time
I would say that it's possible to tweak camera files from different cameras/sensors so they look very similar. But out of camera, they certainly can look very different. This week I shot a P30+ and P40+ on some furniture side by side. After color balancing on a MacBeth card the color response on the wood was quite different. No doubt I could make adjustments so they matched or so that one produced the color I needed. But it certainly would not be my wish to have to do so. Skin tones are a little different story as there is more subjectivity involved. I can't say that I've shot with a camera (in recent years) where I felt the skin tones were not acceptable. But they were not necessarily equal or equivalent either. I can see where to some, there may be preferences.
Steve Hendrix
-
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A calibration for ACR should get them fairly close to each other, the rest you can easily tweak in the converter. Surely you must have noticed the abundance of tools in ACR that lets you change skintones to your heart's content? Of course, if you just pull the files into ACR and use the default profile they will have a certain look, just like my P25 had terrible red skintones pre-calibration. If people want to think they're stuck with some kind of look just because you bought X or Y camera that's fine by me, I'll just happily keep shooting my different cameras getting the exact skintones I want every time
I never thought that was possible to tell you the truth. I honestly sometimes have wished I could get some of the warm tones I have seen from Leaf, for certain shoots, but never thought it was possible as I thought it was a leaf thing.
Maybe out of camera leaf tones are just warmer??
Let me try and get this clear.
If I shot a P30 with Mamiya adfII let's say 80mm lens and shot the same set up with leaf and opened both in photoshop and click on the light grey Macbaeth chart they would look pretty much similar?
I am pretty handy in photoshop and had no idea this was possible. I thought P30 had it's "color" and Leaf had it's "color" characteristic...
Snook
-
Let me try and get this clear.
If I shot a P30 with Mamiya adfII let's say 80mm lens and shot the same set up with leaf and opened both in photoshop and click on the light grey Macbaeth chart they would look pretty much similar?
Snook
Ok, I see where your problem is. Clicking on on the light gray patch of a color chart is NOT profiling your camera.
Read up on the subject and use a calibration software, I used AcrCalibrator in the past but you might want to try Adobe's own DNG profiler.
-
I agree with AMSP. When I would retouch my own editorial work, I would mix 1ds2, 5D, Aptus 22 files, and make them all look the same. I could get them all to agree, even when processing Canon in C1 and Leaf in ACR/LC10/11. In fact, I could get really, really good skin from a 1ds2 and Cs2/CS3. The defaults for Leaf produce better skin, and teh Dalsa backs have a different response, I think, at least out of the box. The Sinar 54M had the best default skin tones I've ever seen. Too bad it was a 4 seconds a frame tethered back.
-
I agree with AMSP. When I would retouch my own editorial work, I would mix 1ds2, 5D, Aptus 22 files, and make them all look the same. I could get them all to agree, even when processing Canon in C1 and Leaf in ACR/LC10/11. In fact, I could get really, really good skin from a 1ds2 and Cs2/CS3. The defaults for Leaf produce better skin, and teh Dalsa backs have a different response, I think, at least out of the box. The Sinar 54M had the best default skin tones I've ever seen. Too bad it was a 4 seconds a frame tethered back.
Hi,
With ACR calibrator or others there is a very good "compatibility" mode without a doubt.
Still in nuances especially in the extreme values you will always see some differences.
As mentioned with my calibration sample of displays, all cameras and devices have their own "look" and "feel" there is no way you can get all looking exactly the same.
But to deliver to a client, no problem at all, especially when you use different lightsetups with the different cameras there is no way telling which camera was used in print on tones only.
Problems will arrive when doing good printing and using a same setup with 2 different cameras let's say a 1DsIII and a Phase One or Leaf back.
There will be nuance differences that WILL show up.
Calibrations are often regarded as "if I calibrate everything will be 100% accurate" what people seem to forget however that the only thing a calibration does is getting everything as close as possible (and there lies the problem) to the original LAB values. This is done for printing, scaning, cameras and monitors. This way you can work on one system and print on another or display on another and have a similair look/feel. Also for working in different colorspaces and converting calibration is a must, simply put you're working in prophotoRGB on a 97% ARGB monitor and delivering to the customer as sRGB you want it to look the same (as much as possible) on all systems with as little tweaking as possible.
The reason a calibration is not 100% accurate is simple to explain.
There is always the case of what a sensor can capture.
Let's make it very simple.
We take one color in this case RED.
Sensor 1 can capture red on coordinate XYZ
Sensor 2 can capture red on coordinate XYZ
But the coordinate XYZ on sensor 1 can be different than on sensor 2.
to be honest it is 100% sure, it can even happen between two cameras of the same brand.
What the calibration does is getting both sensors as much as possible to the standard XYZ coordinates that are fixed.
Some cameras can capture a much wider colorspace in certain colors than other cameras, meaning that whatever you do the more intense colors of sensor 1 CAN and WILL differ from sensor 2.
The problem that rises from this is that we work in a 10/12/14/16 bits colorspace and that the colorspace of the camera (cameraRAW) has to be mapped to the colorspace you choose, for example prophotorgb.
This mapping is hugely different per raw convertor. The colors I get from Leaf capture for example are different from ACR, you could calibrate both with a profile and in a perfect world both would now be equal, except it is not.
Calibration is a can of worms when you look at it from a viewpoint that it all has to be perfect after the calibration.
In fact calibration however is very simple.
There is a standard tabel with coordinates, on those coordinates the colors should be for a given lightness, hue and saturation.
AFTER the calibration the source (being it printer, camera or monitor) will try to get the image you see/capture/print as close as possible to that standard.
For most people this means that you will see no or hardly no difference between two cameras (again in print form for magazines you won't see a difference in color when done correctly).
HOWEVER it's not true that a Leaf back will look exactly the same as a Phase One back or a Canon.
When working in a good workflow with good display and printers and calibration they come extremily close but there will be a difference.
And that difference is why some people prefer X or Y.
The canned profiles is why most people prefer X or Y.