Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: simplify on October 07, 2011, 03:31:40 pm
-
Hello,
I have been the proud owner of a P45+ for 4 years.
I am wondering if PhaseOne will ever release a new firmware update for this back.
My requested feature is for the power button to be disabled when the back is doing a dark frame subtraction. I do a lot of night photography and have lost more than a few 20+ minute exposures due to accidentally turning the camera off during a dark frame subtraction. I did it last night after a 13 minute exposure and wondered why they would allow the camera to turn off during the subtraction.
Do you guys have any firmware update suggestions?
JP
-
I don't even own one, but would consider buying one IF the firmware made dark subtraction an OPTION. Let us pick our own dark frames in software afterwards, from personal dark frame libraries built during less time-critical periods! That's the way we do it in Canon and Kodak land.
Ray
-
The best dark frame subtraction is made under the same conditions the shot is taken, however I guess the option wouldn't hurt.
-
I would like to be able to name the custom white balances.
-
Hello,
I have been the proud owner of a P45+ for 4 years.
I am wondering if PhaseOne will ever release a new firmware update for this back.
My requested feature is for the power button to be disabled when the back is doing a dark frame subtraction. I do a lot of night photography and have lost more than a few 20+ minute exposures due to accidentally turning the camera off during a dark frame subtraction. I did it last night after a 13 minute exposure and wondered why they would allow the camera to turn off during the subtraction.
Do you guys have any firmware update suggestions?
JP
Hi JP -
Excuse me for asking, but can you explain what you mean by turning it off while dark frame subtraction is occurring? Do you mean that during this period you accidentally turn the digital back off while it is counting down the black frame subtraction? I don't understand exactly what you mean.
Thank you,
Steve Hendrix
-
Hi Steve,
What I am saying is that I can accidentally turn the back off during a dark frame subtraction and it cancels the subtraction and I either end up with a noisy image or the the image is lost. 2 nights ago I took a 13 minute exposure which could not be recreated and after a minute of dark frame subtraction I accidentally hit the powere button, losing the image. My nikon didn't let me turn the camera off during dark frame subtraction.
I love the p45+ but I think that my investment of 30,000+ dollars should include constant firmware updates. Phase is innovating on their new backs and I think they should continue to upgrade the p45+ which i think is the best highest resolution long exposure digital back on the market.
-
The best dark frame subtraction is made under the same conditions the shot is taken, however I guess the option wouldn't hurt.
You can exactly replicate those conditions (temperature) at another time.
Far from "not hurting", the option would be a major boon. Double the shooting time, double the variety of shots, or double the signal when stacking low S/N frames - take your pick.
Ray
-
Hi Steve,
What I am saying is that I can accidentally turn the back off during a dark frame subtraction and it cancels the subtraction and I either end up with a noisy image or the the image is lost. 2 nights ago I took a 13 minute exposure which could not be recreated and after a minute of dark frame subtraction I accidentally hit the powere button, losing the image. My nikon didn't let me turn the camera off during dark frame subtraction.
I love the p45+ but I think that my investment of 30,000+ dollars should include constant firmware updates. Phase is innovating on their new backs and I think they should continue to upgrade the p45+ which i think is the best highest resolution long exposure digital back on the market.
I understand what you were saying. What I was asking is how did you turn the digital back off?
In regard to firmware upgrades, there are always limitations to what can actually be accomplished, and as technology and capability improve, more is possible, but this means with new hardware. The IQ series is much more capable of specific firmware enhancements than the P Plus series due to the dramatically increased processing capability (and other improved hardware components). Speaking generally - not specifically about your request.
Steve Hendrix
-
I was surprised by this also, you can easily hit the power button while moving the camera. I lost a few
frames last year by hitting the power button while putting the camera back in my pack. I agree that Canon and
Nikon's solution is better, i.e. the camera will not allow you to turn it off while in the middle of a dark frame, even
if you hit the switch. The switch on Canon and Nikon is a bit harder to move by accident being of a slider type instead
of a push button style by Phase One.
Paul Caldwell
-
There is only one wish for a new firmware:
I want long exposures without an immediate darkframe ! It must be possible to store or simulate default darkframes of different sensitivities and lenghts in Capture One and have this deducted at home when it does not hurt.
The method exists described as : "Denoising photographs using dark frames optimized by quadratic programming" see here (english pdf download)
and is develloped by people from Stanford and Max Planck Institute so I guess they know what they are writing about :
http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/ICCP09-GomezRodriguez_5491%5B0%5D.pdf
here is the Abstract from that document:
"Abstract
Photographs taken with long exposure or high ISO set- ting may contain substantial amounts of noise, drasti- cally reducing the Signal-To-Noise Ratio (SNR). This pa- per presents a novel optimization approach for denoising. It is based on a library of dark frames previously taken un- der varying conditions of temperature, ISO setting and ex- posure time, and a quality measure or prior for the class of images to denoise. The method automatically computes a synthetic dark frame that, when subtracted from an im-age, optimizes the quality measure. For specific choices of the quality measure, the denoising problem reduces to a quadratic programming (QP) problem that can be solved efficiently. We show experimentally that it is sufficient to consider a limited subsample of pixels when evaluating the quality measure in the optimization, in which case the com- plexity of the procedure does not depend on the size of the images but only on the number of dark frames.
We provide quantitative experimental results showing that our method automatically computes dark frames that are competitive with those taken under idealized conditions (controlled temperature, ISO setting, exposure time, and av- eraging of multiple exposures). We provide application examples in astronomical image denoising. The method is validated on two CMOS SLRs."
I don´t know if there is a substantial difference to the used P45+ Kodak CCD but I think this should work the same way.
So Please Phase - do it !
Greetings from Munich
Stefan Steib HCam.de
-
I was surprised by this also, you can easily hit the power button while moving the camera. I lost a few
frames last year by hitting the power button while putting the camera back in my pack. I agree that Canon and
Nikon's solution is better, i.e. the camera will not allow you to turn it off while in the middle of a dark frame, even
if you hit the switch. The switch on Canon and Nikon is a bit harder to move by accident being of a slider type instead
of a push button style by Phase One.
Paul Caldwell
I see - so you're saying that during the dark frame subtraction you might be moving to your next position, and so taking the DB and putting it into a bag while it does it's dark subtraction and the button inadvertently gets pressed. Ok, that makes sense now.
I can definitely see that as something that would be overlooked by developers. Even today at our NE Workshop, I asked several instructors and users how they would happen to accidentally turn off the power button while dark frame exposing and no one could imagine a scenario that they would do that. But it makes perfect sense.
Now that I've unraveled that for myself, I have to say I have no news of whether that would/could be remedied. I'm glad you mentioned it though JP and Paul, and we'll certainly bring it up to Phase One.
Steve Hendrix
-
I'm glad you mentioned it though JP and Paul, and we'll certainly bring it up to Phase One.
Steve,
Please can you promise us that you will be just as adamant in bringing up the other "wishes" to Phase One?
So far,
2 people want accidental turn-off protection [this may involve a hardware switch change?]
2 people want dark frame subtraction to be optional [this is pure firmware: it's a toggle to not do something; it's not adding a new feature]
1 person wants the ability to name custom white balances [also pure firmware]
I expect that all of these wishes are equally applicable to users of the other P+ backs, too.
Ray
-
Steve,
Please can you promise us that you will be just as adamant in bringing up the other "wishes" to Phase One?
So far,
2 people want accidental turn-off protection [this may involve a hardware switch change?]
2 people want dark frame subtraction to be optional [this is pure firmware: it's a toggle to not do something; it's not adding a new feature]
1 person wants the ability to name custom white balances [also pure firmware]
I expect that all of these wishes are equally applicable to users of the other P+ backs, too.
Ray
Certainly. A significant portion of enhancements - be it Capture One or digital back functionality - have been adopted from our client's input by Phase One. Input is always valued and often implemented.
Steve Hendrix
-
Steve,
Exactly, I realized after a few dark nights, I was hitting the power button when putting the camera back into the bag. Basically
since I was only carrying one tripod, and knew that for the next 45 min, the P45+ would be tied up taking the dark frame, I moved
it back to the bag, just didn't feel the power switch as somehow I hit it and turned the camera off.
I have since made up a small piece of foam that keeps the camera up off the switch.
On one of Ray's other points, No dark frame subtraction or at least a option to turn it off, I agree that would be nice. But I have assumed that as long as the Chips are CCD no CMOS, that noise will continue to be a issue and need the Dark Frame. IMO Phase has come much closer with the P65+ and IQ backs with the sensor plus and high ISO noise. But going long seems to still be a problem.
I have also felt for a while that Phase had to make a decision, Very long exposures and no noise, or high ISO and low to no noise, and took the latter option as there was more need in the market for it.
I still strongly feel that for a back that is now over 4 years the P45+ is a good solution and it's ability to take a single exposure up to
one hour is also a powerful statement. Very clean images many times cleaner than a 5DmKII or 1DMKiv over the same time frame.
This may all be over soon, as I keep hearing of 36mp in a D7000 class camera or 54mp in Canon. Still can't see how they will get there with the density of the pixels, but I do welcome the price points!
Also why I don't think Phase is doing any new firmware development on the P45+.
Paul Caldwell
www.photosofarkansas.com (http://www.photosofarkansas.com)
Paul Caldwell
-
Steve,
Exactly, I realized after a few dark nights, I was hitting the power button when putting the camera back into the bag. Basically
since I was only carrying one tripod, and knew that for the next 45 min, the P45+ would be tied up taking the dark frame, I moved
it back to the bag, just didn't feel the power switch as somehow I hit it and turned the camera off.
I have since made up a small piece of foam that keeps the camera up off the switch.
On one of Ray's other points, No dark frame subtraction or at least a option to turn it off, I agree that would be nice. But I have assumed that as long as the Chips are CCD no CMOS, that noise will continue to be a issue and need the Dark Frame. IMO Phase has come much closer with the P65+ and IQ backs with the sensor plus and high ISO noise. But going long seems to still be a problem.
I have also felt for a while that Phase had to make a decision, Very long exposures and no noise, or high ISO and low to no noise, and took the latter option as there was more need in the market for it.
I still strongly feel that for a back that is now over 4 years the P45+ is a good solution and it's ability to take a single exposure up to
one hour is also a powerful statement. Very clean images many times cleaner than a 5DmKII or 1DMKiv over the same time frame.
This may all be over soon, as I keep hearing of 36mp in a D7000 class camera or 54mp in Canon. Still can't see how they will get there with the density of the pixels, but I do welcome the price points!
Also why I don't think Phase is doing any new firmware development on the P45+.
Paul Caldwell
www.photosofarkansas.com (http://www.photosofarkansas.com)
Paul Caldwell
My sense is the decision to use Dalsa sensors rather than Kodak was made for a wide array of reasons. Since I wasn't in the room I'll speculate that they potentially could have included some or all of these elements -
*Faster native sensor readout
*Faster sustained capture rates
*Perhaps more cooperative partner
*More long term commitment from sensor manufacturer
*Image characteristics
*Better fit for Sensor Plus (just as Kodak-based is better fit for long exposure, as you noted, Paul)
*Time to market considerations
*Pricing
I'm sure there are even more things than listed above on the table when partnering with a chip fabricator.
There have been numerous firmware updates to the P45+ since it was launched, but at some point a practical limit emerges for numerous reasons. But since the long exposure is Unique Feature #1 for the P45+, I agree, having the no power off option seems like a very valid request.
Steve Hendrix
-
I thought I would refresh this topic a little.
I was thinking if I was Phase One I would offer a firmware update to the P+ series just for the sake to make the customers feel assured that 4 years after they spend $32,000 on a digital back Phase One has not forgotten about them.
Yes there are new backs with "retina" displays and whatnot, but the P45+ is still the best long exposure back.
Even if the firmware upgrade is minimal, it would be nice to know that Phase One still cares about us.
It may give me more confidence when I decide to upgrade to a new back. I am not going to upgrade if Phase One doesn't do everything they can do make me feel that my digital back's firmware will be updated and worked on to make the best camera possible.
My main firmware upgrade would be that the back can not be turned off during a dark frame subtraction. It is already designed not to turn off while storing an image - can't they extend this feature to dark frame subtraction. If you push the power button once during the dark frame it will bring up a warning that dark fram subtraction is happening - then if you push the power button a second time it will actually turn off the back, incase you are meaning to cancel the dark frame.
Please Phase One. Make me feel important. I gave you $32,000!!!
-
Even if the firmware upgrade is minimal, it would be nice to know that Phase One still cares about us.
.....
Please Phase One. Make me feel important. I gave you $32,000!!!
+1!
-
I'd like a slower frame readout clocking, with better quality, even if I get a much slower back.
Edmund
-
Another +1 on OPTIONAL dark frame subtraction. I'd like that on my P25+ for the exact same reason as the other posts here. One dark frame in a shoot is sufficient vs doubling the time for EVERY long exposure shot. It would be a great functional addition.
I haven't suffered the power-off but I can see how it would be easy to do when moving the camera etc or by accident.
-
Another +1 on OPTIONAL dark frame subtraction. I'd like that on my P25+ for the exact same reason as the other posts here. One dark frame in a shoot is sufficient vs doubling the time for EVERY long exposure shot. It would be a great functional addition.
Ditto for many of us P30+ owners.
I haven't suffered the power-off but I can see how it would be easy to do when moving the camera etc or by accident.
I have accidentally powered-off the back during the dark-frame subtraction process two or three times over the past 18 months or so ... not often enough for it to constitute a "problem," but definitely often enough for it to be an annoyance. The ability to make it optional at times or to shoot only one dark frame during a session and subsequently apply it to several captures would be welcomed, even if both of these approaches result in a slight reduction in IQ versus the present mandatory approach.
-
There are many good points being made here. I would "+1" Edmund's suggestion of a slower-readout mode for lower readnoise with the P+ backs (another option that can be enabled if the situation calls for it). Apparently Leica are doing/planning this with their S2 (http://www.reddotforum.com/showthread.php/73-Suggestions-for-feature-additions-in-future-S2-firmware-updates).
Yes there are new backs with "retina" displays and whatnot, but the P45+ is still the best long exposure back.
This prompts a question that's been at the back of my mind for some time. Why doesn't the P30+ have exactly the same reputation as the P45+ for long exposure quality? They are the same generation of CCD design (Kodak 6.8 micron process), and the datasheets give the exact same dark current characteristics in mV/pix/sec (which is only a whisker different when converted to electrons/pix/sec), and the exact same temperature dependence. So the sensors bring the same long exposure capabilities to the table.
What then does PhaseOne do differently with the sensor in the P45+ that it doesn't do with sensor in the P30+?
Or is it the case that the P45+ got its "best long exposure back" reputation only because the P30+ was never tested in quite the same way as the P45+?
Ray
-
Or is it the case that the P45+ got its "best long exposure back" reputation only because the P30+ was never tested in quite the same way as the P45+?
Based upon my limited, personal experience -- I've owned a P30+ and used it primarily for long-exposure nighttime photography since September 2010, and earlier this year, I bought a P45+ with the intention of replacing the P30+, but ultimately decided to sell it after I determined it wasn't the upgrade I had hoped it would be -- I don't believe the two backs are all that different in terms of their long-exposure performance.
That said, I did find it difficult to perform an apples-to-apples comparison between them, as the P45+ has an ISO 50 setting the P30+ lacks, the P45+ is a 1.1X back whereas the P30+ is a 1.3X back, the P45+ doesn't have micro-lenses and the P30+ does, and the P45+ captures files that are approx. 25% larger than the P30+ files. While I didn't perform any rigorous, scientifically valid testing, I did conclude after approx. six weeks of using the two backs side-by-side that the IQ of the P45+ files was only slightly (and I mean very slightly!) better than the IQ of the P30+ files, and only when it was used at ISO 50 (which was problematic for me, as it doubled the length of my exposures). Otherwise, to my eyes, their performance was essentially indistinguishable when viewing 15x20 prints, which is the usual size of my prints.
As I said, though, I didn't perform any scientifically valid tests, so my results could also mean that my particular set of Contax 645 lenses don't perform well enough to highlight the P45+'s superior IQ, that the P30+ was a better match (or the P45+ a poorer match) for my particular pair of bodies in terms of sensor placement/focus accuracy, or possibly even that I'm just not very picky about these things, but in the end, having also decided for financial reasons I wouldn't be "upgrading" to a tech camera any time soon (which was the primary reason I bought the P45+), I decided that for my purposes, the P45+ wasn't worth 2.5 times what I had paid for my P30+ and when the opportunity to make a $700 profit on it arose, I sold it without any reservations or regrets.
So, based upon all of that, I suspect your latter premise is fundamentally correct: The P45+'s reputation as the "best" back for long exposures has to do with other factors (ISO 50 mode, larger sensor, lack of micro-lenses, larger files) rather than its actual performance and when the two backs are compared apples-to-apples, the P30+'s performance is almost indistinguishable from the P45+'s performance. That said, ymmv, of course...
-
I also was bitten by the night photography bug about 2 years ago and it has become a real focus for me.
I owned a P45+ at the time and felt I had the best back for the job, boy was I surprised when I first used my P45 in 2009 and looked at the image. Horrible. This began a long quest for me after about 6 months of back and forth with my dealer and others, I learned to ugly truth.
Early P45+'s (which mine was) were by no means able to get anywhere close to longer exposures approaching 1 hour unless you could install the latest firmware ( I believe it was 2.3.3) may still be the latest. As it turns out, Phase shipped two versions of the P45+ and depending on serial you could have a older style controller card that would not accept the firmware to allow 1 hour exposures. Long story short, Phase fixed the problem ( I was still under value add warranty) and the new back really was a vast improvement.
With the fix I now had Long exposures approaching 1 hour and very clean ISO 400.
Plus totally acceptable ISO 800 in daylight. Before the fix most time past ISO 200 and files were pretty much worthless due to noise.
Why mention this, just to point out that if you are looking at a used P45+ make very sure that it runs the latest firmware or you will be very disappointed in the longer exposures and high ISO results.
And to mention that Phase One, had a plan for the P45+ it took them about 1 full year after full ship to get all the promised features (longer exposures to 1 hour was not available when the backs 1st shipped). To get there, Phase had to change out the controller cards in the back (I know this because I owned one and if you upgraded the 1st gen card you could kill the back as I did) Net, they determined that the controller card had to be changed or tweaked to get the longer exposures, they made the changes and delivered the results. I don't think you will be getting any more changes to the P45+. Many people forget, Phase first shipped the P45 (not +) and the P45+ was not a upgrade (firmware etc.) to the owners of the P45. You were offered a trade in, but you were not given a P45+. It was with the (+) backs where you got the 1 hour exposures but when these first shipped you were limited to 30 min max for at least 1 year till Phase One released 2.3.3. I really don't think Phase is going to pursue development on firmware for the P45+ as they have already reached the chipset limits.
They still sell them new and list them on the website, however with the number of used P45+ backs out there, I really doubt anyone will purchase a new back. Phase met their commitments on features for the P45+ and (I hate to sound harsh) I really don't think they are going to work on anything more. You quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.
Paul Caldwell
-
Very interesting info, Paul.
So it begs the follow-up question: are there the same differences between "early" and "late" versions of the other long-exposure capable P+ backs (P20+, P21+, P25+, P30+) ?
Ray
-
Why mention this, just to point out that if you are looking at a used P45+ make very sure that it runs the latest firmware or you will be very disappointed in the longer exposures and high ISO results.
Hmm. My P45+ was bought used and in view of the results I discussed above, I'm now curious as to whether it was the early or late version, so I'll dig through my files tonight to try to identify the serial number and/or firmware version that was installed.
In my case, though, this is now a purely academic exercise as having decided that a tech camera isn't in my near-term future, I am no longer interested in replacing my P30+ with one. Contrary to popular wisdom, it is possible to use the P30+ with some shift lenses despite its use of micro-lenses (at least for my B&W photography, anyway) and given my present budget limitations, this means my need to upgrade to a tech camera as a way to gain access to the movements I use with my view cameras has been mostly satisfied.
For now. ;D
-
Paul, I am surprised regarding your post-
"Early P45+'s (which mine was) were by no means able to get anywhere close to longer exposures approaching 1 hour unless you could install the latest firmware ( I believe it was 2.3.3) may still be the latest. As it turns out, Phase shipped two versions of the P45+ and depending on serial you could have a older style controller card that would not accept the firmware to allow 1 hour exposures. Long story short, Phase fixed the problem ( I was still under value add warranty) and the new back really was a vast improvement. "
I have never heard of two versions and have no idea what an early version P45+ might be, but thought mine would be in that category, SN DT000129. I have had no problem updating the firmware several times over the years.
Note that the current firmware for the P45+ is 5.1.2.
-
Jack, point well taken as the entire issue was never discussed openly. I only realized it by a tip of the hat by Capture Integration/Atlanta.
I am not sure what the root cause was, however I am assuming it was due to a dual parts source for some of the components. Mainly the System board/controller board. Net, certain boards when upgraded to the firmware lever (2.3.3) seems to stick in my head could "possibly" cause the entire board to become corrupted and the back would no longer fail. Also the entire firmware upgrade process for the P45+ IMO was a joke. ( My experiences here are way too much for this post). Net was I finally got 2.3.3 on and on reboot the screen went black, DOA. On return to Denmark, Phase replaced the "main board" and processed the upgrade to the firmware and the resulting back really was a totally different camera as I mentioned earlier. My serial was higher than yours but not higher than 450. The improvements with the repair really crossed every facet of the back's performance, not just long exposures. Faster, Cleaner and much more usable ISO 800, faster writes, less write fails, just a much more steady performer.
Net the P45+ with the ability to run the latest firmware is a truly amazing camera and my decision to part with it was a tough one that ran months.
Paul
-
" Plus totally acceptable ISO 800 in daylight and useable ISO 1600. Before past ISO 400 and files were pretty much worthless due to noise. "
Paul the P45+ has an ISO range of 50-800. How have you achieved getting ISO1600 off if it?
Lance
-
Lance,
My error, 800 tops. I have had my Canon's out too much lately.
What I should have stated was before the firmware update/controller card change, My back was 50 to 100 very good and good, 200 usable and 400 pretty much worthless. AFter the fix, I found even 50 and 100 better, 400 very usable and 800 OK very dependent on the image shooting conditions.
Facts that I had firmware/controller card issues definitely keeping me from getting to anything past 15 minutes exposures, that were fixed by Phase One are stated correctly.
Thanks for the catch.
Paul
-
Jack, point well taken as the entire issue was never discussed openly. I only realized it by a tip of the hat by Capture Integration/Atlanta, after a long drawn out mess with my dealer. (My dealer did work with me and make it right, but I didn't feel that they led the charge and for sure didn't leave with a good feeling that things would be fixed until I pushed back)
Would you mind clarifying that we (Capture Integration) were the good guys in this story? The sentence structure is not especially clear here and it can be misread that the opposite was true.
The story can be hard to read but basically: improvements were made in firmware, some early units had trouble accepting the new firmware, and Paul was able to get his back serviced to accept the new firmware.
------
Separately:
Probably, I shouldn't comment on this thread because it would be more PR-wise to just ignore it. But I value honesty above PR.
There is essentially no chance Phase One will do any feature-additions via firmware on the P45+ at this point. They released several firmware updates over the years since the back was released, some to get up to pre-release promises (e.g. 1 hour exposure), some adding overall better quality, speed, and some adding support for new CF cards.
They still support the back in their current software (as they support all single shot Phase One backs ever made), which is more than can be said for most camera companies (see also: Canon 5D mark 1 and 1Ds Mark 2 support in EOS Utility) and will provide support/service/warranty/repairs for it for many years to come.
If for some reason a firmware update needs to happen to fix a new issue (e.g. a major change to the firewire spec, or an entirely new CF card) that may well happen.
But development of new features on any product ends at some point, usually when a new generation is released (e.g. the P65+) and certainly by the time two new generations have shipped (e.g. the IQ series). For better or worse, it's just not going to happen. I'd wager you'd be hard pressed to cite any camera company that has added significant features to a product 4.5 years after starting to ship it.
Specifically with *firmware* the process to do a feature addition - in a way that you're extremely confident the feature you've added is bug free, works with all backs made, works with all accessories (e.g. cf cards), and doesn't screw up any related functionality, in all situations - is not trivial no matter how small the feature you're trying to add. Now imagine you're an engineer and the last time you looked at the firmware for a P45+ was over a year ago, and you've been focused on firmware for the 40/65+ and then the IQ - and it becomes even more challenging.
Steve has already jumped in on this thread because we view ourselves as advocates for our customers - intermediaries trying to help a manufacturer understand users in the real world and trying to help customers understand the abilities and limitations of the manufacturer. Anytime we see a chance for Phase to do something reasonable that would help it's customers we advocate for it hard. And trust me, I do understand some of the frustration in that the 45+ is still a currently-sold product, specifically because of it's long exposure and some of these features are seemingly easy to add. I also think it's enormously constructive to have a conversation about "what features would I liked to have had on the P45+ I purchased". Specifically, I've always (meaning after it was brought up and discussed intelligently here on LL) been in favor of allowing (optionally - a la a custom function) the user greater control/transparency into the dark-frame process. Perhaps an onscreen indicator of sensor temperature, the ability to disable a dark frame, capture it later (not ideal but perhaps needed for some applications), control whether or not the previously captured dark frame will be used or a new one captured etc. Wrapping features like that into firmware for the current line or into future products would be a great idea. It's this sort of feedback about the P+ that resulted in the IQ.
It's just not going to be added to the 45+.
Don't shoot the messenger here - I just hate to see this thread go on with only voice indicating the reality of the situation.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
I thought I would refresh this topic a little.
I was thinking if I was Phase One I would offer a firmware update to the P+ series just for the sake to make the customers feel assured that 4 years after they spend $32,000 on a digital back Phase One has not forgotten about them.
Yes there are new backs with "retina" displays and whatnot, but the P45+ is still the best long exposure back.
Even if the firmware upgrade is minimal, it would be nice to know that Phase One still cares about us.
It may give me more confidence when I decide to upgrade to a new back. I am not going to upgrade if Phase One doesn't do everything they can do make me feel that my digital back's firmware will be updated and worked on to make the best camera possible.
My main firmware upgrade would be that the back can not be turned off during a dark frame subtraction. It is already designed not to turn off while storing an image - can't they extend this feature to dark frame subtraction. If you push the power button once during the dark frame it will bring up a warning that dark fram subtraction is happening - then if you push the power button a second time it will actually turn off the back, incase you are meaning to cancel the dark frame.
Please Phase One. Make me feel important. I gave you $32,000!!!
As we've said, not optimistic about P45+ new firmware. This was a product that was released almost 7 years ago. However, I would say that amongst digital back manufacturers, Phase One does an excellent job of "not forgetting you", comparatively. Even if you bought a digital back from Phase One 13 years ago (original 6MP LightPhase), the latest version of Capture One has still been made to be compatible with that product and indeed, it improves images taken with that product at no expense to you 13 years later. It still supports tethered capture with a LightPhase. And by compatible, that means the software and hardware combination are "officially supported", meaning that if you have an issue, there will be effort spent on the technical team to sort it out and resolve it. Software and firmware are two very different things and I don't see firmware updates happening to the P45+ that wouldn't have already happened.
Steve Hendrix
-
I must agree with Doug and Paul. After a career with a large IT manufacturer, I understand that products cannot be enhanced forever. Many firms discontinue all support after just a few years.
Certainly no complaints about the P45+ and, in particular, none with Capture Integration!
-
I have no dillusions about future product updates for the P45+ (or other similar generation P+ backs) but it would be nice to see Phase One have a road map for other backs that can handle longer exposures than the current P60/40+ & IQ series. It's a niche that for those who use the feature is pretty vital. It would be rather ironic to be driven back to film at a time when even the current camera bodies no longer support film backs too.
-
I have no dillusions about future product updates for the P45+ (or other similar generation P+ backs) but it would be nice to see Phase One have a road map for other backs that can handle longer exposures than the current P60/40+ & IQ series. It's a niche that for those who use the feature is pretty vital. It would be rather ironic to be driven back to film at a time when even the current camera bodies no longer support film backs too.
+1
This is something I've consistently been asking for as well.
It is REALLY important.
It's not like the world is still waiting around for a successor to the sensors used in the P45+ and P30+ - they are already out there (KAF-40000, KAF-50100) and being used by Hasselblad and Pentax - and generating massive sales in medium format terms, it would appear.
Furthermore, the KAF-50100 datasheet says "The sensor shares a common pin-out and electrical configuration with the KODAK KAF-40000 Image Sensor, allowing a single camera design to support both members of this sensor family."
In the hands of PhaseOne engineers, these two sensors would totally kick ass for long exposures.
They have even better dark current specs than the older KAF-31600 and KAF-39000 in the P30+ and P45+; around 5 times better at 20 degrees C and 7 times better at 0 degrees C.
You could probably expose all night! (and wait as you sleep through the next day for the dark frame to finish ;D )
There's also a monochrome version of the KAF-50100 - perfect for updating the P45+ Achromatic/IR.
PhaseOne could make a lot of money from adopting these new sensors...if I put it in those terms, maybe they'll listen?
Ray