Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Christopher Sanderson on June 02, 2015, 07:31:01 am
-
The waiting is over (https://luminous-landscape.com/the-new-phase-one-xf-camera-system/).
Let the Games begin!
-
The new P1 camera looks like a Hasselblad.
Can anyone point out the differences?
Goff
-
...about six years of fully developed R & D
Check the Home page
-
Hi,
Thanks for a very nice video. Kevin does a job presenting the camera.
The feature set is impressing. I wouldn't mind at all to have a camera like that, but I guess I don't feel I afford it.
Best regards
Erik
...about six years of fully developed R & D
Check the Home page
-
Hi,
Thanks for a very nice video. Kevin does a job presenting the camera.
The feature set is impressing. I wouldn't mind at all to have a camera like that, but I guess I don't feel I afford it.
Best regards
Erik
...about six years of fully developed R & D
Check the Home page
-
I guess I don't feel I afford it.
one kidney 'd suffice
-
Hi,
I would say that it is really up to the customer to decide what they want to afford. Personally I feel we go into diminishing returns past 20 MP, unless printing really large.
Regarding kidneys, I guess that it's nice to have a backup.
Best regards
Erik
one kidney 'd suffice
-
I would say that it is really up to the customer to decide what they want to afford. Personally I feel we go into diminishing returns past 20 MP, unless printing really large.
but is it only about MP ?
-
I'd be interested in hearing about some use cases for this sort of thing.
I can stitch and pixel-bin my way to these pictures pretty easily, with $1000 worth of gear. So the use cases must be where that is not a feasible solution. Moving subjects? Need for quick turnaround? I dunno.
I'd like to hear about it, though!
-
Hi,
Yes, I would say so. That is my experience. When I shoot the same subjects on both formats under similar conditions I need to check file names or EXIF to say which is which, but I seldom do that.
Best regards
Erik
but is it only about MP ?
-
...about six years of fully developed R & D
Was the design outsourced to LEGO? ;)
-
Was the design outsourced to LEGO? ;)
What did you expect? LEGO is the most famous Danish industrial design company!
-
What did you expect? LEGO is the most famous Danish industrial design company!
I was hoping Bang & Olufsen, another "most famous" Danish industrial design company ;)
Ah, the good old days when Contax asked Porsche to design its line of SLRs. Nowadays, companies seem to follow Sony's lead in designing the ugliest of the ugly cameras (the 7 line) that look like a botched middle-school design project and cardboard cutout.
-
It looks awesome.
Since i am Dane it makes me very proud they have created such great camera.
I always felt the old PhaseOne camera felt a like plastic. This one looks great.
Now I just need to rob a bank ;-)
P.S Next time you are in Denmark, Kevin then you are welcome to visit me and my family.
David
-
The design notes throughout are bland past, to my eye, the point of looking "clean", they look like they couldn't be bothered to hire a designer.
Which is not to say it's a bad camera, of course not.
But surely if you're asking me to drop $50K on a thing, you are aware that I want it to look completely awesome? Even distinctive?
-
The design notes throughout are bland past, to my eye, the point of looking "clean"
Clearly a matter of taste; some people feel the same about the modern Danish furniture that I love. (P. S. yes, I like the XF look too.)
On the subject of style, I am betting that this will a popular companion watch (there should be a remote shutter release app for it): https://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch/space-black-stainless-steel-case-space-black-link-bracelet/
-
The design notes throughout are bland past, to my eye, the point of looking "clean", they look like they couldn't be bothered to hire a designer.
I like it's looks. Each to their own.
Less keen on the price. But hey I have two kidneys, so one for each hand.
-
I'm currently in Europe and the exchange rate is $1.09/euro. Seems like I would want to buy it with Euros and save significantly over US prices ;)
-
I can stitch and pixel-bin my way to these pictures pretty easily, with $1000 worth of gear. So the use cases must be where that is not a feasible solution. Moving subjects? Need for quick turnaround? I dunno.
One obvious aspect is the usage of Leaf Shutter lenses that make it possible to shoot flexibly with strobes in the outdoors.
Another thing is the different look resulting from the larger physical sensor.
The camera's task here is to do the best possible job at enabling the working together of those Leaf shutter lenses and the back. I would think that the XF is best in class at doing that. Phaseone appears to have done a truly outstanding job here.
The resolution is in fact mostly of secondary importance. The value of the system would be 99% the same for a majority of its actual users even if the backs were only 20MP everything else being equal. But that would scare away some of the buyers who are looking for "the best" and "the best" must also be the highest resolution capturing device. Don't get me wrong, some users will benefit from the slightly higher resolution compared to the latest DSLRs but in the grand scheme of things, 80mp and 50mp is a tiny difference for most applications.
I do agree with you that for landscape, there are much cheaper ways to get to much higher levels of image quality through the usage of stitching when applicable. This is nothing new and the new camera/back doesn't change anything as far as this is concerned.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5322/17854533709_da300e1e9e_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The "different look" of medium format is, well, it's a bit of a chimera.
Leaf shutters are certainly nice, but we have high-speed sync lights these days.
Combinations of these features is perhaps the point? Shooting with HSS speedlites, and stitching, are probably incompatible. Is the use case shooting swimsuit models on beaches?
-
The "different look" of medium format is, well, it's a bit of a chimera.
In fact, I don't think it is.
There are 35mm lenses offering an outstanding look, I own my share of those, but there is something subtly different when you combine a larger sensor and longer lenses. This can be reproduced with stitching, but it doesn't apply well to most situations where MF cameras are used professionally, be it fashion, architecture,...
Try it out yourself if you have the chance. You don't need to spend a fortune on the latest phase one, a P25+ or dirt cheap ZD back will enable you to see that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, yes. Stitching and pixel binning will certainly get you there.
If you have a sufficiently nice full format sensor you can open up a couple stops from wherever you'd shoot with the Phase ONE, and crop it square or 6:7, and virtually nobody (and possibly absolutely nobody) is going to be able to tell in blind testing, unless you print big enough that the raw pixel count will tip your hand. But you can't always open up a couple of stops, etc.
I get that MF is a different thing. I know that. It just seems that for almost all the cases I can think up, I can replace a $48,000 camera with a $1000 camera and a very modest extra effort. What I'm curious about is specific use cases in which that won't work, or in which the extra effort isn't pretty modest.
-
Well, yes. Stitching and pixel binning will certainly get you there.
If you have a sufficiently nice full format sensor you can open up a couple stops from wherever you'd shoot with the Phase ONE, and crop it square or 6:7, and virtually nobody (and possibly absolutely nobody) is going to be able to tell in blind testing, unless you print big enough that the raw pixel count will tip your hand. But you can't always open up a couple of stops, etc.
I get that MF is a different thing. I know that. It just seems that for almost all the cases I can think up, I can replace a $48,000 camera with a $1000 camera and a very modest extra effort. What I'm curious about is specific use cases in which that won't work, or in which the extra effort isn't pretty modest.
I would think that would be when you want the best possible single-shot application: for example, shooting fashion models who are in motion, not necessarily for magazines, but for the actual clothing stores. Go look at the photos in a Victoria's Secret store sometime -- creamy complexions on photos that are 9-10 feet (three meters) tall. These are not rare shots, either; if you walk through Manhattan, you'll see something like them in most stores -- thousands and thousands of large individual fashion shots. There are also landscape applications for things like this -- not a static landscape, but perhaps one of those flower shots as in the Arup Biswas article (the cover shot for the article.) The problem there is if you are planning to print large to put the photo over somebody's couch, as a piece of art, you may have to go six feet (two meters) wide and the flowers, in even the lightest wind, won't hold still for stitching shots. And with a shot like that, with somebody maneuvering a light modifier just out of camera view, you could shoot a couple hundred shots to get a perfect one. There are some serious uses for single-shot, high-resolution cameras. That doesn't mean that everybody needs one. They're specialized instruments, and if you take one out to shoot street in the wrong neighborhood, you could find the camera stuck where the sun don't shine. Because of the shooting I do, I'll stay with a Panasonic GX7 and a nice discreet zoom; not many people are gonna want one of my shots over their couch, anyway, and I have no desire at all, or need, for one of these things. But some people need them.
As far as price goes, it's no more than a lot of cars, and if you use it to make a living, and can deduct the cost, the price doesn't look quite so formidable.
-
There are 35mm lenses offering an outstanding look, I own my share of those, but there is something subtly different when you combine a larger sensor and longer lenses. This can be reproduced with stitching, but it doesn't apply well to most situations where MF cameras are used professionally, be it fashion, architecture,...
A myth often repeated. There is no difference using a longer lens os stitching compared to shooting in a single frame with whatever camera as long as the FOV and distance from the subject is the same.
-
Thanks to to Luminous Landscape and Kevin for the coverage. It is appreciated.
The new offering looks to be worthy of consideration. I shoot both DLSR (Nikon D3x and D810 and best available lenses) and MF (IQ180 with Phase DF or Cambo WRS and best available lenses). I will be evaluating over the next short period of time.
-
A myth often repeated. There is no difference using a longer lens os stitching compared to shooting in a single frame with whatever camera as long as the FOV and distance from the subject is the same.
Hans,
Then you'll have to explain me why the DoF formulas take into account the Focal length of the lens. Or why most photographers know that they will have more DoF with a compact camera compared to a 4x5 one... ;)
Fortunately, the reason is the same, the DoF is basically proportional to the fomat size, but this simple rule which is further impacted by technological considerations resulting from the design of the lens (the differences in bokeh).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice!
The Hyperfocal Point Focusing feature allows a user to register a custom hyperfocal point for each lens and then autofocus to that point at any time when needed.
So, the IQ3 50MP is CMOS and IQ3 60 & 80 MP are CCD. The CMOS has 14 stops DR with a physical size of 44 x 33 and a lense factor of 1, and the CCD 13 stops with a 53.9 x 40.4 size and lense factor of 1.3.
-
Hans,
Then you'll have to explain me why the DoF formulas take into account the Focal length of the lens. Or why most photographers know that they will have more DoF with a compact camera compared to a 4x5 one... ;)
Fortunately, the reason is the same, the DoF is basically proportional to the fomat size, but this simple rule which is further impacted by technological considerations resulting from the design of the lens (the differences in bokeh).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Cheers,
Bernard
I didn't think your previous comment was about DOF which is clearly different. It is often mentioned that the MF gives a different look because of longer focal lengths and this is what is a myth and what I commented on. Do you agree?
Regarding DOF and bokeh there does not need to be much of a difference since there are lots of 35mm FF lenses that are much faster than MF lenses, so equivalent DOF can be achieved.
-
I didn't think your previous comment was about DOF which is clearly different. It is often mentioned that the MF gives a different look because of longer focal lengths and this is what is a myth and what I commented on. Do you agree?
Hans,
I agree that there is little to no difference of look when infinite DoF can be achieved, but I believe most people who speak about MF look speak about the transition from sharp to un-sharp areas. They are typically not speaking about inifinite DoF applications.
Regarding DOF and bokeh there does not need to be much of a difference since there are lots of 35mm FF lenses that are much faster than MF lenses, so equivalent DOF can be achieved.
I am well aware that 35mm has wider opening lenses that can generate a more limited DoF, but in my view this is not the only factor. The transition from sharp to un-sharp isn't exactly the same with a shorter focal length/wide aperture vs longer focal length/more narrow aperture and there are also technological considerations resulting from lenses design that generate some differences of look.
Technological aspects can include the shape of the glass elements, but also the manufacturing process. One interesting example of impact of manufacturing technology on look is the granular look of OoF circular highlights generated by my Otus 85mm f1.4 that seems to result from the grinding process used for the aspherical elements.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hans,
I agree that there is little to no difference of look when infinite DoF can be achieved, but I believe most people who speak about MF look speak about the transition from sharp to un-sharp areas. They are typically not speaking about inifinite DoF applications.
I am well aware that 35mm has wider opening lenses that can generate a more limited DoF, but in my view this is not the only factor. The transition from sharp to un-sharp isn't exactly the same with a shorter focal length/wide aperture vs longer focal length/more narrow aperture and there are also technological considerations resulting from lenses design that generate some differences of look.
One interesting example of impact on manufacturing technology on look is the granular look of OoF circular highlights generated by my Otus 85mm f1.4 that seems to result from the grinding process used for the aspherical elements.
Cheers,
Bernard
So what is it then that is subtly different with large sensors that can be replicated by stitching?
-
So what is it then that is subtly different with large sensors that can be replicated by stitching?
Exactly what I explained above. The usage of a longer focal length/more narrow aperture.
To me stitching is not limited to infinite DoF applications.
But this is out of topic, I'll stop here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Exactly what I explained above. The usage of a longer focal length/more narrow aperture.
To me stitching is not limited to infinite DoF applications.
But this is out of topic, I'll stop here.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree, it is a myth, really.
-
I agree, it is a myth, really.
I don't think it is a myth for the reasons explained above, so we don't agree on this... but we agree to stop discussing this here. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
i think the two of you; Hans and Bernard have a funny discussion here showing how difficult it is to communicate..:)
on topic:
I think Phase shows with the new body a development in MF that everybody may welcome.
It is good for all. Denmark is famous for industrial design and it shows.
-
can it use a film back ? if yes, I'll start raising money for one.
-
haplo602,
can it use a film back ?
No. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100849.msg826461#msg826461)
-
i think the two of you; Hans and Bernard have a funny discussion here showing how difficult it is to communicate..:)
It should not be so difficult, but some myths live long and hard.
-
I do agree with you that for landscape, there are much cheaper ways to get to much higher levels of image quality through the usage of stitching when applicable. This is nothing new and the new camera/back doesn't change anything as far as this is concerned.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5322/17854533709_da300e1e9e_o.jpg)
Ironic you then post an 800px image to demo the quality of massive number of megapixels.
-
If you have a sufficiently nice full format sensor you can open up a couple stops from wherever you'd shoot with the Phase ONE, and crop it square or 6:7, and virtually nobody (and possibly absolutely nobody) is going to be able to tell in blind testing, unless you print big enough that the raw pixel count will tip your hand. But you can't always open up a couple of stops, etc.
Well actually as most MF lenses have much faster equivalent field of view 35mm lenses, that is in fact easily doable. Aperture wise.
But as already said above, big fashions shots you see several metres high in stores are pretty obviously not done on 35mm.
-
i think the two of you; Hans and Bernard have a funny discussion here showing how difficult it is to communicate..:)
And this is a funny comment. ;D
-
I agree that there is little to no difference of look when infinite DoF can be achieved, but I believe most people who speak about MF look speak about the transition from sharp to un-sharp areas. They are typically not speaking about inifinite DoF applications.
I am well aware that 35mm has wider opening lenses that can generate a more limited DoF, but in my view this is not the only factor. The transition from sharp to un-sharp isn't exactly the same with a shorter focal length/wide aperture vs longer focal length/more narrow aperture and there are also technological considerations resulting from lenses design that generate some differences of look.
Technological aspects can include the shape of the glass elements, but also the manufacturing process. One interesting example of impact of manufacturing technology on look is the granular look of OoF circular highlights generated by my Otus 85mm f1.4 that seems to result from the grinding process used for the aspherical elements.
Different 35mm lenses of the same focal length can render such things differently [and same goes for any format].
I recall discussions about long lenses being used for sports photography and how one particular lens gave 'greater DoF'. It didn't, it simply wasn't as sharp therefore there wasn't the same amount of contrast between sharp and not sharp which made it's DoF look greater. I reckon it is that sort of lens variation that has a bigger effect on look of image than most people give credit for. Bokeh rendering would be another variable.
One interesting test would be to use various MF lenses on MF cameras and then the same lens also on 35mm cameras, so at least the lens variable would be ruled out.
Or maybe use a T/S lens on a MF camera.
-
There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun ;)
-
Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun ;)
No ;-)
-
Thanks guys, I see that. Fashion/models seems like a perfect use case.
Sync at any speed using whatever strobes you already own, no fuss, resolution and sensor size for the look you want, with a moving/dynamic subject.
-
Stitching is more taxidermy than hunting. :-(
Still you get your trophy! :-)
Eduardo
There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun ;)
-
Here's one for Bernard.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5642959506/world-s-highest-resolution-panoramic-image-is-stitched-from-70-000-images (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5642959506/world-s-highest-resolution-panoramic-image-is-stitched-from-70-000-images)
Guys, note that I am not the one who brought up stitching in this thread and that my point was clearly that stitching isn't a perfect substitue for MF both in terms of adressable applications and - to a certain extend - look.
As far as look goes, although stitching does simulate well one key difference resulting from the use of longer focal lengths on MF, it doesn't compensate for the differences in lens construction, unless you use a MF lens on a 35mm body. ;)
But I guess that what you write isn't as important as what people think you write. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Regarding the MF feeling in shallow DOF imagery, I have zero experience. However I could think that even when DOF is matched between two cameras differently sensor-sized, the blur profile could be different (more abrupt) in some of them as a function of the distance to the subject and this could be what observers call the MF "3D look".
I have used the clever Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm) by Max Lyons based on the Rayleigh equations to compare two cameras focusing a subject at 10m:
- FF camera (acceptable CoC=0,03mm), 50mm f/1,8
- Larger camera (twice as large, 4x surface) (acceptable CoC=0,06mm), 100mm f/3,6182
Both provide the same FOV and DOF=4m 50.66cm. What about the blurriness progression that defines this DOF? (blue line):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rayleigh.gif)
Looking at the figure, all parameters are perfectly scaled to the new sensor size (CoC): DOF, near focus distance, far focus distance, blurriness progression and diffraction (lower green line) all remain identical in the final image, so I find no reason to think a larger format should provide any difference in DOF look. The mythical MF look, if it exists, should come from the particular available lenses bokeh, having no explanation in the sensor size itself.
Regards
-
Very interesting Guillermo, thanks.
I guess that one unknown is how well this theoretical DoF simulation model matches actual lenses behavior.
Do we have experimental data to back up the model?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I haven't look for it yet and I cannot do them by myself. Perhaps someone has already done real world tests.
Regards!
-
At a guess, at equivalent aperture on the open end, the MF lens will be better corrected, as a general rule, dollar for dollar. At the closed end diffraction limits come in to play later with larger formats.
If you're stitching, though, none of this applies. You are using a large sensor in a very literal sense when you stitch.
-
Hi,
I wouldn't agree on those issues.
Let's assume that I am shooting with a Distagon 50/4 on my Hasselblad using my P45+ back. That will give me a 49x37 mm image with 39 MP.
Now, I can put the same lens on my Sony Alpha 99, mount the camera vertically and take three shots 23% overlap, this would give me a 49x36 image with 49 MP. Same perspective, same bokeh, but with less aliasing.
Now, I could replace that Distagon with an Otus, Sigma Art or some of the first class lenses and perhaps use with a 36 MP body.
In my shooting, I have not seen those magic differences. But could be I am less sensitive to those differences that may exist than others. In a case, I was showing two A2 size prints to three persons at our camera club and all tree picked the P45+ image. One felt that it was better composed another that it had more contrast. Another friend could not see a difference, nor could I. Making identical prints under uncontrolled conditions can be hard. In the case I mentioned the camera position was shifted slightly when switching between the systems. Weather was heavy overcast and I needed to apply significant local highlight compression in raw processing.
In general, I can see the resolution difference between my 39 MP P45+ and my 24 MP Sony when pixel peeping, but it pretty much disappears in A2-size prints. A1 size and up it is visible.
Sony lenses have round apertures and less green/magenta fringing in out of focus areas than the old (Zeiss) Hasselblad lenses I have. The new H-series lenses by Fujinon are better corrected. There are some "superachromats" from Zeiss for the Hasselblad, but I don't have any of those.
To say short. I would say that MF has an advantage resolutionswise on a single shot. But you could reproduce that image by stitching, using the same focal length or even the same lens. Obviusly, it is very possible to stitch MF images, too. I do it often, as I often stitch two three MF images instead of switching to a wider lens and crop.
Best regards
Erik
At a guess, at equivalent aperture on the open end, the MF lens will be better corrected, as a general rule, dollar for dollar. At the closed end diffraction limits come in to play later with larger formats.
If you're stitching, though, none of this applies. You are using a large sensor in a very literal sense when you stitch.
-
Just finished up our LA event. Very strong feedback from all the attendees.
We still have Phase One XF Events (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training/new-product-events-2015) in NYC, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Philly, Chicago, D.C., San Fran, Miami, Denver, and Birmingham this month. Come look through the viewfinder and play with the AF and new features
-
There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun ;)
Nah, the single shot MF is like hunting with a .50cal Barrett, while stitching is like hunting with a longbow.
;)
-
Very interesting Guillermo, thanks.
I guess that one unknown is how well this theoretical DoF simulation model matches actual lenses behavior.
Do we have experimental data to back up the model?
Cheers,
Bernard
You seemed very sure about your observations in the previous posts. Do you have examples to show the differences in look you referred to?
-
Just finished up our LA event. Very strong feedback from all the attendees.
We still have Phase One XF Events (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training/new-product-events-2015) in NYC, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Philly, Chicago, D.C., San Fran, Miami, Denver, and Birmingham this month. Come look through the viewfinder and play with the AF and new features
But is the Phase XF camera going to be any better than the Hasselblad HD4-50, which gets such amazing reviews on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Hasselblad-H4D-50-Medium-Format-Camera/product-reviews/B004FGZS0W/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm/184-9525462-7546550?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending), go and check it out if you don't believe me ;)
Dave
-
Is the body made by Mamiya, by Phase in Denmark or someone else?
Curious as well about the mirror design, for example, Rollei 6000 models had a trapezoidal mirror. No pix of the front without a lens on it.
Cheers from Alaska!
Tom
-
There is a certain thrill in capturing a great photo with a single shot. Like hunting. Stitching is like hunting with a machine gun ;)
Interesting viewpoint. I'm not sure where you arrive at this conclusion- maybe you don't stitch much. When I stitch the process is no different than when I use a single frame. The composition and content have been determined, and the choice of a lens as well as the decision to stitch instead of a single shot is either to achieve higher resolution so large prints hold together, or because I do not have a focal length that will capture what I have chosen.
machine gun shooting certainly does seem the vogue with many in photography (not saying it's good or bad), such as wedding shooters, but I don't really associate stitching as such. It's not like I shoot every thing I see and look for a composition later.
-
Interesting viewpoint. I'm not sure where you arrive at this conclusion- maybe you don't stitch much. When I stitch the process is no different than when I use a single lens. The composition and content have been determined, and the choice of a lens as well as the decision to stitch instead of a single shot is either to achieve higher resolution so large prints hold together, or because I do not have a focal length that will capture what I have chosen.
machine gun shooting certainly does seem the vogue with many in photography (not saying it's good or bad), such as wedding shooters, but I don't really associate stitching as such. It's not like I shoot every thing I see and look for a composition later.
Exactly, stitching is a slow way of shooting that is more akin to 4x5 than any other way of using a 35mm camera I know of.
It takes planning and thinking while a single shot can be a lot more spontaneous.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looking at the figure, all parameters are perfectly scaled to the new sensor size (CoC): DOF, near focus distance, far focus distance, blurriness progression and diffraction (lower green line) all remain identical in the final image, so I find no reason to think a larger format should provide any difference in DOF look. The mythical MF look, if it exists, should come from the particular available lenses bokeh, having no explanation in the sensor size itself.
Hi Guillermo,
There is another, often overlooked, factor in play. The larger format requires a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. The longer focal length (often easier to design with less aberrations) results in more on sensor magnification of the same scene features. This will result in those features having a lower cycles/mm spatial frequency on sensor, which will result in a higher MTF response, and in addition it can detect smaller features near the limiting resolution near the Nyquist spatial frequencies. The higher MTF response translates in more accurate/vivid contrast rendering, AKA the 3D-look, even if we match DOF by adjusting aperture and COC.
There are tools to help with achieving a similar effect, or (selectively) suppressing it. Topaz Labs Detail (http://www.topazlabs.com/detail) is a very effective one, with several additional image enhancement options. With their promised free updates for life, it's a much better deal than splashing out more money for hardware, although 'Detail' can also be used on images generated with better hardware ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Stitching allows you first and foremost to acquire the exact image you want to capture without using a wide lens that will push the scene away from you and most likely distort what you are shooting. You need to think of it differently. If you walk up to a scene and want to shoot it the way your pan thru the image. This is what you are looking for. Rarely do you ever see a panorama and pull out the lens it it sees what your eye sees in perspective and composition.
I use the IQ280 and still stitch, I stitch a lot. I find that I get to move forward and backward and get to place the foreground exactly where I want to be in relationship to the background. It makes for a perfect panorama. I found that the stitching equipment out there is not really accurate enough and lacks perfect movements, so I after looking at the old Banquet cameras designed my own. If you look at the old Banquet cameras and imagine using this camera with unlimited lenses and not change the angle of view you want to capture. This is how to control the scene, so I designed it off that principal. I get exactly what I want without distortion but I also gained more information in the image with better detail and precision. We did this with film in the old days by using a scanner (Scitex).
Imagine it, this way the ability to shoot any composition with any lens without compromising the true you image you want to capture. This is why I carry 11 lenses. Of course its always nice to create your vision in one shot but thats not usually the case. Stitching allows you to have very little limitations when creating your photography. This is why I use the Phase system also. The less technology can rule your vision and productivity the better and more production you can achieve.
If you need proof and your coming to California you can see it at my gallery in Big Bear Lake, I think you will be amazed what you can get. Or soon at Caesars Palace gallery when that opens. Tim
-
Go look at the photos in a Victoria's Secret store sometime -- creamy complexions on photos that are 9-10 feet (three meters) tall. These are not rare shots, either; if you walk through Manhattan, you'll see something like them in most stores -- thousands and thousands of large individual fashion shots.
I actually spent a little time in the local mall here, and made a point of looking at these large pictures in several stores. The vast majority of them were half tone printed at surprisingly low resolution, at some resolution quite a bit lower than (say) magazine. I'd guess it around 72dpi. The one substantially better print I found (Nike) was smaller, 20x24 or perhaps a little bigger.
I didn't see anything that couldn't have been shot with a D800.
They look *great* but the intended viewing distance is quite large and we unconsciously obey that, since you literally can't see the picture if you get up close enough to inspect the printing.
-
BROKEN hearted! XF is not compatible with older phase backs..
Was about to pre-order.. whoops! not compatible with my beloved P65+ back.
Any chance of future compatibility upgrade?
Eric Korenman
www.korenman.com
-
+1
And one report states that the DF+ body will be discontinued. When my ten year old AFD wears out where will my P45+ go? I could go to the DF+ now but the AFD serves me better for my landscape work (straight forward mirror up and exposure bracketing, eg.). At 76 years of age and on a retirement income a back upgrade is not likely.
I waited several years for this XF body. Very disappointing that the P+ series is omitted. I may wind up with a $36,000 relic.
-
I actually spent a little time in the local mall here, and made a point of looking at these large pictures in several stores. The vast majority of them were half tone printed at surprisingly low resolution, at some resolution quite a bit lower than (say) magazine. I'd guess it around 72dpi. The one substantially better print I found (Nike) was smaller, 20x24 or perhaps a little bigger.
I didn't see anything that couldn't have been shot with a D800.
They look *great* but the intended viewing distance is quite large and we unconsciously obey that, since you literally can't see the picture if you get up close enough to inspect the printing.
I often look at those sorts of shots in stores as the quality is so very impressive and very definitely not shot on FF sensor sizes. Occasionally you'll see one shot on FF and it's pretty obvious it's not MFDSLR. BTW I deliberately stand closer than the intended viewing distance to admire the image because the quality is usually so good. But I'm still far enough away I'm not looking at the printing quality. Being 150 or 72dpi is rarely an issue for prints that are viewed beyond hand holding distances.
Another thing I've noticed that when girlfriend is watching America's next Top Model, I can always guess if they shot the end pics on FF or MFDSLR [I rewind to check]. I was surprised at how obvious it was even on an SD CRTV.
-
I often look at those sorts of shots in stores as the quality is so very impressive and very definitely not shot on FF sensor sizes. Occasionally you'll see one shot on FF and it's pretty obvious it's not MFDSLR. BTW I deliberately stand closer than the intended viewing distance to admire the image because the quality is usually so good. But I'm still far enough away I'm not looking at the printing quality. Being 150 or 72dpi is rarely an issue for prints that are viewed beyond hand holding distances.
Another thing I've noticed that when girlfriend is watching America's next Top Model, I can always guess if they shot the end pics on FF or MFDSLR [I rewind to check]. I was surprised at how obvious it was even on an SD CRTV.
Frankly, I am surprised. I have seen 2 meters high prints made from a 16mp AA filter less Olympus OM-D, and even 50cm away they were extremely impressive. Not to say incredibly good.
I have in front of me as I type this a 1m high print from a D3x (24mp with AA filter), and it is very rich in details with my nose on the picture.
I continue to think that there may be some difference of look with MF, but a 36mp AA filter less sensor with a top lens is very clearly more than good enough for any commercial application. Per my experience, the presence of the AA filter has an important effect when upsizing in standard ways. You retain a much more crispy look without one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The headline on the more recent piece ought to have been: Phase One Leaps Into 2012: Screws Existing Customers"
The camera is fine. Whatever. Deliberately blocking backward compatibility to the "P" backs is a callous, greed-driven move, that violates the trust of their existing customers, who have waited patiently for a decade for a decent body.
So...if you want to use your 7 years old P65+....you'll have to buy a new IQ360...with a 7 year old chip in it. Classy.
Kind of missed that important bit in the press release article.
- N.
-
So...if you want to use your 7 years old P65+....you'll have to buy a new IQ360...with a 7 year old chip in it. Classy.
No, it'll work just fine with a DF+.
It's called product differentiation.
Think Armani v Emporio Armani, " .. and never the twain shall meet".
-
No, it's called man I'm glad I didn't 'invest' in a P65.
-
No, it'll work just fine with a DF+.
How much longer do you expect Phase One to keep the DF+ around?
-
How much longer do you expect Phase One to keep the DF+ around?
Just as long as they can keep on buying them in at $2,000 and reselling them, refurbished, together with old stock ( read: P+ backs) to any remaining suckers who haven't yet been caught in the spiders web. Great way to unload old stock. Give the punter a bargain straight up and hit him with the sting on the rebound. When they've finished unloading the old stock, that'll be the time they'll give you and 'end-of-life' notice on the whole shebang.
If you want to know what the sting is , kindly refer to the recent posts of bcooter esq., who has elucidated it better than I ever could.
BTW, my original comment was tinged with a soupçon of ironic British humour.
Should have added one of those 'rolling-eye' yellow faces ...
-
BTW, my original comment was tinged with a soupçon of ironic British humour.
Should have added one of those 'rolling-eye' yellow faces ...
Didn't catch that, sorry... One has to admit, it would be an interesting situation if Hasselblad were to support the P+ backs longer than Phase One...